Forgive me for elbowing in on this discussion. I'll ask my question
up front:
I notice (checking sweetwater.com) that there is a "trade-up" path,
a way to acquire Dorico for considerably less than the standard
price if I am a user of a competing product.
Does that mean I have to somehow *give up* on using the competing
product? Which doesn't make sense. Or only present proof of
being a user of that product? What's the catch, because the price
difference is significant.
By way of background: I have gotten good
Finale support from finaleforum.com, so rarely say anything here,
but do follow discussions. I'm certainly aware of the developments
in competing products, with Sibelius and Dorico, neither of which
I have ever even seen let alone used. But for twenty years (in another
life) I made almost all my living as a music engraver using the old
method of music typewriters et al., plus I'm a composer, so I know
notation rather well.
Finale has so far satisfied my needs, and I have used it to create
some pretty complex music. However, I'm naturally curious about
new developments, even though today I'm pretty much semi-retired
from work and a sort of hobbyist. And would be interested at some
point in trying at least Dorico (which seems to be the one that will
continue in due time). But I don't know if I'm $560 worth of
interested.
Sorry to interrupt your discussion. Carry on.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:30 AM, dfr...@smcm.edu <dfr...@smcm.edu> wrote:
> Robert Patterson wrote:
>>
>> I don't think I understand Steve Parker's comment about "MT scores". I
>> don't doubt that Finale requires stitching together thirty files, but I
>> don't understand the requirement well enough to understand why.
>>
>> My question about different layouts is, are they anything like linked
>> parts? Because an improved interface for copying part layouts is definitely
>> something that I've wanted and could actually be done by a plugin.
>
> I have Dorico and have been learning it, on and off, while they finish up the
> program. It is impressive.
>
> The layout options are based on Dorico understanding every line of music as a
> stream of notes that can be reformatted and placed anywhere. The stream of
> notes are pitch and duration, not locked to measures. So if you change the
> meter, or combine measures, or whatever, Dorico rebeams, adds or takes away
> dotted notes/tied notes, etc. All overridable, based on individual or global
> choices.
>
> On pages, you have text boxes that can have anything, but mostly are for
> header/footer things as one kind of box (filled in as linked to file
> information you supply elsewhere) and music boxes. The music boxes can be
> made to any dimension, dragged around the page, and can contain anything you
> like — from individual parts to sets of parts, from any of the movements
> (flows). So, for example, they like to show that it is dead simple to do a
> piano four-hand score with piano two on the left side, piano one on the right
> side. And, with minimal work, reformat it with piano two on top of piano one,
> or even (for two pianos) piano one and two as separate parts.
>
> The default choices, of course, are full score and individual parts, each
> completely controllable, with intelligent choices about what is linked to the
> score and what isn’t.
>
> I haven’t lived with this very long — and if there are Dorico people who want
> to refine or correct what I wrote, please chime in.
>
> David Froom
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
--
Lynn David Newton
Columbus, Ohio
neologisticsediting.com
lynndavidnewton.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
