Other Finale users out there?

[clarkus]

I\'ve gotten a few interesting responses from folks who are running Gigastudio from Finale. My (now more focused) question is whether there is any persuasive argument for Gigastudio over modules & hardware samplers run from a MIDI time clock, as what I am tring to do is stay with Finale as my primary-use program. It sounds like if I am not taking the trouble to fine-tune levels, attack & so on (as I can do with ProTools Cubase, etc.) then I am giving up one of the main advantages.

Or is that untrue? Is Gigastudio, accessing a high-quality orchestral library, going to blow away the competition, even with rough mock-ups of a score?

I have a hunch that my life will be kept simpler (less mysterious problems to trouble-shoot) if I stay with modules. Feedback on this is also most welcome. I\'m trying to gauge the pain / gain factor.

Thanks in advance ....

[JonFairhurst]

I use Sibelius rather than Finale with Giga. Sib lets me put program change commands on the staff, so I can go from arco to pizz to spiccato, etc. Works great. If you can do that with Finale, Giga will work well for you too.

For the final version I export the MIDI from Sibelius to a sequencer and add the expression envelopes. I can either draw them in with the mouse, or record myself wiggling the fader. This makes a big difference in that I can round off the attacks and releases and add swells and stuff. The only limitation is that the notes are quantized, rather than played in by hand. Sometimes it sounds mechanical, but for most music it works okay.

Just confirm that Finale can do program changes mid staff. If so, you\'re good to go.

Regarding modules vs. Giga, both will benefit from expression control. The Giga libs will generally sound much better out of the box. Giga libs with many velocity layers will respond nicely to the dynamics in your score. If you take the time to select the best articulations for your parts, Giga will blow the modules away.

[EmmSee]

I know that Finale can do program/channel changes mid-measure. You can apply the changes to particular notes or positions in the measures.

Good luck, definitely go with Giga over the hardware modules.

[clarkus]

Well, I thought I was going to to be getting rather than giving on this topic, but here I can offer something.

Yes, Finale allows you to switch to a different sound in a given stave for, say, pizz. strings rather than arco, or a ponticello effect, or legato as opposed to off-the-string bowings. This is done (in my experience) with the expression-assign tool. The missing piece for those worried about a score dotted with unsightly expression markings is that Finale gives you the option to check whether or not you want these markings to show up on the \"screen only\" or in the score. \"Screen only\" means it stays pristine on the printed page.

I imagine Sibelius has a similar option, but I don\'t know.

This is very interesting feedback I am getting about Gigastudio as a partner for Finale. I know that it isn\'t done much & that is why I am soliciting feedback. The reason I want to stay with Finale as my platform is that otherwise all changes to a given piece wind up in various iterations - some on the \"demo\" (in Logic, or Cubase, or what have you), and others in the Finale score. I\'d like to stay in one place, if possible.

I know some composers write in a sequencing program & then dump it into Finale or Sibelius as a Midi-file. I\'d rather write a passage once - with articulations, dynamics & so on - and be done with it. The shortcoming, at this point in history, seems to be in the programs we are given: notation programs being so data-intensive that they don\'t leave room for sophisticated Midi & audio editing options: sequencing & audio-editing programs having only rudimentary notation capacities. I hope this will not always be the case.

Meanwhile, I\'d like to be able to write in Finale, as I\'ve done for some years now, and be able to make great demos. I\'m just trying to see what the \"best case\" scenario is.

I now own one of the new Akai samplers & will be exploring that in order to provide my hardware-based studio with some higher quality sounds ... with brass, for instance, which seems to be where every sound module falls down.

But none of this is a done deal - I\'m still making up my mind what the best way to go is. I have an opera being produced here in Berkeley on 06 that will involve some Midi-fied orchestration in the pit. There, unlike in the world of my studio, I am interested in getting things as rich & true-to-life as possible. So I may become a Giga-user yet.

[EmmSee]

When it comes to real playback dynamics, you\'d probably want to use a sequencer to make mod-wheel adjustments, and to possibly humanize the midi with tools a sequencer will offer.

[clarkus]

Yeah, I\'m strating to get the picture that natural-sounding dynamic & tempo fluctuations are pretty hard to achieve without dropping my files into a sequencing program.

[JonFairhurst]

Lee asked some great questions. I\'ll reply in the case of Sibelius...

> \"How do you handle things like key switch data?\"

Easy. I put a MIDI Note-Off message on the staff with the correct note value. For notation I prefer only using program changes, so I edit my Gigs to use them in a consistent manner. The keyswitches vary so wildly from program to program that I can never remember them.

> \"Can all those non-sounding data notes be hidden but still play?\"

Yes. Any note or MIDI message can be shown on the screen, but not printed or published.

> \"Also, how do you deal with all the banks that deal with rapid alternation by mapping the same note range to two separate regions? What about all the special efx, gestures, runs, etc. that are not mapped to a correct pitch/rhythm?\"

I can make any note or group of notes silent, and I can make any note or group of notes hidden. The flexibility is high, but it can be a PITA!

I use both notation and sequencer programs, depending upon the task. For complex counterpoint I prefer to compose with a notation program. For less complex music I go straight to the sequencer.

The main problem I have is notating for percussion. I need to spend more time working with percussion maps to find a decent solution. Fortunately, I\'ve done mostly quartets/chamber music with notation. I go right to the sequencer for percussion bits.

> \"When one uses a notation program to do a mock-up, does one simply not worry about having accurate looking (for a human player) notation?\"

Not necessarily. I like seeing my counterpoint on the staves together. My brain just doesn\'t connect piano rolls together the way it works with notated music. And writing by hand doesn\'t give me the musical playback/feedback. So I like using a notation program for *some* composition. If it\'s just a lead sheet type piece, I\'ll scribble something out and play it into the sequencer.

Whether or not I want to make a fully notated score is a separate question. In that case the note playback is mostly just to proof it.

[clarkus]

To Lee and others interested in this issue of \"Why are notation programs so clunky as regards playback, and when are these software designers going to get with it?\" I wanted to share some correspondence I just has with Finale; things are looking up , it seems.

The pdf file I cannot steer you to here, but those who are interested could contact Finale & they\'ll share it with you. Basically, the (new) program looks for instructions like \"rit\" and \"crescendo\" and gives you something reasonably lifelike.

Probably a big shrug for those whose home-base is a program like Cubase, but great news for us Finale & Sibelius addicts.

Subject: RE: ? ? \'s regarding Finale
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:51:15 -0600
Thread-Topic: ? ? \'s regarding Finale
Thread-Index: AcQCEcUUYahEWOpvTCStr1Gpyb8hswAD10/
From: \"WinSupport\" <winsupport@makemusic.com>
To: \"clark suprynowicz\"

Hello,

Finale 2004 (which will be released for OS9 very soon, but is already out for OSX), has a feature called Human Playback. What is does is it reads the score when it plays back. So if you put in a tempo change, or a dynamic change (gradual or sudden), or you put in a trill or tremolo, Finale will automatically play it. Overall, this feature will respond to virtually anything that you put into the score. It even reads the parts to see what instrument they are written for, and if a effect is not appropriate, it does not play it. This feature also has several style settings, just as 21 Century, or Classical, or Romantic. There is also a Custom Setting were you tell Human Playback what to respond to. To give you an example of what this can do, here is the page on our website about Human Playback (http://www.finalemusic.com/finale/features/ftr-human-playback.asp). It gives a side by side example of with or without HP. Note that all of this is done in Finale, without a sequencer.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Phil
Technical Support Representative
MakeMusic!, Inc.
Coda Music Technologies

Subject: RE: ? ? \'s regarding Finale
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:42:52 -0600
Thread-Topic: ? ? \'s regarding Finale
Thread-Index: AcQCJ/4uJFzV2JKBQsCvajXH9bZuJAAARgig
From: \"WinSupport\" <winsupport@makemusic.com>
To: \"clark suprynowicz\"

Hi, Phil -

So - just to be clear - both tempo and dynamic markings are respected with what is called \"smart font?\" I assume, if so, parameters are adjustable (i.e. \"molto rit.\" can be adjusted as to howe \"molto\" it is?)

Thanks!

CS

Hello,

Yes the parameters are adjustable. Here is a pdf file of all the text items Human Playback responds to.

Phil
Technical Support Representative
MakeMusic!, Inc.
Coda Music Technologies

[JonFairhurst]

Hi Lee,

I\'m on the PC platform, so Logic is a dead-end for me. I don\'t care for the Cubase UI much, so that leaves Cake/Sonar. My old Cakewalk program has horrid notation, and Sonar hasn\'t yet risen to the top of my spend-money-here list. Yet. Sonar\'s MIDI capabilities aren\'t substantially greater than CW Home 7, and it doesn\'t fix some of the complaints I have about the CW UI. I don\'t know about how good Sonar\'s notation is, but I *really* like Sibelius\' UI, so I\'m content for now.

Regarding playback Sibelius has a plugin that translates hairpins and \"cresc\" markings into dynamic controls. While it works from a technical standpoint (and is good for proofing a score), it doesn\'t sound quite human. I prefer recording or drawing the expression into the sequencer to make it \"just so\".

Regarding timing Sibelius 3 has a feature called \"Live Playback\". I can select one or more notes and adjust their timing and duration, so it\'s easy to compensate for slow attacks. I can also tweak the odd velocity \"thud\" with the Live Velocity adjustment. This is really cool as I will sometimes add a slide articulation into a phrase, and the velocity doesn\'t exactly match. I can tweak that one note\'s velocity as I need without having to screw with the dynamics text (pp-ff).

Really the only thing I can\'t do is to paint my own expression envelopes into Sibelius. I\'m hoping that Sibelius 4 solves this. Then I can have a single file with all of the notation and performance data linked together.

Even so, if I\'m doing a techno, pop or jazz piece, I\'m going straight for the sequencer. No need for notation, and the piano roll is just fine.

The other thing I\'d like to see added to Sibelius for performances is synchronization. Sib3 doesn\'t do audio or video tracks. Sure, they could add A/V in the next version, but it would likely be feature poor. If I can sync Vegas, then I get the best of all worlds, and they can focus on notation, rather than A/V. VSTi support would be great as well.

Oh, yes. For completeness:

Person 1: Sibelius rules. Finale stinks.
Person 2: No way. Finale rules. Sibelius stinks.
Bam, bam, bam.
Person 3: They both stink. My sequencer rules.
Bam, bam, bam.

Hey, we had to get that into the thread somewhere!

But seriously, it\'s been great discussing what the tools do well and poorly or not at all - without the need to bash or fawn. When I find the perfect audio tool/sample-lib I\'ll let you all know. images/icons/smile.gif

[clarkus]

This is really helpful, you guys - thanks for the chance to look at this question of noation versus sequencing programs & hardware versus software. Obviously if you just listen to the manufacturers\' claims you never hear about the downside.

Interesting about the virtue of modules: people don\'t stick up for them much, it seems, once they\'ve heard what is possible with software. But I do get the sense from reading the many tear-your-hair-out notes on the message board that my life will be less complicated if I can get what I need from hardware.

Is anyone out there using sound libraries in a harware sampler? I now have an Akai Z-8, which allows downloading of sounds from CD-ROM.

[clarkus]

So here\'s a three million dollar question (well, more like three thousand & then a few months of learning-curve) - how do Sibelius & Finale stack up right now as far as thier increasing abilities to recognize crescendo / decrescendos and tempo changes? I\'m a Finale user but I\'d jump camp if I thought it would avoid a lot of heartburn.

Like, Jon, I would like to keep my scores in one place without bouncing from program to program. I don\'t need to spend endless hours tweaking, though I know the sky is the limit for those who are willing - I\'d just like a reasonable approximation of the louds, the softs, the slows & the fasts, with fairly natural-sounding samples.

Anybody out there using Finale 2004? How\'s it working out? I

[JonFairhurst]

Sibelius does really well with tempos. Ritardandos and accellerandos are respected, and you can insert a specific tempo at any point in the score.

It also does well with inter-note dynamics. You can define ppp-fff however you want. It does crescendos and descrescendos nicely by way of velocities.

Neither the tempo nor the inter-note dynamic controls are as minutely controllable as tweaking a tempo curve or velocity curve, but it\'s good enough for 99% of what\'s needed.

There is a plugin for implementing hairpins as intra-note dynamics. I haven\'t found this to be that effective though. Each instrument and phrase requires a fairly custom curve to sound just right. Also, I find that some notes need to be rounded down at the end. There\'s no plug-in for that. Sure, a simple volume ramp is better than a flat note, but it doesn\'t mean that it will sound at all human.

I\'m hoping that Sibelius will add expression curve editing in the next major version.

I\'m not sure how Finale compares in these regards. I bought Sibelius over Finale because I preferred the Sibelius note entry scheme.

[clarkus]

Thanks, Jon. While I am sorting this out, I am re-discovering the joys of hearing it in my head (hairpins, tempo changes, etc.). I suspect there will be a game of catch-up going on for a while as far as getting the machinery to sound like what I am imagining. But there\'s some progress over here - thanks for your advice ...

[unison]

Great subj.! images/icons/smile.gif

Being a finale user I have yet to come up with a solution for controlling keyswitching with the program. Would be so great with VSL. Any ideas?

Nicklas

[Bill]

Keyswitching is great for live playing, but no good for a notation programs like Finale. My solution it to edit the instruments, and change Keyswitching to control by CC16 instead. Then I use non-printing score articulations to send the CC change messages to Giga. You could also send CC messages from standard notational articulations by setting their playback properties.

[clarkus]

Sorry to be an ignoramus, but I am an outsider on some of this terminology. What\'s \"keyswitching?\"

If it\'s of any help, a very savvy buddy of mine has an interesting solution when he needs to play back multiple staves wherein one voice changes (such as the flute switching to alto flute). He will create a whole new arsenal of assigned sounds (a new preset) with that one voice changed. And that new preset kicks in at the critical moment. The new settings are inaudible to the listener, of course (except for the one that needs to be audible), as he has kicked in a new templet that is identical but for that one new setting.

This is his solution to an issue that comes up for him using Digital Perfomer on a Mac program (he\'s not a Gigastudio guy), so I don\'t know if it\'s applicable for you GS guys. But it\'s always good to share battle stories.

What\'s \"Keyswitching?\"

[maestro]

I did an arrangement of a Cherubini choir piece some time ago. I used VOTA for the choir in GS160 and my digital pipe organ via a midi port.

I wrote everything in Finale and used an extra staff for each voice for the key-switching (vowels change in VOTA). It came out pretty good but the score looked kind of funny with the key-switch notes!

[Bill]

Hi Clark,

Giga has the facility to have many sets of samples mapped to the same note (i.e., key on your keyboard) In “GigaSpeak” these multiple sets are called Dimensions. Typically, the different sample sets would be of different playing styles for the instrument, like legato, staccato, detache, etc

Giga provides several ways to switch between these Dimensions, one of which is “Keyswitching”. Keyswitching uses notes out of the Instruments range (usually at the bottom of the keyboard) to switch to a different Dimension (set of samples).

[clarkus]

Thanks, you guys. I\'m getting a study course, here.

CS

[JonFairhurst]

In addition to keyswitching, you can use layers for your articulaitons.

One difference between keyswitching and layering (say, with the mod wheel) is that a keyswitch will change the *next* note you play. It lets you anticipate the next articulation required. Layering changes the sound immediately, even during a sustain.

Both features are handy, depending on what you\'re trying to accomplish.

[RoyU]

I realize this topic is about Finale but I just thought I\'d mention for those who might be reading this thread but aren\'t already committed to a notation program that there is a program called Overture that does a very good job combining excellent notation with very good MIDI control. You can enter music using regular notation (like Finale or Sibelius) and also edit MIDI data (like volume) graphically. Overture also has an excellent patch managing system (unlike Finale), for those who use hardware modules. I use Finale but often turn to Overture when I need to do serious MIDI work. Check out the demo at www.geniesoft.com. (\"http://www.geniesoft.com.\")