Don’t know about the others, but the major shortcomings in Finale’s voiced linked parts are -Not access to special tools -No enharmonic flips
Another limitation for linked part: Plug-ins/Script not accessible. (Scripts are accessible with a workaround, but...) Skjalg - for anledningen på nett med iPhone. > 21. apr. 2018 kl. 16:15 skrev Robert Patterson <[email protected]>: > > Could you elaborate on what you find lacking in Finale's linked parts vs. > Sib. (or even Dorico)? Some of that lack might be addressable with a plugin. > > On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 9:02 AM, David H. Bailey < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> There are professional engraving projects being done with Dorico. If you >> want to see what it is capable of there are many youtube videos addressing >> various aspects of Dorico, and I would say that it is indeed capable of >> very elegant professional, publishable output. >> >> Yes, you read that one of the Dorico users exports to Finale for the >> finished product -- I haven't read on the Dorico forum that there are >> others who do that. I do know there are lots like me who are continuing to >> work in our notation software of choice while learning the intricacies of >> Dorico. I wonder if exporting to Finale simply makes things easier for >> that person because of a workflow developed over many years of using >> Finale, while he is learning the more intricate details of the workflow in >> Dorico to get the same output. >> >> I would say that Dorico is as much a truly professional music engraving >> tool as Sibelius was when it entered the Windows/Mac marketplace. Several >> publishers, if I remember correctly, began using it at that time instead of >> Finale, while some other publishers added Sibelius to their toolbox and >> used both. >> >> A lot depends on how one defines "truly professional" -- it's certainly >> much more professional than either Notion or Forte, two other recent >> entries into the notation software marketplace, and despite major advances >> with MuseScore, Dorico is capable of producing much more elegant printed >> output. And it's capable of producing output as elegant as Finale's >> output. I don't work in avant-garde notation so I can't speak to either >> Dorico or Sibelius or Finale regarding the ability to accomplish such >> projects. >> >> I hope I'm wrong about Finale and that your thoughts are more accurate, >> but to be honest I don't see much advancement in Finale from Finale2014.5 >> to Finale25. Linked score/parts didn't suddenly become superb and very >> efficient. I still find Sibelius's linked score/parts to be much more >> efficient and easier to use. >> >> But I know that you and Chuck Israel and many others are producing great >> output with Finale, and I hope development continues, with some major >> improvements coming soon. Not only do Finale users need and deserve this >> sort of thing, but the marketplace does also. Finale used to lead, then >> Sibelius hit the marketplace and suddenly Finale was playing catch-up with >> Sibelius. Will it need to play catch-up with Dorico as well as Sibelius >> now? Or will Finale leap ahead with the next version and force Sibelius >> and Dorico to catch up to it? >> >> Of course what I'm saying about Finale is also true about Sibelius -- I >> have heard nothing about Sibelius 8 or 8.5 to make me want to upgrade from >> 7.1.3, and ever since the takeover by Avid I have been worried about future >> development of Sibelius. >> >> And ultimately it all boils down to each of us finding and using the tools >> which allow us to get the desired result with the minimum of effort for us >> so that most of our effort can be put into the creative side of things. >> >> >> >> On 4/21/2018 8:33 AM, Robert Patterson wrote: >> >>>> And with the entry of Dorico at the truly professional music engraving >>> level >>> >>> Wait. Is Dorico at the truly professional level? All I've heard is that >>> it has the potential to be but isn't there yet. I mean, one of the Dorico >>> users in this thread even said they export to Finale for the finished >>> product. (Which surprised me.) >>> >>> Everything I've heard about the most recent owners of Finale is that they >>> are quite interested in it. But I haven't heard much about it in recent >>> months. I hope Michael Johnson's departure was for personal reasons rather >>> than due to a direction the owners are taking. Meanwhile the rest of the >>> team (as far as I can tell) seems really engaged and forward looking. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:12 AM, David H. Bailey <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> On 4/20/2018 7:13 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: >>> >>> I take your point that they "could" do some of the abstraction >>> that is >>> inherent in the newer programs. I am not seeing anything that >>> suggests >>> to me they are at all interested in matching up to Dorico. >>> Indeed, the >>> only recent statements I could find were very much oriented to >>> SmartMusic and not Finale. If they actually are making a >>> significant >>> investment in the program (which I question), I suggest it would >>> be wise >>> for them to take note of the major advances in the past 2 years >>> in both >>> Dorico and Sibelius, and communicate much more openly with the >>> Finale >>> user base. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> Back when Coda was the owner and Finale was the major product, they >>> knew they had to keep communicating with users and work hard to keep >>> the program growing in order to satisfy their user base and attract >>> new users. But with virtually no competition in the Windows area at >>> that time they were the program that any newcomer had to beat. >>> >>> With the various owners the product has had along the way, coupled >>> with the development of a new cash-cow (smartmusic) Finale has been >>> pushed aside somewhat, seemingly more with each new owner, and >>> improved mainly so that it could create more and better smartmusic >>> accompaniments in addition to producing publication-ready engraved >>> music. To that end, whoever owned the program worked to improve the >>> program in obvious ways again to keep the user base somewhat >>> satisfied and also in an attempt to attract new users but mainly to >>> benefit the SmartMusic marketplace. >>> >>> But the current owners are not musicians, they were not involved in >>> the music field at all before the acquisition of Finale and >>> SmartMusic. Their athletic-training background sees a good fit for >>> SmartMusic since it's a training software, just for musicians >>> instead of athletes. And so Finale tags along because without it >>> there can't be any new SmartMusic accompaniments created. But >>> Finale upgrades generate an unpredictable amount of income and then >>> only when the new version comes out -- once it's out and those who >>> will upgrade have done so, there's very little cash-flow in the >>> product. Especially with the less-expensive (free) but very capable >>> MuseScore attracting ever larger numbers of people who formerly >>> would have had to purchase either Finale or Sibelius (i.e. music >>> students and recent graduates of music schools/colleges), Finale's >>> market share among notation software users is constantly shrinking. >>> And with the entry of Dorico at the truly professional music >>> engraving level the potential user base is diluted even further and >>> the recent entry of Forte and Notion is attracting those potential >>> users who don't want to spend a lot of money and who formerly would >>> have purchased the cheaper versions of Finale. >>> >>> But SmartMusic remains the only product of its kind and it has major >>> educational market music publishers sewn up. With the annual >>> subscription the only business model and schools willing to budget >>> for it so that teachers have clearly objective ways of measuring >>> student ability (there's no disputing when SmartMusic records a >>> student's performance and gives a concrete number of mistakes), it >>> is a golden cash-cow. >>> >>> We have to remember that in the early days of Finale when Coda was >>> run by musicians who cared about making a product that could serve >>> them as well as the user base the thrust of the company was to make >>> a product that filled a need. >>> >>> These days when the company is no longer run by musicians but >>> instead by accountants and entrepreneurs for whom the bottom line is >>> the most important attribute of a product, the product isn't being >>> made to fulfill their dream of usefulness, only to fulfill their >>> dream of larger profits. So as long as SmartMusic remains >>> profitable and as long as Finale is the only way to create >>> SmartMusic accompaniments, Finale will remain viable to the company >>> but not a great income generator in and of itself. If it were a >>> larger income generator it wouldn't be getting sold every few years. >>> >>> >>> -- ***** >>> >>> David H. Bailey >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com >>> <http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> David H. Bailey >> [email protected] >> http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com >> > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: > [email protected] _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: [email protected]
