Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
I wanted to reply to a couple of the comments raised regarding file conversion back and forth between Finale and Sibelius: I won't switch until either MakeMusic goes under or until Sibelius can open, natively, Finale files. The latter will not happen. Sibelius 6 has removed the importers for Finale, SCORE, Acorn Sibelius, and ASCII tab files. Daniel Spreadbury stated on the Yahoo list that we elected to remove them, and there's no going back from that decision. We are committed to continuing to improve the MusicXML importer, which is now the notation interchange format of choice for most applications. One of our goals when starting the MusicXML project was to reduce the number of file converters that music software developers had to write. Sibelius 6's streamlining of its file importers is an example of what we had in mind. The problem at the moment seems to be in the other direction, importing Sibelius files into Finale, but that problem goes back to Coda's refusal to support a universal protocol some years ago... Well, the translation in both directions is pretty good these days, making it an enormous time saver. Of course there is room for improvement in both directions, and those gaps are more critical for some scenarios than for others. When going from Sibelius to Finale, the problems are largely due to gaps in Sibelius's plug-in development support. However, Sibelius's plug-in support has been getting better with each release. The new ManuScript features added in Sibelius 6 should allow for higher quality MusicXML export from Sibelius in the future. Coda indeed did not support the NIFF effort, but the NIFF format was very graphical, making it a poor match for the way that programs like Finale and Sibelius work. This is one reason why NIFF never came close to being a universal protocol. Coda was the first major notation company to support the MusicXML format starting with Finale 2003. MakeMusic still leads in notation interchange across applications, given the level of MusicXML support in everything from Finale 2009 to NotePad 2009. Best regards, Michael Good Recordare LLC www.recordare.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
- sibelius' user base is (still) mainly based on the people who use it lightly or for industrial purposes, and not for serious engraving. these persons are usually happy with the program/standard output as is, and many times don't go down enough to get into some of the small bugs/incongruences. I do think you'd get some argument on that statement, although it really depends on what you specifically mean by industrial purposes and by serious engraving. In my own work, I'm not preparing copy for big publishers and probably never will be, but I will always need good, clean, readable copy that looks professional, with the least possible hassle, and almost all of my work is in common practice notation. Composer's Mosaic, which seems archaic today, gave me good copy right out of the box because the programmers chose good defaults. So does Sibelius, and I've never found any reason to use anything but the default House Style. Finale, in contrast--AT THE TIME OUR DEPARTMENT WAS USING IT--looked just plain ugly out of the box, because the choices of defaults simply sucked! Mosaic had linked score and parts 15 years before either Finale or Sibelius. It not only allowed page layout in parts but required it. Sibelius still doesn't do automatic layout well enough for me (although it will be interesting to see what Sib6 does), but it comes very close, and I'm used to finishing up with hand work on layout. In contrast, the Finale parts I've played that come from Nashville arrangers who DO use Finale right out of the box are just awful! Perhaps you'd judge my standards as low. Perhaps you'd be right. But I came to computer engraving from decades of hand copying, and from decades of reading published music that sometimes did not reflect very high standards of engraving in the first place (and don't even talk to me about French publishers!!!), and once Mark of the Unicorn moved from their really amateurish Professional Composer to Composer's Mosaic I haven't looked back or regretted not having to hand copy one bit. Today I arrange and compose directly to computer, and have stacks of old score paper that will probably never be used. It really comes down to intelligent choice of defaults. Mark of the Unicorn and Sibelius both had those. Coda never did, and ugly slurs across staff breaks were a dead giveaway. Finale may allow anything you want to do (although the discussions on this very list suggest otherwise), but it also REQUIRES defeating the defaults and making your own, for no very good reason. 90% of our students hated it, but they are actually using Sibelius. That's important to me. that was my point exactly. for most people, sibelius out of the box is good enough, because they were clever to make their product attractive already from day 1. I don't judge any standards besides if they're appropriate or not - and for most of the users, they are really appropriate, so there's no need to go even deeper with the program, if the program already offers what you want without even opening up the manual or start editing parameters in your house style. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
At first, I just let that roll off. Over the years, I have come to expect that kind of condescending attitude from some Finale users. Indeed, that was my frist response to Sibelius (v.1) 10 years ago after years of Finale use (beginning with Fin 2.2). probably that sounds condescending, but that's not what I meant. I said mainly, I never said that sibelius can't be used for serious engraving etc. - I would never say that, as I am myself involved in that area, and those were always my main critiques on the sibelius list: that industry-related features get implemented faster than fine-tuning of engraving details - but it's their policy, and they're sucessful with it. And I say what I said, because when I want to see tips about experienced engraving (not only software, but everything to do with the process), I go to the finale list. If I go to the sibelius list, I'll see for the 1xxxth time questions like how to switch lyric verses or why string players complain when I use the same slurs as I did for the winds. - sibelius' user base is (still) mainly based on the people who use it lightly or for industrial purposes, and not for serious engraving. these persons are usually happy with the program/standard output as is, and many times don't go down enough to get into some of the small bugs/incongruences. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
- sibelius' user base is (still) mainly based on the people who use it lightly or for industrial purposes, and not for serious engraving. these persons are usually happy with the program/standard output as is, and many times don't go down enough to get into some of the small bugs/incongruences. That statement is quite wrong for so many reasons. care to say at least some of them, if not all? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: If you approach Sibelius as if it were Finale, you'll be frustrated. If you're willing to let Sibelius be itself and change your working method to fit Sibelius, you'll probably be very happy. Finale and Sibelius think differently. If you think like Sibelius you'll love it. But if you think like Finale, you'll probably find Sibelius clumsy and not to you liking. I will add that it was Richard's peaceful and concise statements such as that which made me give Sibelius a second, better look after facing great frustration when I purchased the cross-grade offer back at Sibelius 2.11. There are those of us who can realize that both programs have their two different methods of data entry and can switch fluently between them: Finale - pitch first and then duration (speedy entry using computer keyboard) Sibelius - duration first and then pitch It's like being able to speak/think in two different verbal languages. Once one learns the idiocyncracies of any language, one can use it fluently, no matter whether it's the first, second, third language, and with practice at however many languages one learns, one can remain fluent in them all simultaneously. The same is true of Finale and Sibelius -- I can fire up Sibelius and get right to work now because I approached it as a brand new program, working through the tutorials and reading the manual (what a concept!) and I stopped trying to think of it as Finale-East or some such nonsense. And I can just as easily fire up Finale and get right to work with that, and I can even have the two programs working at the same time and switch between them and not have a problem. It all depends greatly on how you approach learning Sibelius, if you're coming from Finale. Don't think of the Finale procedure and try to figure out how to do it in Sibelius because the process may be quite different. Rather, think of it as I need to get this notational result, how do I do it in Sibelius. You will run into lots of gee, that's easier in Finale and you'll run into just as many Oh my God, that is so easy situations. But be patient and remember how long it took you to learn Finale well enough to get the elegant results you want, and realize that it'll take time to get to the same point with Sibelius. Don't buy it and tell a client you'll have his project completed by Monday. :-) -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Yeah ... it's kind of like finding a church you like. Sort of -- usually with finding a church you like, that's where you stay, rather than finding two different churches you like and alternating worship services between the two. But with notation software, there's nothing preventing people from being fluent in both Finale and Sibelius and enjoying working with them both, using whichever one seems to be easier for whatever project is on the table. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Christopher Smith wrote: That sounds fair enough. The only trouble is my entire computer notation life was built ground up with Finale, so I find Sibelius hard to get around. Mine had been as well, moving from MusicPrinterPlus to Finale way back around 1991 or so, and then making the first investigative steps toward Sibelius back around 6 years ago. I find both programs easy to get around now. I realize there are some Finale users who won't become comfortable with Sibelius, and that's fine. But I don't want anybody to be scared away from Sibelius just because others have found it hard to get comfortable with it. By the way, whenever someone on the Sibelius list makes outrageous complaints about how obtuse Finale is, I make the same sort of reply as I'm making about Sibelius on this group, that one program isn't any more obtuse than the other, and neither is easier to learn (fully) than the other. A user who wants to gain the best understanding about either program (or any major computer program regardless of the type) needs to work through tutorials and to read the manual and to begin to practice with the new program by taking baby steps and gradually increasing in complexity. Neither program is the sort that anybody should buy it, install it, and tell someone they'll have a project completed in a few days. Unless it's a melody-only lead-sheet without words for Mary Had A Little Lamb. ;-) -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
João Pais wrote: - sibelius' user base is (still) mainly based on the people who use it lightly or for industrial purposes, and not for serious engraving. these persons are usually happy with the program/standard output as is, and many times don't go down enough to get into some of the small bugs/incongruences. That statement is quite wrong for so many reasons. care to say at least some of them, if not all? Just read a cross-sample of the backgrounds of the users on the Sibelius list -- There are people who are making arrangements which are performed at the prestigious Proms concerts at the Albert Hall in London, there are people whose arrangements and compositions are published by major publishers such as C.L.Barnhouse, there are composers working in the film genre, there are authors using Sibelius to create musical examples for their books, there are university students who are composition majors, there are essentially the same level and spectrum of Sibelius users represented on that list as Finale users represented on this list. Neither program has a lock on serious notation users, nor on light notation users. I still don't understand what industrial purposes means -- unless by that you are writing off all the people who use either program to computer-engrave music for publication. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
João Pais wrote: At first, I just let that roll off. Over the years, I have come to expect that kind of condescending attitude from some Finale users. Indeed, that was my frist response to Sibelius (v.1) 10 years ago after years of Finale use (beginning with Fin 2.2). probably that sounds condescending, but that's not what I meant. I said mainly, I never said that sibelius can't be used for serious engraving etc. - I would never say that, as I am myself involved in that area, and those were always my main critiques on the sibelius list: that industry-related features get implemented faster than fine-tuning of engraving details - but it's their policy, and they're sucessful with it. And I say what I said, because when I want to see tips about experienced engraving (not only software, but everything to do with the process), I go to the finale list. If I go to the sibelius list, I'll see for the 1xxxth time questions like how to switch lyric verses or why string players complain when I use the same slurs as I did for the winds. You've not been on this Finale list for very long, have you? The same sorts of discussions related to slurs and string players, as well as switching lyric verses (on the Finale list, quite often the question isn't how to switch verses but rather why did my copy/pasted lyrics end up in a different verse when they should be in the same verse?) have occurred here over the years. I'm a member of both lists and I've read the same sorts of discussions on both lists (regarding chord progressions, regarding the naming of certain combinations of pitches, etc., etc., etc.) and I see no overall difference between the two lists other than the grand presence of the senior product manager on the Sibelius list who fields users' questions with grace, with a calm voice no matter how volatile the diatribe, and who admits when there are shortcomings in the program and readily admits when something is on the list of things to work on and also admits when something had been decided to be tabled. And he usually discusses the reasoning behind the decisions, when pressed. But otherwise, the general discussions among the members of both lists are the same over a long period of time. There are few new members of this Finale list asking how to add a pickup measure with better results than the built-in mechanism, but there was a time when that was asked almost every other week. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Sibelius and Makemusic both understand that most of their user base are casual users. No shame in that. But it is true that Sibelius works better for the casual user - by design - than Finale does. And while there have been improvements in Finale's defaults, there is still much room for improvement and there is shame in that. Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 6:41 AM, João Pais wrote: At first, I just let that roll off. Over the years, I have come to expect that kind of condescending attitude from some Finale users. Indeed, that was my frist response to Sibelius (v.1) 10 years ago after years of Finale use (beginning with Fin 2.2). probably that sounds condescending, but that's not what I meant. I said mainly, I never said that sibelius can't be used for serious engraving etc. - I would never say that, as I am myself involved in that area, and those were always my main critiques on the sibelius list: that industry-related features get implemented faster than fine-tuning of engraving details - but it's their policy, and they're sucessful with it. And I say what I said, because when I want to see tips about experienced engraving (not only software, but everything to do with the process), I go to the finale list. If I go to the sibelius list, I'll see for the 1xxxth time questions like how to switch lyric verses or why string players complain when I use the same slurs as I did for the winds. - sibelius' user base is (still) mainly based on the people who use it lightly or for industrial purposes, and not for serious engraving. these persons are usually happy with the program/standard output as is, and many times don't go down enough to get into some of the small bugs/incongruences. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On May 22, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Sibelius and Makemusic both understand that most of their user base are casual users. No shame in that. But it is true that Sibelius works better for the casual user - by design - than Finale does. And while there have been improvements in Finale's defaults, there is still much room for improvement and there is shame in that. Christopher Here I go talking to myself, arguing with myself to make it worse... Actually, one area I see with my students is that Sibelius' default size for chord symbols is TINY. That is a default file problem. However, when I ask them to increase it, no problem; it's a very easy fix in Sibelius. But try to do the same thing in Finale with one of the JazzCord libraries... whoa! There, I just argued with myself, gave point, counterpoint and rebuttal, and I think I won the argument! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Just read a cross-sample of the backgrounds of the users on the Sibelius list -- There are people who are making arrangements which are performed at the prestigious Proms concerts at the Albert Hall in London, there are people whose arrangements and compositions are published by major publishers such as C.L.Barnhouse, there are composers working in the film genre, there are authors using Sibelius to create musical examples for their books, there are university students who are composition majors, there are essentially the same level and spectrum of Sibelius users represented on that list as Finale users represented on this list. I never said those people don't use sibelius (you can count me in in the group of persons that work for publishers/composers/film music/...). I said that besides those people, there are many people that only need something fast, who produces good enough results quick - and that sibelius delivers perfectly. for example, people who I bet would never go through the process to learn finale enough to produce something as decent-looking as sibelius does out of the box. eveytime a new upgrade comes up, there are 100s of people writing 5 minutes later about how great the new upgrade is, etc. Only too few ask for the bug fix list/detailed feature list and say: ok, that's nice. how about this *engraving* issue that was always since version x, and was mentioned several times on the mailing list? is it already solved? ah, didn't think so. but it's still on the wish list, right? I'll wait for that, I see a much more critic attitude on the finale list when a new version comes out - but maybe it's not that easy to compare, because of the yearly delivery standard, etc. (a mail commenting that was on the origin of this whole thread, if I remember correctly). Neither program has a lock on serious notation users, nor on light notation users. I would disagree with that. sibelius always adverted as intuitive, easy to use, etc - here are some citations (probably some from people you know?) http://hub.sibelius.com/products/sibelius/reviews/userquotes.html. And to my impression it is as well - I only started looking at the manual some time after starting using sibelius; from what I remember trying to use finale, I gave up to encore or something else quite fast (that was still in the mid 90s, I heard it's better now). if someone asks you I wanted to try out a notesetting program, but I'm really bad at computers, which program would you advise? I and many people I know (including expert finale users) advise sibelius without thinking twice. this doesn't happen by chance. the little I know from finale tells me that it has the possibility to go into much finer detail than sibelius - and has many things I would like to see implemented in sibelius (I guess that it *might* happen sooner or later - except if finale disappers). I still don't understand what industrial purposes means -- unless by that you are writing off all the people who use either program to computer-engrave music for publication. I meant industrial as something like film music, where it's only important to produce a good/clear score as fast as possible so that it can be read/played by the musicians without problems (also because sometimes you get the material some hours before the recording session). after the recording session the score isn't (in most cases) necessary anymore (and many scores wouldn't be published in the state they're sent to the recording sessions). in those cases the most important thing is that the program is able to deliver a decent-looking score with as less tweaking as possible, and as fast as possible - which sibelius always did, specially from version 4. basically, to produce something with enough quality as fast as possible and as mechanized as possible (like a mechanized factory, I guess). I'll try to illustrate my point with this example: I guess it's clear that many people changed from finale to sibelius from version 4, because of the dynamic partsTM alone. they're great, specially for film/traditional music. but for me (contemporary music), I can't use them most of the times. why? because if I use a big time signature on the score and change the distance to barline parameter on the house style, this parameter stays with the same value on the parts (and will look really bad). that means that if I do an orchestral score, I need 2 files, one for the score, and one for the parts - which kind of almost annuls the dynamic partsTm feature (there are anyway other advantages of having all parts on the same file, though). those are the kind of details that I mean that sibelius people are aware of what's important for most part of the users/general use, but sometimes don't go into fine details. they'll get to it eventually (I hope), but they have other priorities. and by the way they
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
I've been in both probably since I started earning my living mainly engraving, around 4 years ago - which is nothing compared with many of you guys. of course it's true what you say - but in the sibelius list I rarely/never saw a thread about good quality fonts, printers, binding, editing standards, requirements for orchestra materials, etc. That is, things that engravers should know, and aren't written in the software manual (or not written anywhere at all). Of course you'll always have begginers asking things around - if I would be using finale, I would be one of them. I usually skim through the list and delete what I don't need, and I end up having more to read in the finale list as in the sibelius one. You've not been on this Finale list for very long, have you? The same sorts of discussions related to slurs and string players, as well as switching lyric verses (on the Finale list, quite often the question isn't how to switch verses but rather why did my copy/pasted lyrics end up in a different verse when they should be in the same verse?) have occurred here over the years. I'm a member of both lists and I've read the same sorts of discussions on both lists (regarding chord progressions, regarding the naming of certain combinations of pitches, etc., etc., etc.) and I see no overall difference between the two lists other than the grand presence of the senior product manager on the Sibelius list who fields users' questions with grace, with a calm voice no matter how volatile the diatribe, and who admits when there are shortcomings in the program and readily admits when something is on the list of things to work on and also admits when something had been decided to be tabled. And he usually discusses the reasoning behind the decisions, when pressed. But otherwise, the general discussions among the members of both lists are the same over a long period of time. There are few new members of this Finale list asking how to add a pickup measure with better results than the built-in mechanism, but there was a time when that was asked almost every other week. -- Friedenstr. 58 10249 Berlin (Deutschland) Tel +49 30 42020091 | Mob +49 162 6843570 jmmmp...@googlemail.com | skype: jmmmpjmmmp ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
the little I know from finale tells me that it has the possibility to go into much finer detail than sibelius - and has many things I would like to see implemented in sibelius (I guess that it *might* happen sooner or later - except if finale disappers). Finale is *not* more capable of fine detail adjustment than Sibelius. It's just that the Sibelius approach is very different from Finale. Finale users tend to look for fine control where they are used to finding it in Finale. When it's not there they say Well Sibelius can't... and others believe them. In fact, most of the time they just didn't look in the right place. Sure there are thing that Finale does better than Sibelius or that Sibelius can't do at all. I know things that Sibelius does that Finale can't and the MM people have admitted to me that it won't. All that means is they are different. I'll try to illustrate my point with this example: I guess it's clear that many people changed from finale to sibelius from version 4, because of the dynamic partsTM alone. they're great, specially for film/traditional music. but for me (contemporary music), I can't use them most of the times. why? because if I use a big time signature on the score and change the distance to barline parameter on the house style, this parameter stays with the same value on the parts (and will look really bad). that means that if I do an orchestral score, I need 2 files, one for the score, and one for the parts - which kind of almost annuls the dynamic partsTm feature (there are anyway other advantages of having all parts on the same file, though). Well I just put a huge time sig in a score and kept the standard time sig in the parts. Easy. Took about 1 minute. You can have a different house style for score and parts. And even if gap before barline adjustment carries over from parts to score, it's very simple to re-adjust it when printing parts or score. You don't need two files. This is what I mean about it just not being the same as Finale. Yet some people will read the statement above, accept it uncritically and pass it on to others. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On 21 May 2009, at 22:09, David W. Fenton wrote: On 21 May 2009 at 9:45, Chuck Israels wrote: On May 21, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: the Magnetic layout is all there really is that stands out. I agree, but that seems extraordinarily attractive. I would second that (or, I guess, THIRD it). me too! I spent a while looking at the Sibelius 6 demo: the magnetic layout is really impressive. If I were starting from scratch and choosing a notation program, it would certainly make me lean towards Sibelius. It's clear to me that Finale desperately needs to catch up here. Michael ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius (6 chord size)
I recently had to increase the all of the chord suffics in a piece (in Finale) and I expected to have to resize and respace all of the chords seperatly. To my suprise there is a way do do it all at once. Mark McCarron --- On Fri, 5/22/09, Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca wrote: From: Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 8:30 AM On May 22, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Sibelius and Makemusic both understand that most of their user base are casual users. No shame in that. But it is true that Sibelius works better for the casual user - by design - than Finale does. And while there have been improvements in Finale's defaults, there is still much room for improvement and there is shame in that. Christopher Here I go talking to myself, arguing with myself to make it worse... Actually, one area I see with my students is that Sibelius' default size for chord symbols is TINY. That is a default file problem. However, when I ask them to increase it, no problem; it's a very easy fix in Sibelius. But try to do the same thing in Finale with one of the JazzCord libraries... whoa! There, I just argued with myself, gave point, counterpoint and rebuttal, and I think I won the argument! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius (6 chord size)
If you are using the Engraver default with the Arial suffixes, this can be done. But did you do this with the JazzCord library? If you increase the font size, the kerning is off and every item is mashed together. If you are using the library that ONLY has the individual JazzCord glyphs, then of course it is easy. But if you have the library loaded that has each suffix broken into different characters, then it is hell. I have kludged it before by attaching the chords to hidden Layer 4 items, then resizing ALL of Layer 4. This is nice, because the chord suffixes keep their kerning when you just zoom them. I have also attached them to another staff, which I have hidden with a staff style and resized, then I dragged the hidden staff down to be superimposed over the real staff. This is good for lead sheets, but it gets kludgy in extracted/linked parts. Quite a bit different from the one-click solution in Sibelius. Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 12:10 PM, Mark McCarron wrote: I recently had to increase the all of the chord suffics in a piece (in Finale) and I expected to have to resize and respace all of the chords seperatly. To my suprise there is a way do do it all at once. Mark McCarron --- On Fri, 5/22/09, Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca wrote: From: Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 8:30 AM On May 22, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Sibelius and Makemusic both understand that most of their user base are casual users. No shame in that. But it is true that Sibelius works better for the casual user - by design - than Finale does. And while there have been improvements in Finale's defaults, there is still much room for improvement and there is shame in that. Christopher Here I go talking to myself, arguing with myself to make it worse... Actually, one area I see with my students is that Sibelius' default size for chord symbols is TINY. That is a default file problem. However, when I ask them to increase it, no problem; it's a very easy fix in Sibelius. But try to do the same thing in Finale with one of the JazzCord libraries... whoa! There, I just argued with myself, gave point, counterpoint and rebuttal, and I think I won the argument! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
At 7:07 AM -0400 5/22/09, dhbailey wrote: Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Yeah ... it's kind of like finding a church you like. Sort of -- usually with finding a church you like, that's where you stay, rather than finding two different churches you like and alternating worship services between the two. Perhaps not the best analogy, since that's exactly what some split-religion families do to expose their children to both religions. Of course the Catholic church insists on children being raised Catholic, but then the Catholic church insists on a lot of things that practicing Catholics with functioning brain cells don't follow. But with notation software, there's nothing preventing people from being fluent in both Finale and Sibelius and enjoying working with them both, using whichever one seems to be easier for whatever project is on the table. Yes, which makes your language analogy much better. Although for truly native, non-accented speech the different languages really have to be learned from infancy. Gee, does that mean some people use Sibelius with a Finale accent?!!! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Maybe one can chalk this up to newbie ignorance, but here's another one against Sibelius: Let's say you have a high flute, violin or trombone part with several ledger lines, and the system breaks on a slurred passage. The engraver's default is that broken slurs over a system should end a few points above the top staff line, and begin again on the new system in a similar place. Both Finale and Sibelius end up crossing the stem on the last note of the system, and again on the first note of the new system, with the slur. In Finale it is trivial to drag the too-low end of the slur higher on the linked part, which will not affect the score. But in Sibelius the only solution I found was to delete the slur, enter TWO slurs instead, and adjust the ends. This means TWO slurs (broken in the middle) appear on the score, unless you have a separate score and parts file. If I am wrong about this, please disabuse me of this right away! But it showed up several times in the few Sibelius files I worked on. Here's another minor one that my students get bugged by. Say you want to work in concert pitch on your score, which includes a bari sax. If you want to see the bari staff in bass clef while you work on it in concert pitch (and who doesn't!) then you have to set the clef to bass clef. This means that when you extract the parts, the bari is transposed, BUT IN BASS CLEF, unless you remembered to switch it back. Also, the score and parts can't be different, which means a separate parts and score file if you want the score in concert pitch and the bari staff to be in bass clef in the score. Once again, if there is something I don't know about, please let me know! In Sibelius the problem of DS signs appearing at the end of multimeasure rests doesn't seem to have a good solution, either (nor does Finale! But at least it can be kludged.) Sibelius would break an 8 bar rest into 7 bars and one to force appearance of the DS sign, which is not acceptable at all for published parts and I don't like it even for industrial copy work. Did Sibelius ever work out playback of non-centred articulations that are entered as expressions? Because that might be something Finale does well that Sibelius doesn't. One feature that Sibelius has that has saved my students many times is the notes that get redder and redder the more extreme in range they get. Finale has a plugin for that, but the pink notes are RIGHT THERE in Sibelius, which helps the poor idiots when they get confused. I would like to hear Richard's list, though. I am not a fan of platform wars, but I would like to know the comparison. Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 11:13 AM, dc wrote: mu...@rgsmithmusic.com écrit: Sure there are thing that Finale does better than Sibelius or that Sibelius can't do at all. I know things that Sibelius does that Finale can't and the MM people have admitted to me that it won't. Could you give a few examples? I can think of Unicode support, but that's about it. And then Robert will probably mention nested brackets. But what else? Does Sibelius let you decide where the first hyphen appears after a system break, for instance (under the note head, or shifted to the left)? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Yeah, the linguistic analogy serves the best, I think. In addition, when one abjures the religious analogy, one avoids any possible moral consequences prescribed by a given dogma. Brings to mind one of my favorite lines from Fiddler On The Roof, to wit, How can they both be right? Dean On May 22, 2009, at 10:03 AM, John Howell wrote: At 7:07 AM -0400 5/22/09, dhbailey wrote: Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Yeah ... it's kind of like finding a church you like. Sort of -- usually with finding a church you like, that's where you stay, rather than finding two different churches you like and alternating worship services between the two. Perhaps not the best analogy, since that's exactly what some split- religion families do to expose their children to both religions. Of course the Catholic church insists on children being raised Catholic, but then the Catholic church insists on a lot of things that practicing Catholics with functioning brain cells don't follow. But with notation software, there's nothing preventing people from being fluent in both Finale and Sibelius and enjoying working with them both, using whichever one seems to be easier for whatever project is on the table. Yes, which makes your language analogy much better. Although for truly native, non-accented speech the different languages really have to be learned from infancy. Gee, does that mean some people use Sibelius with a Finale accent?!!! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum And, I'd rather be composing than decomposing Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
It's been a few weeks since I've worked on a Band Score, but my memory is that if I set up the score via the Wizard, and want to work in Concert Pitch (which I always do), that the Bari Sax part is in bass clef, and as soon as I toggle to Transposed Score, it appears in Treble Clef properly transposed. Maybe I'm missing something here ... if so, I'm operating at normal capacity. Dean On May 22, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Here's another minor one that my students get bugged by. Say you want to work in concert pitch on your score, which includes a bari sax. If you want to see the bari staff in bass clef while you work on it in concert pitch (and who doesn't!) then you have to set the clef to bass clef. This means that when you extract the parts, the bari is transposed, BUT IN BASS CLEF, unless you remembered to switch it back. Also, the score and parts can't be different, which means a separate parts and score file if you want the score in concert pitch and the bari staff to be in bass clef in the score. Once again, if there is something I don't know about, please let me know! Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 11:13 AM, dc wrote: ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum And, I'd rather be composing than decomposing Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
mu...@rgsmithmusic.com écrit: Sure there are thing that Finale does better than Sibelius or that Sibelius can't do at all. I know things that Sibelius does that Finale can't and the MM people have admitted to me that it won't. Could you give a few examples? I can think of Unicode support, but that's about it. And then Robert will probably mention nested brackets. But what else? OK. Finale, unless it's been changed in the last version or so, will not permit re-assignment layers or voices on a note by note basis. Sibelius does that easily in two clicks. A client hired me to make keyboard reductions of some string quartets. The publisher specified Finale. The rhythms were not usually the same in the various string parts so, on reduction, both Finale and Sibelius inserted unnecessary ties in the middle of measures to make the rhythms agree. (I see that kind of engraving from the Nashville crowd frequently but will not do it myself.) With Sibelius, it was a simple matter of re-assign the note to a different voice. But the publisher insisted on Finale. I tried to find ways to re-assign the notes but couldn't. I posted to this list and to the MM list and was given solutions that did not work. I asked MM's tech people who said it couldn't be done. So I had to re-write many bars from scratch to make the ryhthms co-exist without unneeded ties. I don't know about the hyphen but there are lots of minute adjustments that are not immediately obvious. My first guess would be x y parameters in the properties menu. Visit the Sibelius ( http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/ )list and post your question. Daniel Spreadbury will probably answer quickly with an honest answer. Daniel's background is as vocalist and he will know. Richard Smith Does Sibelius let you decide where the first hyphen appears after a system break, for instance (under the note head, or shifted to the left)? Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
You are correct. That was fixed in Version 5. The sutdents need to be sure they select the right instrument. Bass reeds (and euphonia) have instruments configured to read in several different ways. To fit American conventions, they want to choose the one that is treble clef transposed in a transposed score and bass clef untransposed in a c-score. That one always annoyed me because Finale did it so easily. Sibelius was kind enough to listen to my complaint (and others I'm sure) and correct it in V.5 Richard Smith It's been a few weeks since I've worked on a Band Score, but my memory is that if I set up the score via the Wizard, and want to work in Concert Pitch (which I always do), that the Bari Sax part is in bass clef, and as soon as I toggle to Transposed Score, it appears in Treble Clef properly transposed. Maybe I'm missing something here ... if so, I'm operating at normal capacity. Dean On May 22, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Here's another minor one that my students get bugged by. Say you want to work in concert pitch on your score, which includes a bari sax. If you want to see the bari staff in bass clef while you work on it in concert pitch (and who doesn't!) then you have to set the clef to bass clef. This means that when you extract the parts, the bari is transposed, BUT IN BASS CLEF, unless you remembered to switch it back. Also, the score and parts can't be different, which means a separate parts and score file if you want the score in concert pitch and the bari staff to be in bass clef in the score. Once again, if there is something I don't know about, please let me know! Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 11:13 AM, dc wrote: ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum And, I'd rather be composing than decomposing Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
You are correct. That was fixed in Version 5. The sutdents need to be sure they select the right instrument. Bass reeds (and euphonia) have instruments configured to read in several different ways. To fit American conventions, they want to choose the one that is treble clef transposed in a transposed score and bass clef untransposed in a c-score. That one always annoyed me because Finale did it so easily. Sibelius was kind enough to listen to my complaint (and others I'm sure) and correct it in V.5 Richard Smith It's been a few weeks since I've worked on a Band Score, but my memory is that if I set up the score via the Wizard, and want to work in Concert Pitch (which I always do), that the Bari Sax part is in bass clef, and as soon as I toggle to Transposed Score, it appears in Treble Clef properly transposed. Maybe I'm missing something here ... if so, I'm operating at normal capacity. Dean On May 22, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Here's another minor one that my students get bugged by. Say you want to work in concert pitch on your score, which includes a bari sax. If you want to see the bari staff in bass clef while you work on it in concert pitch (and who doesn't!) then you have to set the clef to bass clef. This means that when you extract the parts, the bari is transposed, BUT IN BASS CLEF, unless you remembered to switch it back. Also, the score and parts can't be different, which means a separate parts and score file if you want the score in concert pitch and the bari staff to be in bass clef in the score. Once again, if there is something I don't know about, please let me know! Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 11:13 AM, dc wrote: ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum And, I'd rather be composing than decomposing Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Sib 6 answer: The slur now has 6 (I think) control boxes that can pull it in many different directions. You can drag it with a mouse (clumsy) or the arrow keys (elegant), and they can be adjusted independently in parts and score. You really should check out the new slurs. They're greatly improved. Richard Smith Maybe one can chalk this up to newbie ignorance, but here's another one against Sibelius: Let's say you have a high flute, violin or trombone part with several ledger lines, and the system breaks on a slurred passage. The engraver's default is that broken slurs over a system should end a few points above the top staff line, and begin again on the new system in a similar place. Both Finale and Sibelius end up crossing the stem on the last note of the system, and again on the first note of the new system, with the slur. In Finale it is trivial to drag the too-low end of the slur higher on the linked part, which will not affect the score. But in Sibelius the only solution I found was to delete the slur, enter TWO slurs instead, and adjust the ends. This means TWO slurs (broken in the middle) appear on the score, unless you have a separate score and parts file. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Thank you! I will be sure to pass that on to my students. I am happy to know that it was fixed recently. If a student comes to me with a score that he DIDN'T use the Wizard, what should I tell him? Obviously, use the Wizard next time, but until then? Christopher On May 22, 2009, at 1:44 PM, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: You are correct. That was fixed in Version 5. The sutdents need to be sure they select the right instrument. Bass reeds (and euphonia) have instruments configured to read in several different ways. To fit American conventions, they want to choose the one that is treble clef transposed in a transposed score and bass clef untransposed in a c-score. That one always annoyed me because Finale did it so easily. Sibelius was kind enough to listen to my complaint (and others I'm sure) and correct it in V.5 Richard Smith It's been a few weeks since I've worked on a Band Score, but my memory is that if I set up the score via the Wizard, and want to work in Concert Pitch (which I always do), that the Bari Sax part is in bass clef, and as soon as I toggle to Transposed Score, it appears in Treble Clef properly transposed. Maybe I'm missing something here ... if so, I'm operating at normal capacity. Dean On May 22, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Here's another minor one that my students get bugged by. Say you want to work in concert pitch on your score, which includes a bari sax. If you want to see the bari staff in bass clef while you work on it in concert pitch (and who doesn't!) then you have to set the clef to bass clef. This means that when you extract the parts, the bari is transposed, BUT IN BASS CLEF, unless you remembered to switch it back. Also, the score and parts can't be different, which means a separate parts and score file if you want the score in concert pitch and the bari staff to be in bass clef in the score. Once again, if there is something I don't know about, please let me know! Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 11:13 AM, dc wrote: ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum And, I'd rather be composing than decomposing Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Sibelius 6
-Original Message- From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [mailto:finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Smith Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 12:07 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 Maybe one can chalk this up to newbie ignorance, but here's another one against Sibelius: Let's say you have a high flute, violin or trombone part with several ledger lines, and the system breaks on a slurred passage. The engraver's default is that broken slurs over a system should end a few points above the top staff line, and begin again on the new system in a similar place. Both Finale and Sibelius end up crossing the stem on the last note of the system, and again on the first note of the new system, with the slur. In Finale it is trivial to drag the too-low end of the slur higher on the linked part, which will not affect the score. But in Sibelius the only solution I found was to delete the slur, enter TWO slurs instead, and adjust the ends. This means TWO slurs (broken in the middle) appear on the score, unless you have a separate score and parts file. Hi Christopher, This problem has been addressed in version 6. Here's another minor one that my students get bugged by. Say you want to work in concert pitch on your score, which includes a bari sax. If you want to see the bari staff in bass clef while you work on it in concert pitch (and who doesn't!) then you have to set the clef to bass clef. This means that when you extract the parts, the bari is transposed, BUT IN BASS CLEF, I am looking at the Sib 6 demo. In the instrument list there is: Baritone Sax (bass clef, treble transposition). Cheers, Dan C ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4097 (20090522) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4097 (20090522) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4098 (20090522) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4098 (20090522) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Oo, nice! So my ledger line problem is a thing of the past? And adjusting it in the part doesn't make it too ugly for words in the score? Christopher On May 22, 2009, at 1:49 PM, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: Sib 6 answer: The slur now has 6 (I think) control boxes that can pull it in many different directions. You can drag it with a mouse (clumsy) or the arrow keys (elegant), and they can be adjusted independently in parts and score. You really should check out the new slurs. They're greatly improved. Richard Smith Maybe one can chalk this up to newbie ignorance, but here's another one against Sibelius: Let's say you have a high flute, violin or trombone part with several ledger lines, and the system breaks on a slurred passage. The engraver's default is that broken slurs over a system should end a few points above the top staff line, and begin again on the new system in a similar place. Both Finale and Sibelius end up crossing the stem on the last note of the system, and again on the first note of the new system, with the slur. In Finale it is trivial to drag the too-low end of the slur higher on the linked part, which will not affect the score. But in Sibelius the only solution I found was to delete the slur, enter TWO slurs instead, and adjust the ends. This means TWO slurs (broken in the middle) appear on the score, unless you have a separate score and parts file. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Thank you! I will be sure to pass that on to my students. I am happy to know that it was fixed recently. If a student comes to me with a score that he DIDN'T use the Wizard, what should I tell him? Obviously, use the Wizard next time, but until then? Christopher Make sure nothing is selected. If the cursor is blue, hit escape. Then ctrl+shift+alt+I allows you to change instruments (PC. Macs use their version of the same commands). When you get that menu just select the correct isntrument then point your cursor (now that wonderful Sibelius blue) to the instrument name at the beginning of the staff to be changed. Click! Richard Smith ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On May 22, 2009, at 3:20 PM, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: Thank you! I will be sure to pass that on to my students. I am happy to know that it was fixed recently. If a student comes to me with a score that he DIDN'T use the Wizard, what should I tell him? Obviously, use the Wizard next time, but until then? Christopher Make sure nothing is selected. If the cursor is blue, hit escape. Then ctrl+shift+alt+I allows you to change instruments (PC. Macs use their version of the same commands). When you get that menu just select the correct isntrument then point your cursor (now that wonderful Sibelius blue) to the instrument name at the beginning of the staff to be changed. Click! Richard Smith Beautiful! I've noted it for next semester. You have saved many students hours of work (and low grades!) We thank you. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Composer's Mosaic
Hi! Am 20.05.2009 um 18:36 schrieb John Howell: Composer's Mosaic Does anybody still use this? I'd like to try it, but I doubt it will be freely available ... Gerhard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Hmm. Am 21.05.2009 um 18:45 schrieb Chuck Israels: Bill Duncan fonts What's so special about them? Gerhard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
That's comon practise to have two masterfiles also in Finale. Use the one for your score, and the other for the parts! regards Stigc56 Den 22/05/2009 kl. 14.43 skrev João Pais: Just read a cross-sample of the backgrounds of the users on the Sibelius list -- There are people who are making arrangements which are performed at the prestigious Proms concerts at the Albert Hall in London, there are people whose arrangements and compositions are published by major publishers such as C.L.Barnhouse, there are composers working in the film genre, there are authors using Sibelius to create musical examples for their books, there are university students who are composition majors, there are essentially the same level and spectrum of Sibelius users represented on that list as Finale users represented on this list. I never said those people don't use sibelius (you can count me in in the group of persons that work for publishers/composers/film music/...). I said that besides those people, there are many people that only need something fast, who produces good enough results quick - and that sibelius delivers perfectly. for example, people who I bet would never go through the process to learn finale enough to produce something as decent-looking as sibelius does out of the box. eveytime a new upgrade comes up, there are 100s of people writing 5 minutes later about how great the new upgrade is, etc. Only too few ask for the bug fix list/detailed feature list and say: ok, that's nice. how about this *engraving* issue that was always since version x, and was mentioned several times on the mailing list? is it already solved? ah, didn't think so. but it's still on the wish list, right? I'll wait for that, I see a much more critic attitude on the finale list when a new version comes out - but maybe it's not that easy to compare, because of the yearly delivery standard, etc. (a mail commenting that was on the origin of this whole thread, if I remember correctly). Neither program has a lock on serious notation users, nor on light notation users. I would disagree with that. sibelius always adverted as intuitive, easy to use, etc - here are some citations (probably some from people you know?) http://hub.sibelius.com/products/sibelius/reviews/userquotes.html . And to my impression it is as well - I only started looking at the manual some time after starting using sibelius; from what I remember trying to use finale, I gave up to encore or something else quite fast (that was still in the mid 90s, I heard it's better now). if someone asks you I wanted to try out a notesetting program, but I'm really bad at computers, which program would you advise? I and many people I know (including expert finale users) advise sibelius without thinking twice. this doesn't happen by chance. the little I know from finale tells me that it has the possibility to go into much finer detail than sibelius - and has many things I would like to see implemented in sibelius (I guess that it *might* happen sooner or later - except if finale disappers). I still don't understand what industrial purposes means -- unless by that you are writing off all the people who use either program to computer-engrave music for publication. I meant industrial as something like film music, where it's only important to produce a good/clear score as fast as possible so that it can be read/played by the musicians without problems (also because sometimes you get the material some hours before the recording session). after the recording session the score isn't (in most cases) necessary anymore (and many scores wouldn't be published in the state they're sent to the recording sessions). in those cases the most important thing is that the program is able to deliver a decent-looking score with as less tweaking as possible, and as fast as possible - which sibelius always did, specially from version 4. basically, to produce something with enough quality as fast as possible and as mechanized as possible (like a mechanized factory, I guess). I'll try to illustrate my point with this example: I guess it's clear that many people changed from finale to sibelius from version 4, because of the dynamic partsTM alone. they're great, specially for film/traditional music. but for me (contemporary music), I can't use them most of the times. why? because if I use a big time signature on the score and change the distance to barline parameter on the house style, this parameter stays with the same value on the parts (and will look really bad). that means that if I do an orchestral score, I need 2 files, one for the score, and one for the parts - which kind of almost annuls the dynamic partsTm feature (there are anyway other advantages of having all parts on the same file, though). those are the kind of details that I mean that sibelius people are aware of
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On 22 May 2009, at 19:49, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: Sib 6 answer: The slur now has 6 (I think) control boxes that can pull it in many different directions. You can drag it with a mouse (clumsy) or the arrow keys (elegant), and they can be adjusted independently in parts and score. You really should check out the new slurs. They're greatly improved. As far as I can tell from the demo, the slurs in Sibelius 6 are very similar to Finale slurs. The six control points seem to work the same way: there's one that moves the whole slur (in Finale this main handle is bigger than the others), two for the ends of the slur and three to control height and curvature. In both programs it's possible to make an S-shaped slur, in exactly the same way. Both programs allow the control points to be dragged or nudged with arrow keys. Sibelius additionally allows their positions to be defined numerically. Sibelius also allows the thickness of any particular slur to be changed. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Christopher Smith wrote: Thank you! I will be sure to pass that on to my students. I am happy to know that it was fixed recently. If a student comes to me with a score that he DIDN'T use the Wizard, what should I tell him? Obviously, use the Wizard next time, but until then? In selecting the instrument from the long list, he needs to look for the instrument called Bari Sax (Bass Clef, Treble Clef Transposition) -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius (6 chord size)
the chord suffixs used the Jazz font, and I used the change chord suffix fonts in the chord menu. I checked the Fix Chord Suffix Spacing and it worked like a charm. Mark McCarron --- On Fri, 5/22/09, Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca wrote: From: Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius (6 chord size) To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 12:18 PM If you are using the Engraver default with the Arial suffixes, this can be done. But did you do this with the JazzCord library? If you increase the font size, the kerning is off and every item is mashed together. If you are using the library that ONLY has the individual JazzCord glyphs, then of course it is easy. But if you have the library loaded that has each suffix broken into different characters, then it is hell. I have kludged it before by attaching the chords to hidden Layer 4 items, then resizing ALL of Layer 4. This is nice, because the chord suffixes keep their kerning when you just zoom them. I have also attached them to another staff, which I have hidden with a staff style and resized, then I dragged the hidden staff down to be superimposed over the real staff. This is good for lead sheets, but it gets kludgy in extracted/linked parts. Quite a bit different from the one-click solution in Sibelius. Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 12:10 PM, Mark McCarron wrote: I recently had to increase the all of the chord suffics in a piece (in Finale) and I expected to have to resize and respace all of the chords seperatly. To my suprise there is a way do do it all at once. Mark McCarron --- On Fri, 5/22/09, Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca wrote: From: Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 8:30 AM On May 22, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Sibelius and Makemusic both understand that most of their user base are casual users. No shame in that. But it is true that Sibelius works better for the casual user - by design - than Finale does. And while there have been improvements in Finale's defaults, there is still much room for improvement and there is shame in that. Christopher Here I go talking to myself, arguing with myself to make it worse... Actually, one area I see with my students is that Sibelius' default size for chord symbols is TINY. That is a default file problem. However, when I ask them to increase it, no problem; it's a very easy fix in Sibelius. But try to do the same thing in Finale with one of the JazzCord libraries... whoa! There, I just argued with myself, gave point, counterpoint and rebuttal, and I think I won the argument! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
At 10:18 AM -0700 5/22/09, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Yeah, the linguistic analogy serves the best, I think. In addition, when one abjures the religious analogy, one avoids any possible moral consequences prescribed by a given dogma. Brings to mind one of my favorite lines from Fiddler On The Roof, to wit, How can they both be right? ... but on the other hand ... ! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Hi Gerhard, There are things that look especially good to my eye: an elegant chord symbol font with well spaced suffixes and reasonably easy control of making new ones; softened slashes at a slightly more vertical angle (allowing more of them in a measure, if needed); softened rhythmic notation; elegant and attention getting drop shadow boxed font for important rehearsal markings (including DS and Coda symbols); special harp symbols; useful smart shapes; brackets with automated correct vertical sizing...those are things that occur to me quickly. You can see some of these things on Nick Carter's site http://www.npcimaging.com/books/BillDuncan.htm but I don't see examples there on the site. If you need to see some, and Nick can't send any, contact me and I will send a few. Many of us like this material a lot. I am now simply so used to the way my music looks using these fonts and articulations (including some special jazz articulations Bill made when a few of us asked for them that look good with Maestro - there are some jazz people who don't like the look of the jazz font in Finale but need articulations that can only be found in the jazz font or in Bill's articulation set) that I'd feel deprived without them. Chuck On May 22, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Torges Gerhard wrote: Hmm. Am 21.05.2009 um 18:45 schrieb Chuck Israels: Bill Duncan fonts What's so special about them? Gerhard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
THERE IS NO OTHER HAND!! Dean :) On May 22, 2009, at 3:49 PM, John Howell wrote: At 10:18 AM -0700 5/22/09, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Yeah, the linguistic analogy serves the best, I think. In addition, when one abjures the religious analogy, one avoids any possible moral consequences prescribed by a given dogma. Brings to mind one of my favorite lines from Fiddler On The Roof, to wit, How can they both be right? ... but on the other hand ... ! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum And, I'd rather be composing than decomposing Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Composer's Mosaic
At 11:03 PM +0200 5/22/09, Torges Gerhard wrote: Hi! Am 20.05.2009 um 18:36 schrieb John Howell: Composer's Mosaic Does anybody still use this? I'd like to try it, but I doubt it will be freely available ... Mark of the Unicorn stopped supporting and developing it to concentrate on their seqencing product. It was quite advanced for its day, although there are many things in both Finale and Sibelius that it simply couldn't do, including hiding anything except rests or stems. I hated to leave it behind, after spending several years figuring out how to use it efficiently, but I guess that it left ME behind rather than the other way around. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Garritan sample pathway problem
Anyone curious about this? Turned out to be the fact that the new hard drive had a slightly different name. That's what hid the sample files from the Kontakt Player. Duh! Took me a day to figure it out. Chuck On May 21, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Chuck Israels wrote: Calling all Mac gurus! A repair of files and replacement of a drive that threatened to go wonky has resulted in Finale (or maybe it's the Kontakt Player) not finding the GPO/JABB samples. (Maybe they were inadvertently moved, or the new system is looking for them differently - it's mysterious to me.) A window comes up that allows an automated search finding the needed files and saving that pathway for the document in question but requiring that search each time a new document is opened. My conclusion is that the sound files are not in the optimum location - I think they belong in Libraries somewhere, (at what level, I'm not sure - Root or User). Can anyone help me to locate them and move or copy them to the right place? Darcy? Christopher? Anyone? Thanks, Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
