Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Johannes Gebauer]

Mark,

I can see what you want, and both is no better in Sibelius. In fact I am 
personally not bothered by your first type, but the second type has 
caused me headaches, too.


On the other hand Finale's engraver slurs have been the cause for many 
problems in the past. Only yesterday I had to redo a PDF of a part as 
one slur went crazy in it. I hadn't noticed before and it wasn't showing 
on screen in any resolution, only in the PDF.


Furthermore I always had problems with slurs colliding with ties and 
having to hand move dynamics and such. In Sibelius this is all 
automatic. I admit I haven't tested this in any depth, so I can't say 
anything about the bugs, but it looks as though it simply works, and 
works well.


Johannes

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Mark D Lew]

On Nov 1, 2009, at 11:32 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:


The problem with Finale's engraver slurs is that
a) they are very unreliable, sometimes they do things unexpectedly,  
often only in the final printout, and this has caused me hours of  
work in the past
b) they only avoid collisions with certain articulations and the  
notes themselves (and even that doesn't always work).


Sibelius's magnetic slurs simply avoid collisions. Full stop. With  
everything.


I remember encountering that non-WYSIWYG problem a few times, but I  
found if you just nudge any point on the slur (and nudge it right  
back if you like) that slur will be stable from then on.  It wasn't  
just that it was non-WYSIWYG either. There were ties when a slur that  
printed fine on my computer was bad on my client's and vice versa.  
But we always went through at least two drafts, so he'd just tell me  
which slurs were bad for him and I'd nudge them.


The second problem doesn't bother me much since it's easy enough to  
adjust the slur to put it where I want it.  And since I'm going to go  
through my piece and tidy up the slurs anyway, it doesn't really add  
much to my time.


Can you show me an example (scanned if you like) of a slur which  
cannot be done in Finale? I would like to try my luck.


There's basically two categories that I'm unhappy with: (1) anything  
long and flat, and (2) a slur with a large vertical component, like  
one that starts in the bass clef of a piano part and ends on a high  
treble note.  In both cases, Finale can make something that is  
acceptable, but it doesn't look like what I think it ought to.


I'd have to poke around in old scores to find examples of how I want  
it to look, but I can point you to examples on the Recordare site of  
what I reluctantly settle for.


For a long flat slur, what I want it to look like is the examples on  
p.141 of Ted Ross.  In Finale you can't get the ends to tip down like  
that while still keeping the slur reasonably flat.  If you pull the  
control points out enough to get the ends to tip down, you get  
unattractive corners, but if you don't the tips are too horizontal at  
their ends. You can ameliorate the problem by lifting the middle of  
the slur, but then it's too tall and not flat enough.  So I find a  
compromise between all three and I end up with something like the  
slur on the bottom system of , which is tolerable but really not  
what I want.


For the second type, you can see several examples at lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/recordare/SchmNussSample.pdf>.  Taking the  
ones in m.3 as an example, I dislike that the slope at the top  
endpoint of the slur is slightly north of horizontal. I would like it  
to point about 30 degrees south of horizontal, but you can't achieve  
that without raising the near control point which, again, causes  
either an unattractive corner or requires the center of the slur to  
be pulled too far out.


I'm not 100% sure of the math, but I *think* all of my complaints  
would be addressed if there were another factor allowing for a length  
of straight line in the middle of any slur, as if the bezier curve  
were split at the center point, with a line segment centered on that  
point with the same slope the curve had there, and then the two  
halves attached to the end of the segment.  Then you could have  
another control point to drag which defined the length of the  
segment.  With length=0, you'd match the current slurs.  If you had a  
completely flat slur that was say four inches between the endpoints,  
you could set length to 3 inches and then the two ends would curve  
exactly like the two halves of a one-inch slur, which I think is what  
I want.  And then simile for non-flat slurs.


mdl
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 01.11.2009 Mark D Lew wrote:

I'm intrigued by Johannes recent hint that slurs have improved in Sibelius 6.1. 
 Have they solved the problem of long slurs, or are they merely catching up to 
Finale in this regard?


Yes, Sibelius is catching up in terms of shapes. However, magnetic slurs 
 do what Engraver slurs promised to do but never really delievered: 
They avoid collisions while still looking good.


But they are still made up of Bezier curves, much the same way as 
Finales slurs.


The problem with Finale's engraver slurs is that
a) they are very unreliable, sometimes they do things unexpectedly, 
often only in the final printout, and this has caused me hours of work 
in the past
b) they only avoid collisions with certain articulations and the notes 
themselves (and even that doesn't always work).


Sibelius's magnetic slurs simply avoid collisions. Full stop. With 
everything.


Can you show me an example (scanned if you like) of a slur which cannot 
be done in Finale? I would like to try my luck.


Johannes
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Mark D Lew]

On Oct 30, 2009, at 6:10 AM, J D Thomas wrote:

True.  Slurs in Sibelius 5 and earlier were extremely kludgy and  
most unforgiving.  Not to mention downright ugly.  Cross-staff  
slurs were particularly frustrating and for the most part,  
impossible to use.


Whenever I read of slurs as being one of the reasons where Sibelius  
is inferior to Finale I am taken aback, because for me the slurs are  
probably my greatest source of dissatisfaction in Finale*.  With  
almost everything else you can get Finale to create the output you  
want, even if it requires some tweaking and kludging, but with slurs  
you're just out of luck.  No matter how you move the control points,  
you're still locked into a Bezier curve, and for long slurs there's  
just no Bezier slur that looks good.


I'm intrigued by Johannes recent hint that slurs have improved in  
Sibelius 6.1.  Have they solved the problem of long slurs, or are  
they merely catching up to Finale in this regard?


(* It seems I'm an atypical user. I don't generally think of myself  
as a perfectionist or control freak, but from reading discussions  
here I gather I must be. On almost any score I create I will always  
go through and nudge things around -- beat charts, measure widths,  
lyrics, etc -- because I'm not happy with how they look by default.  
For me, this is just a normal part of the process, not a waste of  
time.  I see typographical aesthetic standards as a goal which I look  
to software to help me achieve, rather than an inconvenience that I  
want the software to deliver me from having to think about.)


mdl
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Johannes Gebauer]

The images seem to be gone, did you take them down already? I was going 
to have a quick look at it.


Johannes

On 30.10.2009 James Gilbert wrote:

That's what I did in my original test, so to be authentic to it, that's what
I put up. 

> 




___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[James Gilbert]

That's what I did in my original test, so to be authentic to it, that's what
I put up. 

> It's worthless to try to compare those because you posted as TIF
> instead of as PDF, which means that one has to open them in a
> graphics program and resize.
> 

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Matthew Gmail]

100% agree with Michael here. I've just converted 2 large files with  
finale 2010, dolet 5 and sib 6.1 and the results are very good. It's  
surprising how much is transferred.  There will be editing required  
but it is well worth the money. Bravo michael!


For my 2c Sibelius 6.1 is very good. Outstanding in fact (a newbie  
perspective). But Finale beats it in several areas. Every time I use  
it I find things that are easier and quicker in Finale. For example,  
flat beams. The use of context menus in Finale is much more intuitive  
and deep. Want to change something in Finale: right click and there's  
a good chance it's there. In sib it seems a requirement to find it in  
the menu, properties tab or know the kbd shortcut.  I can't get my  
head around the layout in Sibelius to get the level of control I am  
used to. Adjusting slurs and lines is much improved in 6.1 though as  
someone else mentioned it's slower than Finale - frustratingly so.


So Sibelius is by no means nirvana: there are swings and roundabouts  
to both applications, especially if you are a control freak.

Matthew

Sent from my iPhone

On 31/10/2009, at 2:22 AM, Michael Good  wrote:


dc  wrote:

The conversion of Finale files into Sibelius is Very Bad,
pace Dolet, XML and whatnot.


This is another area - as is slurs - that is much improved in Sibelius
6.1 compared to the versions you are familiar with. The same is true
for conversions back the other way from Sibelius to Finale using our
Dolet 5 for Sibelius plug-in.

If you have the latest versions of both programs you should be getting
good results, though not yet perfect. For Finale, any version since
2004 should work well if used with our Dolet 5 for Finale plug-in. For
Sibelius, you need 6.1 for the best results in both directions.

Best regards,

Michael Good
Recodare LLC
www.recordare.com


___
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] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[dhbailey]

dhbailey wrote:

John Howell wrote:

At 9:06 AM -0200 10/30/09, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:

At 19:59 -0400 29/10/09, John Howell wrote:
 >At 7:45 PM -0200 10/29/09, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:


 >Up or down arrows, with one's hand already over the number keypad. 
Perhaps not as fast, but not too slow.  Correcting wrong accidentals 
might take more mousing and keystrokes.  But entering notes with an 
external keyboard (left hand only, if your right is on the number 
pad) is by far the quickest of the possible note entry possibilities 
in Sibelius as well.  I'm not a keyboardist, so I've never attempted 
real-time keyboard note entry.



I didn't mean real-time note entry. That would have to be done in 
Hiperscribe, correct?

Harold


I'm afraid I don't know what Hyperscribe is, and it isn't in the Sib6 
Reference Manual under either spelling.


John




Hyperscribe is the Finale name for it.  I think Sibelius calls it 
"real-time entry."




My bad -- Sibelius calls it "flexitime" entry.

--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Bob Morabito]

It's called "flexi-time" as posted earlier..

Bob
On Oct 30, 2009, at 2:43 PM, dhbailey wrote:


John Howell wrote:

At 9:06 AM -0200 10/30/09, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:

At 19:59 -0400 29/10/09, John Howell wrote:
 >At 7:45 PM -0200 10/29/09, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:


 >Up or down arrows, with one's hand already over the number  
keypad. Perhaps not as fast, but not too slow.  Correcting wrong  
accidentals might take more mousing and keystrokes.  But entering  
notes with an external keyboard (left hand only, if your right is  
on the number pad) is by far the quickest of the possible note  
entry possibilities in Sibelius as well.  I'm not a keyboardist,  
so I've never attempted real-time keyboard note entry.



I didn't mean real-time note entry. That would have to be done in  
Hiperscribe, correct?

Harold
I'm afraid I don't know what Hyperscribe is, and it isn't in the  
Sib6 Reference Manual under either spelling.

John


Hyperscribe is the Finale name for it.  I think Sibelius calls it  
"real-time entry."


--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
___
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] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[David W. Fenton]

On 30 Oct 2009 at 14:22, James Gilbert wrote:

> I exported both versions to a TIFF file at 300dpi. The Finale file size is
> huge compared to the Sibelius version. Those can be found at:
> 
> www.jamesgilbertmusic.com/test/Sibelius.tif and
> www.jamesgilbertmusic.com/test/Finale.tif

It's worthless to try to compare those because you posted as TIF 
instead of as PDF, which means that one has to open them in a 
graphics program and resize.

TIF is not a format you should use for posting on web pages, because 
it's not a widely-supported display format (I only know of one 
browser, Safari, that displays it by default).

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[dhbailey]

John Howell wrote:

At 9:06 AM -0200 10/30/09, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:

At 19:59 -0400 29/10/09, John Howell wrote:
 >At 7:45 PM -0200 10/29/09, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:


 >Up or down arrows, with one's hand already over the number keypad. 
Perhaps not as fast, but not too slow.  Correcting wrong accidentals 
might take more mousing and keystrokes.  But entering notes with an 
external keyboard (left hand only, if your right is on the number pad) 
is by far the quickest of the possible note entry possibilities in 
Sibelius as well.  I'm not a keyboardist, so I've never attempted 
real-time keyboard note entry.



I didn't mean real-time note entry. That would have to be done in 
Hiperscribe, correct?

Harold


I'm afraid I don't know what Hyperscribe is, and it isn't in the Sib6 
Reference Manual under either spelling.


John




Hyperscribe is the Finale name for it.  I think Sibelius 
calls it "real-time entry."


--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[James Gilbert]

> Dc wrote:
> Would you care to share this? I'd be interested in seeing both
> versions.
> 
> And thanks for all the other comments.
> 
> Dennis

I found the original Finale version, but not the Sibelius version. I think I
used it to help generate my own house style that was a much like my Finale
house style as I cared for it to be. (I must have deleted the Sibelius
version since I didn't need it anymore). However, having nothing better to
do right now :) I re-created the Sibelius version as follows (in less time
than it took to write this email). I just realized this does not have any
beams in it, so no comparison of beams:
- exported the Finale file via the built in XML export
- imported it into Sibelius retaining the original document formatting and
making no change to the house style
- Adjusted the title/subtitle and composers location by selecting and
dragging down (XML imports seem to put those items too high on the page)
- Loaded in my own house style, resetting the page size to the original
document size (as my house style is letter size, this file is not)
- Respaced the note spacing, optimized the layout, all to the defaults in my
house style

I exported both versions to a TIFF file at 300dpi. The Finale file size is
huge compared to the Sibelius version. Those can be found at:

www.jamesgilbertmusic.com/test/Sibelius.tif and
www.jamesgilbertmusic.com/test/Finale.tif

I will not leave these online for very long. In case the copyright police
are lurking, let me add that the files are for illustrative/educational
purposes and neither the graphics nor my printouts were for anything other
than educational purposes. I'm not sure of the original (legal) source this
was transcribed from but it's around here somewhere.

You might wonder about the oddball page size of the images if you try to
print them. To remain true to the original experiment it is necessary. In
addition to comparing finale output vs. sibelius at the time I originally
did this, I was also figuring out how to export graphics so that I could
import it into my musicpad (which requires a page size of roughly 768 x 1024
pixels). When I printed this direct from the notation software I chose to
'print to fit' in the printer options. 

Hope this helps,
James Gilbert
JamesGilbertMusic.com

PS. If anyone is in Micanopy, FL this weekend for their fall festival, come
see me play the piano at the historical Episcopal church on the main
festival street. I'll be playing Sunday starting at 1pm. If I play
everything I've planned to play it may be one of the few times you'll hear
Dixie and The Stripper played in a church building (and I might add with the
encouragement of people at the church who asked me to play).


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Bob Morabito]

I'm afraid I don't know what Hyperscribe is, and it isn't in the  
Sib6 Reference Manual under either spelling.


John



In Sibelius ,its called Flexi-time™

Flexi-time is Sibelius’s unique intelligent real-time MIDI input  
system.



Bob


On Oct 30, 2009, at 12:15 PM, John Howell wrote:


At 9:06 AM -0200 10/30/09, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:

At 19:59 -0400 29/10/09, John Howell wrote:
 >At 7:45 PM -0200 10/29/09, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:


 >Up or down arrows, with one's hand already over the number  
keypad. Perhaps not as fast, but not too slow.  Correcting wrong  
accidentals might take more mousing and keystrokes.  But entering  
notes with an external keyboard (left hand only, if your right is  
on the number pad) is by far the quickest of the possible note  
entry possibilities in Sibelius as well.  I'm not a keyboardist,  
so I've never attempted real-time keyboard note entry.



I didn't mean real-time note entry. That would have to be done in  
Hiperscribe, correct?

Harold


I'm afraid I don't know what Hyperscribe is, and it isn't in the  
Sib6 Reference Manual under either spelling.


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


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Haroldo Mauro Jr .]

At 12:15 -0400 30/10/09, John Howell wrote:
>At 9:06 AM -0200 10/30/09, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:
>>At 19:59 -0400 29/10/09, John Howell wrote:
>> >At 7:45 PM -0200 10/29/09, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:

>> >Up or down arrows, with one's hand already over the number keypad. Perhaps 
>> >not as fast, but not too slow.  Correcting wrong accidentals might take 
>> >more mousing and keystrokes.  But entering notes with an external keyboard 
>> >(left hand only, if your right is on the number pad) is by far the quickest 
>> >of the possible note entry possibilities in Sibelius as well.  I'm not a 
>> >keyboardist, so I've never attempted real-time keyboard note entry.
>>
>>
>>I didn't mean real-time note entry. That would have to be done in 
>>Hiperscribe, correct?
>>Harold
>
>I'm afraid I don't know what Hyperscribe is, and it isn't in the Sib6 
>Reference Manual under either spelling.
>
>John


Sorry. It's  the tool for real-time entry in Finale. It records your playing 
and produces the part afetr you finish.
Harold
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[John Howell]

At 9:06 AM -0200 10/30/09, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:

At 19:59 -0400 29/10/09, John Howell wrote:
 >At 7:45 PM -0200 10/29/09, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:


 >Up or down arrows, with one's hand already over the number keypad. 
Perhaps not as fast, but not too slow.  Correcting wrong accidentals 
might take more mousing and keystrokes.  But entering notes with an 
external keyboard (left hand only, if your right is on the number 
pad) is by far the quickest of the possible note entry possibilities 
in Sibelius as well.  I'm not a keyboardist, so I've never attempted 
real-time keyboard note entry.



I didn't mean real-time note entry. That would have to be done in 
Hiperscribe, correct?

Harold


I'm afraid I don't know what Hyperscribe is, and it isn't in the Sib6 
Reference Manual under either spelling.


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] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[John Howell]

At 9:38 AM +0100 10/30/09, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Also, can someone tell me whether it is possible to operate Sibelius 
on a laptop with no number keypad without losing too much usability? 
The keypad idea is good, but not if you are sitting in a train or 
plane. My Macbook does not have a keypad function anymore (the old 
iBook had that).


Yes, but it is awkward and slower.  You have to have the keypad on 
your screen (which you need in any case to see what you've chosen), 
and you have to use your mouse to click on it.  I have a full 
keyboard for use at home (as well as a MIDI keyboard), and I simply 
don't do much writing when I'm away from home because it's so much 
faster with those aids.  I do KNOW how to do ASCII keyboard entry; 
it's just annoyingly slow.


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] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Michael Good]

dc  wrote:
> The conversion of Finale files into Sibelius is Very Bad, 
> pace Dolet, XML and whatnot.

This is another area - as is slurs - that is much improved in Sibelius
6.1 compared to the versions you are familiar with. The same is true
for conversions back the other way from Sibelius to Finale using our
Dolet 5 for Sibelius plug-in.

If you have the latest versions of both programs you should be getting
good results, though not yet perfect. For Finale, any version since
2004 should work well if used with our Dolet 5 for Finale plug-in. For
Sibelius, you need 6.1 for the best results in both directions.

Best regards,

Michael Good
Recodare LLC
www.recordare.com


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[J D Thomas]

As a Finale user since v1.0, 1988, and a Sibelius convert now for 2  
years, please allow me to voice my views on these issues (Finale 2007  
is my latest version here):

On Oct 30, 2009, at 4:52 AM, dc wrote:


Johannes Gebauer écrit:
I haven't really looked at Sibelius yet, but the first thing I am  
going to do with it is to try and tweak the output to my liking.  
This is very flexible in Finale, we shall see what Sibelius can do.  
The following items need to be investigated:


-Font
-beams
-slurs
-ties
-layout

Only if I am satisfied with all of them will I switch.


I don't think there are any font issues in Sibelius. You can simply  
use any font you like, just as in Finale.


True, altho I haven't tried replacing Opus font in masse yet.

Then, slurs, and perhaps ties, weren't as tweakable as those of  
Finale in Sibelius 5. I think this has been improved in Sibelius 6.  
Can anyone confirm this?


True.  Slurs in Sibelius 5 and earlier were extremely kludgy and most  
unforgiving.  Not to mention downright ugly.  Cross-staff slurs were  
particularly frustrating and for the most part, impossible to use.   
Personally, I persisted in using Sibelius 5 due exclusively to my  
utter discontent with Finale.  Sibelius 6 is better, to be sure, but  
Finale's  slurs are much more forgiving to adjust and more elegant  
looking.  They're just not worth putting up with the rest of the  
application's sh*t.  Ties are less of an issue to tweak for the most  
part, altho Finale does give far more control.  But I like not having  
to go into Special Tools and then picking another tool inside that  
tool.  I have so many frigging QuicKeys to navigate thru that part of  
Finale, I need a crib sheet taped to the side of my monitor to remind  
me what they are.  In Sibelius, you just grab it and adjust.  Much  
more user-friendly.  Just not as much overall control.


For the rest, I think it's not a question of being able to tweak or  
not, but of how easy and quick it is to do so, especially for  
someone who's been doing this for years in Finale...


Finale to me has always been an 'under-the-hood' fest that allowed  
users myriad amounts of control over its settings and output.   
Sibelius, while eminently customizable and with loads of settings as  
well, may leave experienced Finale users disappointed.  I was at  
first, but hey, I got over it quickly simply because my mindset was  
pointed in that direction.


- The conversion of Finale files into Sibelius is Very Bad, pace  
Dolet, XML and whatnot. In other words, if you have hundreds or  
thousands of Finale files that you need to upkeep, you can't abandon  
Finale. So the best you can do is use both...


I've made this point numerous times here.  I have tens of thousands of  
Finale files for myself and clients that have to be maintained.  I  
have tried converting a few of the smaller ones, sans Dolet, and it's  
a boatload of work and a most unforgiving task.  My feeling is 'who do  
I bill for all this time?'.  No answer, since I cannot justify billing  
a client unless he specifically requests the conversion.  That hasn't  
happened.


- Some publishers I work for require Finale and don't think Sibelius  
is good enough (though their opinion is might still based on older  
versions of Sibelius).


- I'm still not convinced that I'll ever be able to work as fast in  
Sibelius as I do in Finale. Does Sibelius have the equivalent of  
Finalescript, by the way? Can one do a search and replace on a whole  
batch of files? Or change specific fonts in specific places (staff  
names, for instance) in all the files in a given folder?


I haven't tried the search route in Sibelius.  Changing fonts in  
specific elements is a breeze with House Styles, but it's file- 
specific.  You can import/export House Styles and apply them to other  
files, but it's not automated.


As many here have noted, working in Sibelius after coming from the  
Finale experience, is quite different.  Not better or worse… well, I  
won't go there.  Just different.


Johannes, one area you will either love or hate is page layout.  It's  
really quite different in Sibelius and it took me some serious getting  
used to after 20 years with Finale.  But once I did embrace it, it's  
much faster IMO.  Just last month I laid out a 130 page orchestra  
score, 11x17, in Sibelius and I finished it in 1/4 the time it would  
have taken me in Finale.  This including massive optimizing or hiding  
staves, where in Finale, a large edit/cut from the client can cause  
all sorts of problems with layout after the cut due to the way Finale  
keeps track of such things.  TGTools and Patterson notwithstanding.   
Finale = extremely frustrating.  Sibelius = a walk in the park.


J D  Thomas
ThomaStudios



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[dhbailey]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:

On 30.10.2009 dhbailey wrote:
All the keystrokes for anything in Sibelius can be reprogrammed to 
other key combinations -- there's a dialog for doing that in the 
Preferences settings.  I know of users on the Sibelius list who have 
reprogrammed all their numpad things to other keystroke combinations.


So the answer is yes, and you can do it without resorting to a 
third-party keystroke-macro program.


And is there an easy way to switch between keyboard layouts?

Is there a sensible way to reprogramme the keys?

I actually still think it is a short coming of Sibelius not to provide a 
laptop layout out of the box.




I'm not sure what you mean by "sensible" -- it's easy 
enough.  Open the dialog and there's a list of things to 
place in the score on the left -- you highlight one and then 
define your own key-combination to achieve the same result. 
 So, for example, if you're used to using Speedy Entry 
without a midi keyboard, you can define the top-row numbers 
5 to select a quarter note, 6 for half-note, 4 for 8th note, 
etc.  There's a list of menus/categories on the left of the 
dialog, so you select the menu or category you want to 
define new keystrokes for, then to the right of that list 
are all the possible actions under that menu or category, 
and you select one and then define your own set of 
keystrokes.  They do have a Notebook/Laptop set of commands 
you can select, so perhaps you'll find what you want without 
having to define anything yourself.  I did just look at it 
and noticed that not all of the commands have pre-defined 
key combinations, so you'd have to see what's there and what 
you would want to change.  You would really have to open the 
dialog to see what's possible.


Regarding Sibelius' lack of a laptop layout -- many laptops 
have an embedded keypad so all one has to do is to remember 
to hit the Fn key to use the program as it comes out of the 
box.  You don't even have to use the numpad at all -- you 
can simply click on the desired key on the on-screen 
representation of the numpad and the cursor will be "loaded" 
with whatever you selected.  You can do it all with the 
mouse.  Other laptops have a full numpad on them -- my HP 
Pavilion does, as does the one my son is using and also the 
$350 Compaq laptop we just bought for my wife.  The number 
of laptops with no numpad at all, even embedded, is such a 
tiny subset of the laptop market that I can understand how 
they wouldn't have included such a layout, especially since 
you can define all the keystrokes as makes the most sense to 
you without having to memorize some other person's logic in 
assigning the keystrokes.


I'm not sure how easy it is to switch between keyboard 
layouts -- are you asking so that your wife could define her 
own set of keystrokes and then you can define your own set 
which would be different and then you would want to be able 
to switch between those?  The manual is a good one but as 
with all such manuals, you need to know how they chose to 
index whatever it is you want to look up, so you may not 
find it easily.  But the Sibelius group at yahoogroups is an 
excellent resource to ask questions on -- Daniel Spreadbury 
(senior product manager for Sibelius) maintains an official 
(and quite busy) presence there and is always ready to 
answer questions if nobody else answers them first.  And he 
wrote the manual, so he can tell you exactly to find 
whatever it is you are having trouble locating.



--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[James Gilbert]

> Johannes Gebauer écrit:
> >I haven't really looked at Sibelius yet, but the first thing I am
> going to
> >do with it is to try and tweak the output to my liking. This is very
> >flexible in Finale, we shall see what Sibelius can do. The following
> items
> >need to be investigated:
> >
> >-Font
> >-beams
> >-slurs
> >-ties
> >-layout
> >
> >Only if I am satisfied with all of them will I switch.
> dc replied: 
> 
> Then, slurs, and perhaps ties, weren't as tweakable as those of Finale in
Sibelius 5. I think this has been improved in Sibelius 6. Can anyone
> confirm this?

As already said, Fonts are fine in Sibelius. I've even been able to use the
Engraver font from Finale in Sibelius. Although the terminology and methods
are different, I found it quite easy to change the tie settings from the
default (European?) look (which to me look too much like slurs) to something
more to my liking. Slurs have all the handles like Finale's engraver slurs
and can be shaped quite nicely. There also a number of settings in the house
styles option (like Finale's document settings) for changing ties. There are
also a number of beam setting that can be adjusted. All that said, I think
Finale has more parameters that can be tweaked, but on the other hand, the
defaults in Sibelius don't need much tweaking. 

I find layout to be the area where Sibelius is better. But, it is worth
reading the manual on layout and watching a video that is available on the
Sibelius website. The way an experienced Finale user might approach layout
is not necessarily the best way to approach it in Sibelius. Finale is a
little stronger in the options available for music spacing.
 
> For the rest, I think it's not a question of being able to tweak or not,
but of how easy and quick it is to do so, especially for someone who's
> been doing this for years in Finale...

I've been using Finale since 1996 - or whenever the last year they included
the what seems like 20 pounds of printed manuals. I found the transition to
Sibelius to be quite easy. To practice learning Sibelius, and to serve other
needs, I started transcribing a number of piano and organ titles into
Sibelius. For note entry, I do miss the note first then rhythm aspect of
speedy entry, but real-time input and scanning has been faster, but I've
picked up Sibelius' way of doing simple/speedy entry. I'm finding that I'm
working as fast, if not faster in Sibelius. One possible exception is if a
piece has a lot of triplets, Finale seems to handle triplet note entry and
copying of passages with triplets (tuplets) better.
 
> It would be nice to see the same piece, with the same font, done both in
Finale and in Sibelius, and done deliberately trying to get the same
> output. 

I did try this with a one-page easy piano setting of a familiar standard. I
didn't spend a lot of time trying to get all the details exactly the same,
and used the default fonts of each program, but did try to get a fairly
close output. I showed it to a few piano students and others with musical
knowledge (but nobody I'd call a professional) and all but one liked the
look of the Sibelius version better.

> - The conversion of Finale files into Sibelius is Very Bad, pace Dolet,

Agreed. You'll still have to use Finale.

> Does Sibelius have the equivalent of Finalescript, by the way? 

They have "ManuScript". It is far more powerful than FinaleScript, but I
don't think it is nearly as easy or for the faint of heart. It reminds me a
bit of looking at a bunch of Java code. For someone who's done some
programming, not an impossible task to learn. There are literally hundreds
of 3rd party plugins available on their site and probably a hundred or so
included with the program. All of them can be edited yourself. 

James Gilbert
JamesGilbertMusic.com


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[music]

   There is a laptop configuration available out of the box. And if you don't
   like it, you can make any personal changes you like.

   Slurs and ties came in for lots of work in Sibelius 6 and are now greatly
   improved. Beams, slurs, ties and many other things can be changed globally
   via the "House Style" menu and then saved to be used in other scores. Lots
   of precise controls are available in "House Styles". It should be the first
   stop  for  a  serious  worker. Local changes are also possible via the
   properties panel.

   I think you'll find Sibelius very flexible but quite different form Finale.

   Richard Smith

   >
   > And is there an easy way to switch between keyboard layouts?
   >
   > Is there a sensible way to reprogramme the keys?
   >
   > I actually still think it is a short coming of Sibelius not to provide a
   > laptop layout out of the box.
   >
   > Johannes
   > ___
   > 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] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Haroldo Mauro Jr .]

At 19:59 -0400 29/10/09, John Howell wrote:
>At 7:45 PM -0200 10/29/09, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:
>>
>>To me it is inconvenient because when I use Speed Entry with an external 
>>keyboard, I keep my eyes on the screen and don't look at the keyboard. If I 
>>hit a wrong note when entering music, my ears warn me, so I can play the 
>>right note before it is entered. If I play the wrong note in Sibelius, the 
>>wrong note goes into the score, so  I have to stop and fix it. That slows 
>>down the process. it is easier and faster to detect a wrong note and correct 
>>it at the keyboard than to edit the score. Could one edit a wrong note in 
>>Sibelius as fast and easily as moving a finger to an adjacent key in the 
>>keyboard?
>
>Up or down arrows, with one's hand already over the number keypad. Perhaps not 
>as fast, but not too slow.  Correcting wrong accidentals might take more 
>mousing and keystrokes.  But entering notes with an external keyboard (left 
>hand only, if your right is on the number pad) is by far the quickest of the 
>possible note entry possibilities in Sibelius as well.  I'm not a keyboardist, 
>so I've never attempted real-time keyboard note entry.


I didn't mean real-time note entry. That would have to be done in Hiperscribe, 
correct?
Harold
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 30.10.2009 dhbailey wrote:

All the keystrokes for anything in Sibelius can be reprogrammed to other key 
combinations -- there's a dialog for doing that in the Preferences settings.  I 
know of users on the Sibelius list who have reprogrammed all their numpad 
things to other keystroke combinations.

So the answer is yes, and you can do it without resorting to a third-party 
keystroke-macro program.


And is there an easy way to switch between keyboard layouts?

Is there a sensible way to reprogramme the keys?

I actually still think it is a short coming of Sibelius not to provide a 
laptop layout out of the box.


Johannes
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[dhbailey]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Also, can someone tell me whether it is possible to operate Sibelius on 
a laptop with no number keypad without losing too much usability? The 
keypad idea is good, but not if you are sitting in a train or plane. My 
Macbook does not have a keypad function anymore (the old iBook had that).


Johannes

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale




All the keystrokes for anything in Sibelius can be 
reprogrammed to other key combinations -- there's a dialog 
for doing that in the Preferences settings.  I know of users 
on the Sibelius list who have reprogrammed all their numpad 
things to other keystroke combinations.


So the answer is yes, and you can do it without resorting to 
a third-party keystroke-macro program.


--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Funky Bear Music]

I use Quickeys and the regular Sibelius keymapping ability to remap  
the numeric keypad to the regular numbers as well as a few other  
characters like [  ] and \ with no problem.  Ties I moved over to the  
` key.


To be honest, I'm not sure you'd actually need Quickeys to do it, you  
can probably just do it in the regular Sibelius keymapping area, but I  
transferred a bunch of quickeys from earlier versions of Sibelius and  
just have never remapped stuff.



Jeff Tanner
Funky Bear Music
www.funkybearmusic.com



On Oct 30, 2009, at 4:38 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

Also, can someone tell me whether it is possible to operate Sibelius  
on a laptop with no number keypad without losing too much usability?  
The keypad idea is good, but not if you are sitting in a train or  
plane. My Macbook does not have a keypad function anymore (the old  
iBook had that).


Johannes

___
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] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Johannes Gebauer]

Also, can someone tell me whether it is possible to operate Sibelius on 
a laptop with no number keypad without losing too much usability? The 
keypad idea is good, but not if you are sitting in a train or plane. My 
Macbook does not have a keypad function anymore (the old iBook had that).


Johannes

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 29.10.2009 dhbailey wrote:

Not only is Sibelius' approach much more logical for many novice notation 
software users, the output is much more elegant than Finale's if one uses the 
default files of both with no changes.


Well, that's one I have to disagree with. Many years ago Finale output 
could be instantly recognized. At first by the terrible font, Petrucci, 
then, after they gave us better fonts, by the piano brace and the much 
too thin lines. Now, however, Finale's out of the box output is mostly 
quite acceptable.


On the other hand I can recognize out of the box Sibelius scores easily, 
and don't like them much. The font, and especially slurs, look pretty 
awful to my eyes.


I haven't really looked at Sibelius yet, but the first thing I am going 
to do with it is to try and tweak the output to my liking. This is very 
flexible in Finale, we shall see what Sibelius can do. The following 
items need to be investigated:


-Font
-beams
-slurs
-ties
-layout

Only if I am satisfied with all of them will I switch.

If someone can help me with some settings that would be appreciated.

Johannes
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Real-time keyboard entry (was RE: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius)

[James Gilbert]

> > I'm not a keyboardist, so I've never attempted
> > real-time keyboard note entry.
> 
> Well, I *am* one, and after a couple of tries at it, concluded it was
> waste of time as it could just never be accurate enough to not cause
> more trouble than it was worth.

I say whatever is fastest and accurate is best and that's the method to use.
But, as a keyboardist, I'd like to offer these comments for anyone,
especially keyboardists, who have given up on or never tried real-time
entry. Depending on what one is trying to enter I find real-time entry
accurate enough to use in both Finale and Sibelius, at least when playing in
music from an existing print copy. Lately I'm finding Sibelius a bit more
accurate in this area, especially when multiple voices/layers and/or ties
across measures are involved. Two tricks I've found is to play everything
much slower than usual and be as absolutely precise as you can be with the
placement of the rhythm. In other words, trying to improvise a piece of
music at the keyboard I find rarely gives me an accurate result. Secondly,
if possible, play just the right hand, then the left hand (or left then
right). If you have situations with a lot of multiple voices/layers, also
consider entering them on separate passes. If you are in layer 2, real-time
entry will not wipe out what is in layer 1. I'll also add that if you have a
large amount of triplets or dotted 16ths, real-time doesn't always do the
trick. (If I only have a few triplets, dotted 16ths and the like, I'll just
skip them when doing the real-time entry and add them later). One other
thing that might help is experimenting with a legato or staccato touch
depending on the various settings and don't forget those quantization
settings. As to the technique side of playing, I find I don't always play
the piece in real-time entry the way I'd play it in a performance situation
- sometimes I'll play shorter than the given value, sometimes longer,
depending on quantization settings, it just seems to matter most if you hit
the key at the right rhythmic placement. You might try experimenting with
that. You can also change the quantization settings and re-transcribe
trouble sections. Although only slightly faster than speedy entry, it is
nonetheless faster. If you are doing a lot of transcribing of music and have
good originals, you might try the scanning feature of 2010 or Sibelius 6 -
not 100% accurate, but at least in Sibelius, it is faster than step or
real-time entry of the notes. Hope that helps anyone experimenting or trying
to learn step-time entry. And, the piano teacher in me has to add "practice
- correct practice - makes perfect" and is true with doing anything in
Finale or Sibelius.

James Gilbert
JamesGilbertMusic.com



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[David W. Fenton]

On 29 Oct 2009 at 19:59, John Howell wrote:

> I'm not a keyboardist, so I've never attempted 
> real-time keyboard note entry.

Well, I *am* one, and after a couple of tries at it, concluded it was 
waste of time as it could just never be accurate enough to not cause 
more trouble than it was worth. 

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[John Howell]

At 7:45 PM -0200 10/29/09, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:


To me it is inconvenient because when I use Speed Entry with an 
external keyboard, I keep my eyes on the screen and don't look at 
the keyboard. If I hit a wrong note when entering music, my ears 
warn me, so I can play the right note before it is entered. If I 
play the wrong note in Sibelius, the wrong note goes into the score, 
so  I have to stop and fix it. That slows down the process. it is 
easier and faster to detect a wrong note and correct it at the 
keyboard than to edit the score. Could one edit a wrong note in 
Sibelius as fast and easily as moving a finger to an adjacent key in 
the keyboard?


Up or down arrows, with one's hand already over the number keypad. 
Perhaps not as fast, but not too slow.  Correcting wrong accidentals 
might take more mousing and keystrokes.  But entering notes with an 
external keyboard (left hand only, if your right is on the number 
pad) is by far the quickest of the possible note entry possibilities 
in Sibelius as well.  I'm not a keyboardist, so I've never attempted 
real-time keyboard note entry.


Not arguing one way or the other, since I grew up entering pitch and 
duration simultaneously with pencil or pen and ink.


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] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Haroldo Mauro Jr .]

At 18:36 -0400 29/10/09, dhbailey wrote:
>Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:
>>At 16:49 -0400 29/10/09, dhbailey wrote:
>>>As a long-time Speedy Entry user in Finale, I have to say that it didn't 
>>>take me too long to get comfortable with Sibelius' Rhythm First, Pitch 
>>>Second entry mode.  It's not all that difficult, and if you wish to change 
>>>the rhythm after having input something you don't like, it's easy to change.
>>>
>>I really don't see what all the fuss is, since in the compositional mode, I 
>>don't enter either until I've got a good idea what both pitch and rhythm 
>>should be and then it doesn't matter which goes in first.
>>
>>To me it is inconvenient because when I use Speed Entry with an external 
>>keyboard, I keep my eyes on the screen and don't look at the keyboard. If I 
>>hit a wrong note when entering music, my ears warn me, so I can play the 
>>right note before it is entered. If I play the wrong note in Sibelius, the 
>>wrong note goes into the score, so  I have to stop and fix it. That slows 
>>down the process. it is easier and faster to detect a wrong note and correct 
>>it at the keyboard than to edit the score. Could one edit a wrong note in 
>>Sibelius as fast and easily as moving a finger to an adjacent key in the 
>>keyboard?
>>
>
>Perhaps not as totally easy as moving to a different key on the keyboard, but 
>almost as easy -- simply move to the cursor key and push up or down before 
>entering the next pitch.
>

Yes, that's pretty easy, I agree. I suppose one could get quickly used to it.
Harold
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[dhbailey]

Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote:

At 16:49 -0400 29/10/09, dhbailey wrote:

As a long-time Speedy Entry user in Finale, I have to say that it didn't take 
me too long to get comfortable with Sibelius' Rhythm First, Pitch Second entry 
mode.  It's not all that difficult, and if you wish to change the rhythm after 
having input something you don't like, it's easy to change.

I really don't see what all the fuss is, since in the compositional mode, I don't enter either until I've got a good idea what both pitch and rhythm should be and then it doesn't matter which goes in first. 



To me it is inconvenient because when I use Speed Entry with an external 
keyboard, I keep my eyes on the screen and don't look at the keyboard. If I hit 
a wrong note when entering music, my ears warn me, so I can play the right note 
before it is entered. If I play the wrong note in Sibelius, the wrong note goes 
into the score, so  I have to stop and fix it. That slows down the process. it 
is easier and faster to detect a wrong note and correct it at the keyboard than 
to edit the score. Could one edit a wrong note in Sibelius as fast and easily 
as moving a finger to an adjacent key in the keyboard?



Perhaps not as totally easy as moving to a different key on 
the keyboard, but almost as easy -- simply move to the 
cursor key and push up or down before entering the next pitch.



--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Haroldo Mauro Jr .]

At 16:49 -0400 29/10/09, dhbailey wrote:
>>
>
>As a long-time Speedy Entry user in Finale, I have to say that it didn't take 
>me too long to get comfortable with Sibelius' Rhythm First, Pitch Second entry 
>mode.  It's not all that difficult, and if you wish to change the rhythm after 
>having input something you don't like, it's easy to change.
>
I really don't see what all the fuss is, since in the compositional mode, I 
don't enter either until I've got a good idea what both pitch and rhythm should 
be and then it doesn't matter which goes in first. 


To me it is inconvenient because when I use Speed Entry with an external 
keyboard, I keep my eyes on the screen and don't look at the keyboard. If I hit 
a wrong note when entering music, my ears warn me, so I can play the right note 
before it is entered. If I play the wrong note in Sibelius, the wrong note goes 
into the score, so  I have to stop and fix it. That slows down the process. it 
is easier and faster to detect a wrong note and correct it at the keyboard than 
to edit the score. Could one edit a wrong note in Sibelius as fast and easily 
as moving a finger to an adjacent key in the keyboard?

Harold
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Kim Patrick Clow]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 4:49 PM, dhbailey
 wrote:
> And on the Sibelius list there is no discussion at all of "Finale can do
> xyz, why can't Sibelius do it?" and no discussion of "Finale did abc in its
> last upgrade, I wonder when Sibelius will do it?"  The discussions on the
> Sibelius list are as if Finale didn't exist except as a product many of the
> users had abandoned or at least are using in tandem with Sibelius depending
> on the demands of the project and clients of the day.
>

I participate on the Score users list, and there is never any mention
of Finale, Sibelius however is talked about quite a bit. Obviously
they consider Sibelius to be a 2nd tier engraving application, but
quite a few people DO use Sibelius for some sort of "raw work" that
they then port over to Score. That's very telling.

Thanks
Kim

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[John Howell]

At 4:14 PM -0400 10/29/09, David W. Fenton wrote:

On 29 Oct 2009 at 15:43, John Howell wrote:


 And all previous versions
 back to Sib2 can be opened in any more recent version, and re-saved
 in that version for sharing files.  The so-called insurmountable
 difficulties in implementing this don't seem to have bothered the Sib
 developers.


This is absolutely not a fair comment:


Well, I'm not a programmer in any way, shape or form, and you are, so 
I certainly accept your criticism.  (I never managed to type in a 
SINGLE Basic program when I was learning to use my Commodore 64 and 
get it to work!)


But as a USER, I don't really care what the problems are or what 
level they are at.  I only care about results.  And by that 
criterion, better results means a better program.  The program that 
in time may replace both Finale and Sibelius may be in its first baby 
version right now, or it may still be a gleam in some teenager's eye.


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] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Chuck Israels]

On Oct 29, 2009, at 1:34 PM, dhbailey wrote:


Chuck Israels wrote:




Dear David,
I agree, but then it only takes using the "escape" key to get you  
back to the selection tool, and I'm not sure how this function  
would work otherwise.  If there's a better way, maybe we could  
propose it.


Actually, I was unaware that using the escape key served that  
purpose.  Knowing that should make a difference for me -- thanks for  
pointing that out.




You're welcome, David.

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

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[David W. Fenton]

On 29 Oct 2009 at 15:43, John Howell wrote:

> And all previous versions 
> back to Sib2 can be opened in any more recent version, and re-saved 
> in that version for sharing files.  The so-called insurmountable 
> difficulties in implementing this don't seem to have bothered the Sib 
> developers.

This is absolutely not a fair comment:

1. nobody has ever claimed that implementing backward compatibility 
in Finale is an "insurmountable" problem, just that it's VERY 
DIFFICULT, and fraught with all sorts of potential problems of a 
level of seriousness not to be found with changes to any other level 
of Finale. That is, changes to the file format and the engine that 
handles it need to be 100% accurate and reliable -- there is no 
margin for error when handling your users' data. Also, when you're 
dealing with a file format that was not necessarily designed from the 
ground up to be extensible, the problems multiply.

2. Sibelius has the advantage of having started life about a decade 
after Finale (at least), and thus benefited from advances in software 
engineering that post-date the foundation of Finale. It may well be 
that they designed their file format for extensibility from the 
ground up with the idea of providing backward compatibility. Or, it 
could be that they utilized a 3rd-party database engine that already 
had that built in. I think that it's important to compare Finale to 
other apps of the same nature of the same vintage, and in the mid-
90s, database programs mostly didn't support transparent backward 
compatibility. Even Microsoft did not implement that for Access's Jet 
database engine until the version released in 1999, Access 2000 (Jet 
database engine 4.0). If Microsoft with all its resources did not 
consider it important enough to implement until then, or cost 
effective, then I don't think it's surprising that a dinky little 
company like Coda would be able to leap-frog an industry leader and 
implement backward compatibility.

One could argue that Coda/MakeMusic has had time to catch up on that, 
and I do hope that they have a project to modernize their file format 
with an eye towards making files at least partially compatible across 
versions. But there are lots of users for whom that capability has no 
significant value, so I can see why it wouldn't necessarily get a lot 
of resources, unless it can be folded into a larger project to 
modernize the program overall.

But, again, because of the marketing department's decision to go to 
the yearly upgrade schedule, it's pretty difficult to budget a 
project like that, as it would surely need to span multiple years 
because of the project's nature (i.e., it involves the most basic 
structures on which the entire program depends).

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[dhbailey]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:
[snip]> You know, it is really funny how people conceive the 
world from their

perspective.

Sibelius introduced linked parts quite a while before Finale did. When 
this happened there was an outcry on this list that Finale needed to 
have it, too. So eventually MakeMusic reinvented the wheel once more.


As to the topic: My wife needs a notation program for her work now, so 
originally I tried to teach her some Finale. I quickly gave up. We now 
bought Sibelius, which is simply a much easier program to learn for 
anyone not being an expert. Its approach is simply so much more logical...


As a long-time Speedy Entry user in Finale, I have to say 
that it didn't take me too long to get comfortable with 
Sibelius' Rhythm First, Pitch Second entry mode.  It's not 
all that difficult, and if you wish to change the rhythm 
after having input something you don't like, it's easy to 
change.


I really don't see what all the fuss is, since in the 
compositional mode, I don't enter either until I've got a 
good idea what both pitch and rhythm should be and then it 
doesn't matter which goes in first.  In editing/transcribing 
mode, it's easy because the rhythm is already decided, and 
in arranging mode, I find it a lot like compositional mode 
-- for my own satisfaction I have to have a good mental 
image of what both pitch and rhythm should be before 
entering either.


Not only is Sibelius' approach much more logical for many 
novice notation software users, the output is much more 
elegant than Finale's if one uses the default files of both 
with no changes.


That's a long-standing gripe about Finale, one raised over 
and over again on this list -- why don't they put an elegant 
default file together which would make first-time users 
think "Wow, this is incredible!  Hey guys, look at this 
music . . ." instead of "Gee, that's interesting.  How can I 
get it to look more like the published music I buy?"


As John Howell said, the competition is good for both 
products but it's quite evident which product is leading the 
market and forcing the other product to play catch-up with 
each new version.  There is nothing in Finale2010 (or 2010a) 
which is going to have the Sibelius developers scratching 
their heads and saying "We've got to get this idea into 
Sibelius.  How did they do that?"


And on the Sibelius list there is no discussion at all of 
"Finale can do xyz, why can't Sibelius do it?" and no 
discussion of "Finale did abc in its last upgrade, I wonder 
when Sibelius will do it?"  The discussions on the Sibelius 
list are as if Finale didn't exist except as a product many 
of the users had abandoned or at least are using in tandem 
with Sibelius depending on the demands of the project and 
clients of the day.


--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[dhbailey]

Chuck Israels wrote:


On Oct 29, 2009, at 3:46 AM, dhbailey wrote:


Chuck Israels wrote:
It selects almost anything on the page and allows superficial edits 
(like moving expressions and articulations) and then expands into the 
particular tool you need to do more exacting edits. This is more 
difficult to describe than to experience. It is a forward step. I bet 
there are videos in the demo version.


The one thing I don't like about the new selection tool is that if you 
start out using the selection tool, use it to fully edit something so 
that a different tool opens up, when you're finished with that 
editing, the program doesn't go back to having the selection tool 
active.  So whatever tool you were most recently working in (activated 
by the selection tool) remains active, and I find it disconcerting 
because mentally I was working in the selection tool and expect to 
still be working with the selection tool once I finish some specific 
task I started with the selection tool.


It's a petty gripe but it's something I find bothersome.


Dear David,

I agree, but then it only takes using the "escape" key to get you back 
to the selection tool, and I'm not sure how this function would work 
otherwise.  If there's a better way, maybe we could propose it.




Actually, I was unaware that using the escape key served 
that purpose.  Knowing that should make a difference for me 
-- thanks for pointing that out.





--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[John Howell]

At 1:36 PM -0400 10/29/09, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
Slightly off this topic, does Sibelius have anything comparable to 
Finale's managed parts?  That feature of Finale is unbelievably 
powerful.  It elegantly solves one of the biggest time wasters: 
managing separate files for extracted parts.  This relates to the 
selection tool because you can use the tool to make changes in the 
score view and they are automatically reflected in the individual 
parts.  And you can also use the same tools within the parts 
directly to make changes that are maintained separately from the 
score.


Yes, although it's a bit different.  In fact I think Sibelius 
implemented it earlier, but I might be wrong.  On the other hand, 
Mosaic had it 'way back in '92 or '93, and I've never understood why 
it took both of the other programs 15 years to catch up!  Today's 
versions are much more sophisticated and flexible, of course.




While there might be little opportunities for improvement here and 
there, I think Finale has really hit the ball out of the part in 
this area.  I cannot conceive of working without this feature.
To me that is very similar to the scroll view.  Did Sibelius ever 
implement scroll view?  They seemed to be in denial on that for 
about 5 releases, and that feature is really transformational.


Yes, Panorama, which I believe was new in Sibelius 5.  Finale may 
have been first with this.  It can be useful, but I don't actually 
use it a lot.  I'm not sure "denial" is valid (although I've heard 
that it did apply to the original developers).  Each program has its 
own set of priorities, but one company seems to set them for the 
benefit of its customers and the other for the benefit of its 
marketing strategy.


The competition seems to be very healthy, and good for all of us who 
use either or both programs.  And if you can live without the more 
recent bells and whistles, my son still uses Sibelius 2, which he got 
when he was a Sib Demonstrator in college.  And all previous versions 
back to Sib2 can be opened in any more recent version, and re-saved 
in that version for sharing files.  The so-called insurmountable 
difficulties in implementing this don't seem to have bothered the Sib 
developers.


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] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 29.10.2009 Craig Parmerlee wrote:

Slightly off this topic, does Sibelius have anything comparable to Finale's 
managed parts?  That feature of Finale is unbelievably powerful.  It elegantly 
solves one of the biggest time wasters: managing separate files for extracted 
parts.  This relates to the selection tool because you can use the tool to make 
changes in the score view and they are automatically reflected in the 
individual parts.  And you can also use the same tools within the parts 
directly to make changes that are maintained separately from the score.

While there might be little opportunities for improvement here and there, I 
think Finale has really hit the ball out of the part in this area.  I cannot 
conceive of working without this feature.
To me that is very similar to the scroll view.  Did Sibelius ever implement 
scroll view?  They seemed to be in denial on that for about 5 releases, and 
that feature is really transformational.


You know, it is really funny how people conceive the world from their 
perspective.


Sibelius introduced linked parts quite a while before Finale did. When 
this happened there was an outcry on this list that Finale needed to 
have it, too. So eventually MakeMusic reinvented the wheel once more.


As to the topic: My wife needs a notation program for her work now, so 
originally I tried to teach her some Finale. I quickly gave up. We now 
bought Sibelius, which is simply a much easier program to learn for 
anyone not being an expert. Its approach is simply so much more logical...


Johannes

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Eric Dannewitz]

Actually, Sibelius put it a great Parts thing before Finale had it.
And it does save a TON of time (on either program).

And Sibelius has a scroll view, called Panorama view or something.

Now if Sibelius had a speedy entry feature (where you can do all the
pitches first and then the duration), and a way to migrate all my
Finale files to Sibelius without me having to do anything..and
something like TGTools...I'd use it all the time.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Craig Parmerlee  wrote:
> Slightly off this topic, does Sibelius have anything comparable to Finale's
> managed parts?  That feature of Finale is unbelievably powerful.  It
> elegantly solves one of the biggest time wasters: managing separate files
> for extracted parts.  This relates to the selection tool because you can use
> the tool to make changes in the score view and they are automatically
> reflected in the individual parts.  And you can also use the same tools
> within the parts directly to make changes that are maintained separately
> from the score.
>
> While there might be little opportunities for improvement here and there, I
> think Finale has really hit the ball out of the part in this area.  I cannot
> conceive of working without this feature.
> To me that is very similar to the scroll view.  Did Sibelius ever implement
> scroll view?  They seemed to be in denial on that for about 5 releases, and
> that feature is really transformational.
>
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Craig Parmerlee]

Slightly off this topic, does Sibelius have anything comparable to 
Finale's managed parts?  That feature of Finale is unbelievably 
powerful.  It elegantly solves one of the biggest time wasters: managing 
separate files for extracted parts.  This relates to the selection tool 
because you can use the tool to make changes in the score view and they 
are automatically reflected in the individual parts.  And you can also 
use the same tools within the parts directly to make changes that are 
maintained separately from the score.


While there might be little opportunities for improvement here and 
there, I think Finale has really hit the ball out of the part in this 
area.  I cannot conceive of working without this feature. 

To me that is very similar to the scroll view.  Did Sibelius ever 
implement scroll view?  They seemed to be in denial on that for about 5 
releases, and that feature is really transformational.



Chuck Israels wrote:
It selects almost anything on the page and allows superficial edits 
(like moving expressions and articulations) and then expands into the 
particular tool you need to do more exacting edits. This is more 
difficult to describe than to experience. It is a forward step. I bet 
there are videos in the demo version.


Chuck

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 28, 2009, at 5:46 PM, David McKay  wrote:


Thanks Matthew
How is the selection tool better in the latest versions of Finale, 
please?

David McKay


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Eric Dannewitz]

Totally agree with this. It is a pain. I wish they would have it so if  
you clicked somewhere off the page area it would default back to the  
selector.



--- send out and aboot on my iPhone ---

On Oct 29, 2009, at 3:46 AM, dhbailey > wrote:



Chuck Israels wrote:
It selects almost anything on the page and allows superficial edits  
(like moving expressions and articulations) and then expands into  
the particular tool you need to do more exacting edits. This is  
more difficult to describe than to experience. It is a forward  
step. I bet there are videos in the demo version.


The one thing I don't like about the new selection tool is that if  
you start out using the selection tool, use it to fully edit  
something so that a different tool opens up, when you're finished  
with that editing, the program doesn't go back to having the  
selection tool active.  So whatever tool you were most recently  
working in (activated by the selection tool) remains active, and I  
find it disconcerting because mentally I was working in the  
selection tool and expect to still be working with the selection  
tool once I finish some specific task I started with the selection  
tool.


It's a petty gripe but it's something I find bothersome.

--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
___
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] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Chuck Israels]

On Oct 29, 2009, at 3:46 AM, dhbailey wrote:


Chuck Israels wrote:
It selects almost anything on the page and allows superficial edits  
(like moving expressions and articulations) and then expands into  
the particular tool you need to do more exacting edits. This is  
more difficult to describe than to experience. It is a forward  
step. I bet there are videos in the demo version.


The one thing I don't like about the new selection tool is that if  
you start out using the selection tool, use it to fully edit  
something so that a different tool opens up, when you're finished  
with that editing, the program doesn't go back to having the  
selection tool active.  So whatever tool you were most recently  
working in (activated by the selection tool) remains active, and I  
find it disconcerting because mentally I was working in the  
selection tool and expect to still be working with the selection  
tool once I finish some specific task I started with the selection  
tool.


It's a petty gripe but it's something I find bothersome.


Dear David,

I agree, but then it only takes using the "escape" key to get you back  
to the selection tool, and I'm not sure how this function would work  
otherwise.  If there's a better way, maybe we could propose it.


Chuck




--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.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

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Matthew Gmail]

I just keep my finger on the escape key - the most used key in finale  
for me anyway. Personally I would find it problematic if it changed  
back to the selection tool because how does the appl know if you've  
finished doing what you're doing?

Matthew

Sent from my iPhone

On 29/10/2009, at 9:46 PM, dhbailey  
 wrote:



Chuck Israels wrote:
It selects almost anything on the page and allows superficial edits  
(like moving expressions and articulations) and then expands into  
the particular tool you need to do more exacting edits. This is  
more difficult to describe than to experience. It is a forward  
step. I bet there are videos in the demo version.


The one thing I don't like about the new selection tool is that if  
you start out using the selection tool, use it to fully edit  
something so that a different tool opens up, when you're finished  
with that editing, the program doesn't go back to having the  
selection tool active.  So whatever tool you were most recently  
working in (activated by the selection tool) remains active, and I  
find it disconcerting because mentally I was working in the  
selection tool and expect to still be working with the selection  
tool once I finish some specific task I started with the selection  
tool.


It's a petty gripe but it's something I find bothersome.

--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
___
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] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[dhbailey]

Chuck Israels wrote:
It selects almost anything on the page and allows superficial edits 
(like moving expressions and articulations) and then expands into the 
particular tool you need to do more exacting edits. This is more 
difficult to describe than to experience. It is a forward step. I bet 
there are videos in the demo version.




The one thing I don't like about the new selection tool is 
that if you start out using the selection tool, use it to 
fully edit something so that a different tool opens up, when 
you're finished with that editing, the program doesn't go 
back to having the selection tool active.  So whatever tool 
you were most recently working in (activated by the 
selection tool) remains active, and I find it disconcerting 
because mentally I was working in the selection tool and 
expect to still be working with the selection tool once I 
finish some specific task I started with the selection tool.


It's a petty gripe but it's something I find bothersome.

--
David H. Bailey
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Chuck Israels]

It selects almost anything on the page and allows superficial edits  
(like moving expressions and articulations) and then expands into the  
particular tool you need to do more exacting edits. This is more  
difficult to describe than to experience. It is a forward step. I bet  
there are videos in the demo version.


Chuck

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 28, 2009, at 5:46 PM, David McKay  wrote:


Thanks Matthew
How is the selection tool better in the latest versions of Finale,  
please?

David McKay

2009/10/28 Matthew Hindson 


David, I have both of them, Finale 2010 and Sibelius 6.1.

I in fact started using Sibelius 6.1 today and it feels a lot  
better than
previous versions, somehow, if also a bit slower.  The collision  
avoidance

thing is great on some levels.

If you have time to relearn everything and are feeling brave, then  
sure,

why
not give Sibelius a whirl.  Certainly in Australia Sibelius is #1.   
But
particularly if you are using Speedy Entry in Finale, and you don't  
have a

lot of time, then why not stick with what you know.

There will be some relearning required in Finale as well, e.g.  
Expressions.
But the Selection Tool is really so much better and it's worth the  
upgrade

I
think for that at least.

The Dolet plugin is really good in helping to convert scores  
between the 2

applications if needed.

Cheers

Matthew

2009/10/28 David McKay 

My wife and I are using Finale 2004b. One issue I have is that  
when I ask

it
to print 2 copies on my Samsung laser printer SCX 4521f, it prints  
4 or 6

copies each time. Printer doesn't misbehave with other software.

Don't know if anyone has an answer for that one.

But reading the comments about Fin 10 makes me wary of upgrading.  
Is Sib

10
or whatever it is called also full of bugs? Or is it a better  
proposition

than Finale now?

David McKay
www.aussiemusician.blogspot.com
___
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





--
www.gontroppo.blogspot.com
___
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] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[David McKay]

Thanks Matthew
How is the selection tool better in the latest versions of Finale, please?
David McKay

2009/10/28 Matthew Hindson 

> David, I have both of them, Finale 2010 and Sibelius 6.1.
>
> I in fact started using Sibelius 6.1 today and it feels a lot better than
> previous versions, somehow, if also a bit slower.  The collision avoidance
> thing is great on some levels.
>
> If you have time to relearn everything and are feeling brave, then sure,
> why
> not give Sibelius a whirl.  Certainly in Australia Sibelius is #1.  But
> particularly if you are using Speedy Entry in Finale, and you don't have a
> lot of time, then why not stick with what you know.
>
> There will be some relearning required in Finale as well, e.g. Expressions.
> But the Selection Tool is really so much better and it's worth the upgrade
> I
> think for that at least.
>
> The Dolet plugin is really good in helping to convert scores between the 2
> applications if needed.
>
> Cheers
>
> Matthew
>
> 2009/10/28 David McKay 
>
> > My wife and I are using Finale 2004b. One issue I have is that when I ask
> > it
> > to print 2 copies on my Samsung laser printer SCX 4521f, it prints 4 or 6
> > copies each time. Printer doesn't misbehave with other software.
> >
> > Don't know if anyone has an answer for that one.
> >
> > But reading the comments about Fin 10 makes me wary of upgrading. Is Sib
> 10
> > or whatever it is called also full of bugs? Or is it a better proposition
> > than Finale now?
> >
> > David McKay
> > www.aussiemusician.blogspot.com
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
www.gontroppo.blogspot.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Matthew Hindson]

David, I have both of them, Finale 2010 and Sibelius 6.1.

I in fact started using Sibelius 6.1 today and it feels a lot better than
previous versions, somehow, if also a bit slower.  The collision avoidance
thing is great on some levels.

If you have time to relearn everything and are feeling brave, then sure, why
not give Sibelius a whirl.  Certainly in Australia Sibelius is #1.  But
particularly if you are using Speedy Entry in Finale, and you don't have a
lot of time, then why not stick with what you know.

There will be some relearning required in Finale as well, e.g. Expressions.
But the Selection Tool is really so much better and it's worth the upgrade I
think for that at least.

The Dolet plugin is really good in helping to convert scores between the 2
applications if needed.

Cheers

Matthew

2009/10/28 David McKay 

> My wife and I are using Finale 2004b. One issue I have is that when I ask
> it
> to print 2 copies on my Samsung laser printer SCX 4521f, it prints 4 or 6
> copies each time. Printer doesn't misbehave with other software.
>
> Don't know if anyone has an answer for that one.
>
> But reading the comments about Fin 10 makes me wary of upgrading. Is Sib 10
> or whatever it is called also full of bugs? Or is it a better proposition
> than Finale now?
>
> David McKay
> www.aussiemusician.blogspot.com
> ___
> 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] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[John Howell]

At 2:59 PM +1100 10/28/09, David McKay wrote:


Is Sib 10
or whatever it is called also full of bugs?


It's Sibelius 6, now up to 6.1 I believe, and no it isn't full of 
bugs.  And it won't be upgraded until they have some real 
improvements to offer.


Like any software, you might agree or disagree with some of the 
programmers' decisions, and the big new deal in Sib6 is automatic 
layout, which saves a lot of time but some of which's decisions you 
might not fully agree with.  However, various aspects of it can be 
turned off if you choose to.  Oh, and a new chord symbol process, 
which a few people simply don't care for (although I'm not sure why), 
but which I've had no problems with (other than a font problem, which 
was quickly solved by Sibelius' on-line and very responsive Senior 
Product Developer).



Or is it a better proposition
than Finale now?


That depends entirely on your own work habits.  They are different.

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] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Carl Dershem]

David McKay wrote:

My wife and I are using Finale 2004b. One issue I have is that when I
ask it to print 2 copies on my Samsung laser printer SCX 4521f, it
prints 4 or 6 copies each time. Printer doesn't misbehave with other
software.

Don't know if anyone has an answer for that one.


I Use FinWin2004b, and my printer (a HP) gives me no problems I don't 
cause myself.


cd
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/#
http://members.cox.net/dershem
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] recent Finale versus recent Sibelius

[Eric Dannewitz]

Not sure if you can blame finale or your computer. You should make  
sure all the drivers for your printer are up to date.


Is this a windows or a mac computer?

You might also have your finale pages set too large for the printer.  
Perhaps your template as well?


There are a lot of things to step through before blaming finale.


--- send out and aboot on my iPhone ---

On Oct 27, 2009, at 8:59 PM, David McKay  wrote:

My wife and I are using Finale 2004b. One issue I have is that when  
I ask it
to print 2 copies on my Samsung laser printer SCX 4521f, it prints 4  
or 6

copies each time. Printer doesn't misbehave with other software.

Don't know if anyone has an answer for that one.

But reading the comments about Fin 10 makes me wary of upgrading. Is  
Sib 10
or whatever it is called also full of bugs? Or is it a better  
proposition

than Finale now?

David McKay
www.aussiemusician.blogspot.com
___
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