 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: jendereedknife
Date: 2007-08-01 12:06
Dear List,
I will probably need to purchase a music notation program in the near future. The last program I used was Finale 2000 about 5 years ago, and I was no pro at using it.
I would like to hear the pros and cons of the new version of Finale, and about other programs with their pros and cons.
Thanks!
Tom Blodgett
President,
Jende Industries, LLC
www.jendeindustries.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clockwiser
Date: 2007-08-01 13:06
I prefere Sibelius. I have used both Finale 2007 and Sibelius 4, they are both very good but in my opinion, Sibelius is easier to use and quicker.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: marshall
Date: 2007-08-01 15:17
I don't really have a prefrence, I use Finale more just because its accessable, but I wouldn't stop somebody from buying Sibelius.
The main difference is the feel of the program. The way it feels to me, Sibelius was created by musicians who learned how to program to create notation software. Finale was created by computer geeks who wanted to create notation software to show of their stuff. Basically, it seems to me that Finale has an easier-to-learn program for anyone but Sibelius seems to be more musician-friendly.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2007-08-01 17:13
They are both good. The longer that they are around, the closer they get. Finale gets a bad rap. It used to be much harder to negotiate in its earlier versions. It is much easier to use now. I personally find it easier to use than Sibelius. Try getting demos of each and checking them out. It is probably about whatever you get comfortable with.
Just like choosing favorite mouthpieces or reeds, everyone has their own preferences. I know a couple of professionals who do scores for everyone from pop acts to the Boston Pops who use Finale on the Mac. I have had discussions with these people recently on the merits of both applications and received endorsements from both on all of the positive features of Finale and why they continue to use and prefer it over Sibelius.
I honestly think that you can't go wrong with either. Both have their advocates and have positive features.
Post Edited (2007-08-02 01:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-01 19:14
Lots of Finale can be a bit cumbersome and unintuitive, but it's my impression that you can do more (especially contemporary notation and nitpicky engraving modifications) with it than Sibelius. Finale has a lot of really great, really cool features that are not immediately obvious. If you really dive in (I took a class, even), there are tons of tools in there that make things so much easier. If you keep doing everything the first way you found to do it, you'll probably be very frustrated.
Also of HUGE help to me is a programmable keypad I bought. There are lots of things that require repeated patterns of keystrokes in Finale, and I've mapped each of them to a single button. There's also software out there that can do it, just haven't tried that.
If you do go with Finale, take the time to learn as many keyboard shortcuts as you can. I find all the clicking infuriating, and there's a key for most of the commands.
The competition is great for the programs, as Finale and Sibelius each keep trying to outdo the other and integrate the other's successful features.
(Finale 2006 user, currently notating a 20-minute 40 part piece for wind band)
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-08-01 19:40
I envy a colleague who has a midi keyboard hooked up to his computer. He sets the note pitch with his left hand on the keyboard and the duration on the numeric keypad. He wails --but he's too lazy to go back and add the slurs, accents, ...
I use Finale (version 2006d) by mouse clicking on the staves (slow). The hidden tricks are key to productivity with Finale, and they are truly hidden. Learn to get into the manual. I understand that one can purchase a hard-copy manual; and that is something I should probably do.
I mostly just play, but there is always a back-log of work to do with it. Keeps me out of the computer games.
They will nag you for annual upgrades of questionable worth.
I don't know a thing about Sebelius.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Wanamaker
Date: 2007-08-01 20:29
Last summer, after using Finale for about 20 years (since it was a prototype), I switched to Sibelius for quite a few reasons:
1. Finale could not keep up with changing technology (Mac OSX, for example)
2. Finale became a haven for the amateur musician - The bells and whistles overshadowed the fact that to most composers (like myself) its primary function was as a notation program. (Bugs in the bells and whistles are what delayed by 2 years an OSX version of Finale!)
3. Finale's scores still look archaic.
4. Finale remained counterintuitive and cumbersome while Sibelius appeared to cater to the professional musician.
5. The bugs in Finale are constant - as are the updates.
6. Sibelius is less expensive.
Despite the fact that I used Finale for 20ish years, I learned the basics of Sibelius in about 2 hours. Although, I still occasionally "reach" for Finale commands, I really haven't looked back.
I am able to complete publish-ready scores more quickly and easily with Sibelius that I ever was with Finale.
I have looked at Finale 2007 about a month ago, and found it to be as cumbersome as ever. Although the Finale folks are trying to match some of Sibelius's unique features (linked score and parts, for example), they really aren't getting it right...
I do not have an endorsement for either product. I hope this is helpful. Good luck!
Gregory Wanamaker
http://www.gregorywanamaker.com
Gregory Wanamaker
http://www.gregorywanamaker.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-01 20:57
Gregory makes a good point with #2. The orchestral samples introduced in 2006 are nothing but an irritation to me, and lots of attention seems to be going into making it sound nice, rather than making it easier to make nice-looking scores.
As for #3, I agree as well, partially. You *can* make great-looking scores in Finale, but the defaults are abysmal.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ZCClarinet
Date: 2007-08-01 23:36
Having used both for at least 3 years, I suggest Sibelius. I do some work as an instructor with a high school band in the summer, and I regularly put parts in and adjust them to challenge the student more... or less, depending on the student. I also use it for warm ups, print-outs, and exercises.
In my own studies, I found it rather helpful as an aid when I was working on ear training and sight singing (though, if I could have fit a piano in my dorm room, that would have been nice too).
And of course there's actual composition.
I like Sibelius simply because I find it easier to use for handling both solo and ensemble scores.
Either way, the best thing you can do to introduce yourself to either program is to take those Bach studies for Violin and Cello and put them in _entirely_ by computer keyboard. No mouse. They move at a nice pace for learning as far as the density of steps, leaps, dynamics, articulations, and accidentals. The Voxman Classical Studies book has a good deal of material to do this.
After a page or three of that, you'll know the basics of the system very well and it won't have taken much time.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2007-08-02 03:01
Maybe these comments will help:
I upgraded from Finale 2000 (which you apparently have) to 2006 and I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what was different: Sure, you get the Garritan orchestral sounds (which, most agree, is not worth the upgrade price) but that's about it. The Garritan library is, quite frankly, marginally better than most general MIDI sound libraries. So, you go from having a "bad-sounding" rendition of your music to a "slightly less-bad-souding" rendition of your music.
Then 2007 came out and added a useful feature: dynamic part linking. So, in seven years, they've managed to add ONE useful feature. But there are plenty of ways to get around the dynamic part linking, especially since it is very buggy and not the panacea that it is sold as (for example, change to an enharmonic in the part and, you guessed it, it's not linked to the score).
So, I don't have any experience with Sibelius, but I do use Finale very frequently, mostly for orchestral work. And I'll tell you that if you move from 2000 to 2006 or 2007, you're likely not to see much difference.
Unfortunate, but true...
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-02 03:47
Well, that's not quite fair. There were a whole bunch of little changes between 2000 and 2006. My upgrade from 2004 to 2006, while similar on the surface, had a whole bunch of little features that actually made things quite a bit nicer. Can't think of them now, as I made the switch about two years ago and didn't keep a list, but there was quite a bit of "oh, that's nice, it'll save me a crapload of time!" especially with the plug-ins they include.
If you're not doing intensive stuff, though, you might not notice so much.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: connie
Date: 2007-08-02 20:06
One of the Finale upgrades that made life tremendously easier for me (putting in notes by hand, not midi) was that you can use the number keypad for note duration (5 for quarter note, 4 for eighth, etc), then either type the letter of the note ("a" for A, etc) or use the up/down arrows to move to the right pitch, and hit "enter". I can do it entirely one-handed with my right hand, and it didn't take long to get the numbers under my fingers... Much easier than mouse clicking. On the laptop, now, that's a little trickier, but I have a number keypad with a USB that functions like the number pad on my desktop computer. I think this change was made around 2004.
Don't know Sibelius, but Finale is (slowly) improving. More people in my area use Finale than Sibelius, so it's easier for me to share files with them.
connie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2007-08-03 00:25
One other consideration is what's common in your area - most of the Sibelius users I know are in Europe; most Finale users in the US. So if you want to share files in your local area, it's best to consider which is the dominant format where you live.
Still, I'd check to see what the major differences are between the 2000 version you have and the latest. It might not matter - there's no software that I use that is updated/expanded/fixed as slowly as Finale... There's also no software that I use that has as archaic an interface as Finale. I think it was v. 2006 where they bragged about the fact that Finale would respond to the mouse scroll wheel (but not in some dialogs)...???
I'm pretty sure there are demos of both - so give them a shot and see which works for you.
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jendereedknife
Date: 2007-08-05 08:15
Dear Everyone who responed to my post:
Thank you all for your help!
Sincerely,
Tom Blodgett
President,
Jende Industries, LLC
www.jendeindustries.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris_C ★2017
Date: 2007-08-05 14:38
I don't have experience of the full Finale or Sibelius versins, but I use Finale Printmusic - it's MUCH cheaper than the full version and suits me fine for the amount I need it.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2007-08-20 12:49
I tried both demo versions and found I couldn't work Sibelius! I chose Finale Printmusic in the end.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2007-08-20 15:02
One thing that has not been mentioned yet is the respective program's efficacy in recognizing and converting scanned music.
Finale 2007's scanning-recognition software (SmartScore Lite) has improved greatly since Finale 2005.
I recently imported a scanned horn part by Franz Shrecker to convert to viola.
I couldn't believe the accuracy rate of the conversion. The complex rhythms that got recognized and successfully rendered would never have been recognized in earlier versions of Finale.
This is obviously a boon to clarinetists who want to import a Bb clarinet part and transpose it for A clarinet (or D clarinet to Eb clarinet, C clarinet to Bb clarinet, etc.)
In my experience (and judging from others' experience) Finale remains unintuitive to the professional player. This might be the inevitable byproduct of the power of the program. It is, after all, designed for the professional composer/copyist/arranger who gets into the inner workings of the software to tailor it to his needs.
For the player who is arranging in his down time (during a flight or after everyone has gone to bed) Finale can be vexingly abstruse and arcane.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Aldrich
Clarinet Faculty - McGill University
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre Metropolitain de Montreal
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre de l'Opera de Montreal
Clarinet - Nouvel Ensemble Moderne
Artist/Clinician - Buffet-Crampon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2007-08-20 23:43
jendereedknife,
I guess I'm the only one who uses a program other than Sibelius or Finale; namely, Forte Standard, by Midisoft. You can get a trial version here:
http://www.midisoft.com/idd/Default.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=1
I first got Forte about 7 years ago, when it was called Desktop Sheetmusic. There appears to be a program by that name still available, and Forte Standard is very similar in operation and features to the original program. Operating system changes are the only reason for my change to the newer version.
I tried Sibelius recently (wanted to print Artie Shaw's "Man from Mars" chart, which was created with Sibelius), but found it unfriendly and gave up.
If I were buying a program now, and didn't already have hundreds of *.mmm Forte files, I would get Finale so that I could share with others more easily.
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-08-21 15:48
i spent 3-hours writing the 12 major scales in Finale last night.
No, it took just a few minutes to make the notation. The other 2+ hours were in getting it formatted. I wanted 2- measures per line with the page sideways to give me lots of room for annotations. double bars every other measures with key sig changes --taking the scales up from Chaleumeau E to pinch Eb in series. With all the key signature #s and bs marked.
Finale consistently altered the width of the measures, and often failed to understand the key signature changes, applied them to all following measures, transposed notes up off the right end of the piano keyboard.
And the, finally, when I printed it Finale rotated the paper and changed measure length so that I have to go back and deal with this mess again.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
