David's post here could almost have been written by me (except that I
only started using Finale at version 3.5). I bought version 1 of
Dorico, and I immediately purchased version 2.
What I find interesting is that there are parallels in the development
of Dorico and the development of Sibelius, most notably the playback of
repeat structures. Version 2 can now handle 1st/2nd ending repeats, but
still can't handle D.S. or D.C. That was true of Sibelius version 2 for
Windows (and presumably for Mac since both versions seem always to have
been in lock-step with each other). I believe D.S., D.C. playback in
Sibelius came with version 3 if I remember correctly. Either that or
version 4. I didn't become a serious Sibelius user until version 5.
I have done very little with Dorico so far since it's new workflow seems
very alien to my way of thinking and I haven't had the time to sit down
and do more than a couple of small projects with it. That parallels my
experience with Sibelius, which I first purchased with version 2 for
Windows on a cross-grade special, same as I did for Dorico version 1.
It wasn't until Sibelius version 5 that I sat down and learned the
program as a brand new program instead of trying to use "finale-think"
and getting frustrated because that wasn't how Sibelius worked. Now I
find I'm using a combination of "finale-think" and "sibelius-think"
whenever I start up Dorico so I know I'm going to have to sit down and
start from scratch with Dorico. The manual is still only at version 1,
so I hope they bring out version 2 of the manual quickly.
Like David Froom, I am supporting Dorico because I have confidence in
Daniel Spreadbury and the development team, many of whom were with
Danieal at Sibelius. And the updates they released for version 1 each
brought major new capabilities and bug-fixes with them. I am confident
this pattern will continue through each new version. And since
Steinberg already owns Dorico we don't have to worry about it being sold
off to a major DAW producer such as Avid, which might not care as much
about the development, or sold to some totally unrelated sports training
company as happened with Finale. I am confident that Dorico is here to
stay.
While I'm disappointed that the major thrust of Dorico version 2 seems
to be scoring to video, I realize that's a very large and growing
segment of the notation/composition software market so it should be a
means to even better cementing Dorico's future.
One major thing which Dorico did when it released version 2 for Dorico
is that they now have a lighter version called Dorico Elements at a more
entry level price point. At only $99 for the full version it's a great
tool for people who only work on small projects (up to 12 staves) but
also a great way for people not to spend too much and find out if the
Dorico workflow is good for them.
They have also implemented really refined midi control, large time
signatures, rhythm slashes and repeat bars (don't play back yet but
that's promised for soon), measure repeats (single, double, quadruple),
a new handwritten font (Petaluma), plus countless "under the hood"
tweaks, bug-fixes, etc.
They have provided an extensive library of video tutorials also.
So I'll wait and see how things develop. But for now, I have confidence
it will continue to grow and develop into the truly full-fledged
notation program that will give Sibelius and Finale a run for their money!
David H. Bailey
On 5/31/2018 2:18 PM, [email protected] wrote:
I bought Dorico when it came out, and have been learning it, on and off.
Generally, I’ve stopped when I encounter a problem, confirm with John Barron or
Daniel Spreadbury that my problem is something not yet addressed. Then, when an
update comes out (there have been 3 or 4 free updates — this one was paid), I
take it up again. Rinse and repeat.
There is nothing Dorico does that Finale can’t do. I began with Finale at 1.0,
so I know its DNA, and can usually guess what to do to solve whatever needs
solving. That said, there are some remarkable things about Dorico, and it may
indeed by my go-to program. But not yet.
The font is beautiful. The default notation and layout choices — all of which
can be overridden — are almost all really smart ones. So, generally speaking,
out of the box, things look great. The program is stable and launches quickly.
You get only one computer-based license, and if you want to move from computer
to computer regularly, you need to put the license on a dongle. You don’t need
a dongle if you can use it on only one computer.
Things that are faster in Dorico:
The new divisi, which is quite good. The same method can handle ossias. Also
pianos adding and dropping staves. Quick to implement, easy to use, easy to
edit.
Pedalling (piano and vibes) of any style is amazingly easy to use.
Note spacing algorithms are quite good. I find only a very few things I need to
fix.
General layout control — what goes where on what page — is a bit hard to learn,
but once you have it, the control you have is astonishing.
Cross-measure beaming is a snap. This (and other things) arise from Dorico not
thinking in terms of measures, but flows of notes. It knows the rules — but you
can change or insert meter changes at any time — or work without meter — and
Dorico rebeams properly. And, of course, things can be overridden.
Keyboard shortcuts are customizable — all of them. So I changed them to match
my Finale habits, and had to learn very few (to match the Dorico conception for
things like tuplets, dynamics, and a few other things). I find I was able,
after doing a short piece or two, to get my speed up to my Finale speed.
Every user wants different things. For me, the last two deal-breakers are:
You can’t have two (or more) instruments on a single staff and then break them
out into separate parts in the parts layout. I’m shocked that this is still so,
given that they clearly want to sell to people doing large ensemble
composing/arranging. I HAVE to assume this will be fixed soon, but it seriously
isn’t there — and there is no easy workaround (other than separate files).
Playback doesn’t read trills nor string harmonics (tremolos are fine). I am led
to believe that NotePerformer is as good as Garritan? I don’t know this first
hand, but that’s what people say (actually, they say it is better). That’s now
being integrated (though a separate purchase), so, generally speaking, playback
should be good. They provide a way to use Garritan, but it is not simple to do,
and I’ve not figured out how to get Garritan to work as well as is does with
Finale. Dorico people acknowledge that the problems with all of this are on
their end.
I paid for the first version because I want to support their efforts and
continuing development. I believe Steinberg was forcing them to release this to
prove they were going to start to recoup their investment. I bought the upgrade
because I want to continue supporting them, and every release so far has been a
big step forward. They are getting close.
The other reason I paid up is that I got a great deal — academic cross-grade —
on the initial purchase. On the upgrade, they had shown that they have
committed themselves to fix things continuously, acknowledge the shortcomings,
and release multiple, substantial improvements for free for a good long time
(about a year?). They also have fabulous communication — especially Daniel
Spreadbury and John Barron, both of whom are looped completely into the
development of the program, both of whom are completely honest (and humble),
and both of whom seem to respond within minutes to queries that come in 24/7.
My two cents,
David Froom
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
[email protected]
--
*****
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]
