Urgent help wanted from Sibelius Wiz!

[Thomas_J]

Ok I have a big problem in Sibelius. For some reason my 2nd violins have been arranged ABOVE the 1st violins and there is seemingly NO way too rearrange instrument tracks. I\'ve read all the help on this topic in the manual and there simply does not seem to be an option to rearrange the staffs.

This is totally unacceptable! The way my score looks now is (skipping ww+brass):

Vln.II
Perc.1
Vln.I
Vla.
etc...

So any help from a Sibelius wiz would be greatly appreciated! it\'s a pretty urgent matter because of a deadline by tonight!

Thanks in advance,
Thomas

[apessino]

Thomas,

you don\'t say which version of Sib you are using.. anyhow, the following should work with all of them: make sure you have a backup copy, just in case, then triple-click on your violin II staff, hit ctrl+c to copy (or ctrl+x to cut).

Add a new instrument (hit \"I\" and then create a new Violin II staff), it will appear in the correct position in the score as long as the \"Create in default order\" checkbox is set. Now triple-click on the new staff, hit ctrl+v and you are done. If needed you can now delete the wrongly positioned staff (triple-click + delete).

How did you get in that situation anyhow? It\'s not easy with Sibelius to get staves to \"jump over\" other staves (in fact, it should not even be possible).

Good luck..

A-

PS: if you haven\'t already, make sure to check out Sibelius 2.1 which should be available very soon (I am using a beta version), it is quite an amazing piece of software. In fact, I would go as far as calling it the most elegant, most beautiful software product I\'ve ever used. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

--------
Andrea G. Pessino (not female, just Italian)
Blizzard Entertainment

apessino@blizzard.com

[Thomas_J]

Wow thanks a lot Andrea, you saved my day! I\'m trying it now!

I\'m using version 2.0. I\'m a former Finale user but all the exciting hype around Sibelius had me convert http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif I will definitely check out 2.1 when it is out. I have no idea how I got into this state, but now that you provided me with a solution, I\'m happy!
I still tend to get a little annoyed at this piece of software.

Like now a new problem surfaced. I\'m trying to write out dynamic markings but I find myself copying and pasting a lot.

Say I want all the instruments to play PP somewhere, surely there has to be a fast way to insert PP on all staffs with one simple function? Do you know a shortcut?

Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it!

Thomas

[apessino]

Thomas,

there are, indeed, much faster ways.. do a quick search in your manual for \"Multicopy,\" one of the coolest things new in Sibelius version 2.

To get a taste try this: enter a dynamic (say, pp) or even a set of dynamics (pp, then hairpin, then ff). Select them and hit ctrl+c to copy (either by \"rubber banding\" or ctrl+click). Do not select the music in the measure, just the dynamics. Now, select as many staves as you like, even regions in them, and even discontinuous selections by using ctrl+clicks. Hit ctrl+v, and there you go, dynamics copied and aligned to all selected staves.. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif I also suggest you take a look at the search and selection filters, which allow you to do very quick changes to your selections and then operate on the results at once (there are some bugs related to articulations in version 2.0, all of these were fixed in version 2.1).

There is a lot more than you can do with multicopy, but that\'s the general idea. As rule, with Sibelius there are few ways of doing things, as opposed to a multitude of methods to achieve the same goal as in other programs, but these fundamental ideas are quite flexible and can be combined into very powerful procedures.

I have used Sibelius non stop since the day it was introduced on Windows (back in 1998) and I love it with all my heart. Version 2, in particular, was like a dream come true. Sibelius is the only program I\'ve ever used that has become completely second nature to me, when using it I don\'t think about anything else except the music itself.. the program and its intricacies completely disappear into my subconscious, as if I were simply writing with pencil and paper (except, of course, that I am orders of magnitude more productive and I don\'t have to pay a copyist when I am done). If you are an engraver there might be some programs out there that allow you much more control over your output (even tho\' Sibelius is getting pretty darn close..) but if you are a composer, well, then there is simply no comparison.

My humble opinion, of course. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif I hope everything works out for you, and let me know if you have any other problems..

A-


[This message has been edited by apessino (edited 04-16-2002).]

[lifeforce]

Andrea! Great to know that you use this forum, man. I\'m a classical composer in California and we\'re having a bit of a discussion about Sibelius right now in THIS forum over in the Software Issues section. (And talking about your articles in Siblings, I might add!)
http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum2/HTML/002108.html (\"http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum2/HTML/002108.html\")

Well dang, I only have about 97 questions for you, but dont worry I wont ask them YET. I\'m willing to experiment - and have only had the full Sibelius 2 for like half a day! I was so excited to see how great the Sibelius2 DEMO worked with my GS that I went right out and bought it - today. What a joy for classical musicians.

Its working fine with GigaStudio for me - absolute luck really given the memory problems that some other folks are apparently having. So I\'m really thrilled and going to be trying many things with it now that I have the basics going. But as I get beyond the basics I hope you wont mind a few more questions.

Good music to you (and thanks Thomas_J for your help when I was just getting started with GS - so youre using GS and Sibelius too eh?), LifeForce (LifeForceExplorer@yahoo.com)

[apessino]

Hello there, lifeforce!

I generally only read the \"sample libraries\" discussion (limited time, plus here\'s where the action is most of the time.. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif ), so I missed the other thread, sorry! I am glad Sib2 is working fine for you with GigaStudio. Personally, I\'ve always used dedicated machines for Giga, and I have never had any problems controlling them from Sibelius. In any case, version 2.1 fixes those annoying Windows-resource issues, so things will be happy for everyone soon.

I have come a long way since I wrote those articles for Siblings (which was actually in the summer of 2000, I was just starting with Giga then), and I am thrilled by the results I have been able to get since Sibelius 2 was introduced. Two things:

1) I have completely given up on trying to use Sibelius as a sequencer. There is just no possible way to get a sketch out of Sibelius that even comes close to what one can do by playing the parts in. Once this is understood..
2) ..and in spite of it: I _still_ want to get the best possible playback out of Sib, simply because it is such a wonderful compositional tool and because it makes me very happy to hit P and hear my music come to life as I am writing it!

My main sequencing rig is centered around a P4 2GHz DAW running Nuendo and Cubase, with lots of Giga PCs, effects, digital mixers and everything else. I only sequence directly when I need to make \"production\" pieces (which is a rare occurrence these days, seeing that we are in the final phases of development for WarCraft III and my programming duties take up about 20 hrs. a day). Ordinarily, most of my day is spent writing the games, and my nights using Sibelius to write music for the concert hall (hopefully.. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif ) which, besides games, is what I am most interested in.

For my work with Sibelius I use two playback environments:

a) at my home studio I use Sibelius on the P4, with Nuendo, to drive three dedicated Giga PCs. Each of the Giga machines is assigned a task in the playback of the score, and each one loads a GigaStudio performance associated with a particular piece. Most of the time my smallest machine (a P3 600) is dedicated to Woodwinds, and I load all of the \"lite\" programs in the Dan Dean Solo WW. They work _extremely_ well with Sibelius because they are very uniformly and beautifully played.

A second machine is dedicated exclusively to strings (my highest performance Giga station, a 1.5GHz Athlon with 2Gb of memory and a humongous RAID drive). I use a selection of programs from GOS, some articulations from Miroslav ensembles and a few others.

The third machine (a 1GHz P3 with a two fast SCSI drives) is dedicated to brass, percussion and the occasional extra instrument. I use Dan Dean Solo Brass, again the best for use with Sib, some Quantum Leap and some Advanced Orchestra. For piano and harp I use my old Kurzweil K2500RS.

Each machine has a Hammerfall sound card in it, and I send out two lightpipes from each into the DAW where I run Sibelius and Nuendo concurrently. Here I route all of the audio tracks and then send them back out to effects, plugins, etc. You get the idea.. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

b) my other Sibelius environment is much simpler: for playback I use a Korg Karma, which is surprisingly good and Sibelius supports it directly using the Triton sound set, an EMU Virtuoso 2000 with the Advanced Orchestra card in it and a JV2080 with the two orchestral cards, the world card and the vocal card in it (driving any of the JV modules from Sibelius is a royal pain in the behind, you have to go through gigantic hoops to make it work, but some of the sounds are excellent). All of the above goes into a Yamaha O1v mixer, then out to a bunch of effects, to a Delta 66 in the computer and also to my trusty Alesis ML9600 masterlink.

Version 2 of Sibelius made it an order of magnitude easier to drive external equipment, especially because to use Sib effectively you end up writing a lot of explicit MIDI commands (~ commands) in the score. With version 2 text management and text style functionality have been greatly improved, and it is now very easy to search/filter and otherwise manipulate commands in the score without interfering with the music itself. Sib version 2.0 also has an improved \"playback options\" dialog which allows you to disable many automatic MIDI behaviors (if, for example, you don\'t want Sibelius to send program changes to Giga on its own). Version 2.1 also adds the ability to send Program Change messages immediately when they appear in the score (ordinarily Sibelius attempts to send program change messages as late as possible, why this is the case is complicated to explain..) which makes controlling certain devices, such as the aforementioned JV series, much easier to do.

Anyhow, whatever questions you might have do not hesitate to ask, I hope to be able to answer them! I doubt that many people here would be interested, tho\', so maybe we should take this discussion to e-mail.

Oh, and.. good music to you too! http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

A-

[Thomas_J]

Thank you ever so much! I got all my problems sorted out, printed out the score and voila!

Can\'t thank you enough!!!

Sibelius 2.1 sounds exciting!


Thomas

[astrt4]

\"Version 2 of Sibelius made it an order of magnitude easier to drive external equipment, especially because to use Sib effectively you end up writing a lot of explicit MIDI commands (~ commands) in the score.\"

This is actually one of the biggest reasons that I consider Finale to be much better for working with GigaStudio than Sibelius. For people like ThomasJ who use a dedicated sequencing program for making the actual recordings, Sibelius makes a decent notation program to work along with it. But for those of us who want to make the notation program be as much like a sequencer as possible, I find that Finale is by far the best choice.

[gungnir]

I guess I may be missing something, but I\'ve been using Sibelius as a sequencer for over two years now so I\'m not sure where it fails in this regard. I also use it to drive dedicated pc\'s for Dan Dean woods, Vitous and Garritan strings, etc. and find that the sheer elegance of inputting notes on virtual parchment and immediately evoking whatever articulation you wish is the ultimate way to compose music. I personally find all the silly looking gizmos and faders and controller-drawing in dedicated sequencers a distraction once you\'re used to a Sibelius only environment. It seems the people most uninterested in developing Sibelius as a sequencer are the people at Sibelius, who seem to be unaware of the potential of developing the ultimate composition program and remain focused only on notation for some peculiar reason. However, once you setup your own communication language between Sibelius and GigaStudio and go through all the aggravation, you are empowered with the most positive working environment a classical musician can ever hope for.

Andrea, where do you feel the dedicated sequencers excel over Sibelius, once you learn all the various controller messages and so on? Because I\'m working on mainly classical pieces, as well as scanning in various symphonies, etc, I may not need things like syncing to video, etc, and may be overlooking some other factors, but nothing has become too apparent to me yet. I am, however, always interested in practical user comments on the Giga-Sibelius interface.

Cheers, Don

[apessino]

>>
Andrea, where do you feel the dedicated sequencers excel over Sibelius, once you learn all the various controller messages and so on?
<<

I can think of at least a few technical issues with Sibelius (inability to anticipate or delay MIDI events, inability to specify a MIDI context, such as device/channel, for each staff from within the score, etc.) but these are definitely solvable, and not show stoppers.

The REAL problem, in my opinion, and the only reason why Sibelius cannot compete with a sequencer for playback is that I am not playing the parts in! Try playing back a phrase in Sibelius, then try the same thing by performing it yourself.. even better, try comparing an actual orchestral performance to the Sibelius interpretation of its score. Regardless of how good/bad it \"sounds\" the problem is how it is phrased and timed, IMHO. A sequencer gives you the tools to play in each or any part, as needed.

As I said, I also love the immediacy and the feel of composing with Sibelius and a solid rack of sample playback, I just don\'t think that the results one can expect from such a setup can go beyond a \"reasonable sketch.\"

All the best,

A-


[This message has been edited by apessino (edited 04-18-2002).]

[apessino]

>>
This is actually one of the biggest reasons that I consider Finale to be much better for working with GigaStudio than Sibelius.
<<

Well, I used Finale for 10 years before Sibelius came along, I still own it (Fin 2002) and use it occasionally. I have also driven samplers/etc. with it, and let\'s just say that I respectfully, but _completely_, disagree.. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

Cheers,

A-

[lifeforce]

And now for a small technical question about interfacing GigaStudio96 w/Sibelius 2.1, from your local naive new user of both programs.

I\'ve got Sib configured (ironically, considering this discussion) as my \"sequencer in GS. Under devices in Sib Ive indicated:

Playback:
Microsoft Wave Table NO
EWX2496 (my soundcard) NO
Nemesys Midi Port 1 YES
Nemesys Midi Port 2 YES

Input:
EWX2496 (highlighted)

This tested fine - I heard my loaded gig instrument run up and down the scale nicely when I clicked Test in Sibelius. But then I still had no sound (which seems odd when youve passed a test!) UNTIL I discovered a further little playback box needing to be set in the dialog for selecting Instruments.

Under Instruments in Sib, playback is always set to \"Nemesys Port 1\" by default til I change it to \"EWX2496\" and VOILA - I have beautiful sound with GS and Sibelius. So this does it BUT when I return to a score thats in progress the next day, after off/on, this little box in Instruments has persistently changed its way BACK to \"Nemesys Port 1\" again and I hear nothing unless I set up each instrument in Sibelius from scratch again changing this setting as I go. Hope this is clear.

The bnttom line is that I dont really know what this playback setting under \"Instrument\" is for and how to get it to STICK the way I want it. I\'m sort of tweaking these device settings each time I open Sibelius until I get sound! What am I missing?

[astrt4]

------------------------------------
>>
This is actually one of the biggest reasons that I consider Finale to be much better for working with GigaStudio than Sibelius.
<<
Well, I used Finale for 10 years before Sibelius came along, I still own it (Fin 2002) and use it occasionally. I have also driven samplers/etc. with it, and let\'s just say that I respectfully, but _completely_, disagree..

Cheers,

A-
----------------------

But there are giant features in Finale that Sibelius lacks in regards to manipulating MIDI data. For example, with Finale\'s MIDI Tool, you are able to select areas of the music and apply changes to the MIDI data, such as increasing the volume or decreasing it, changing note durations, etc. There really isn\'t any equivalent for this type of thing in Sibelius. Also, in Finale you actually do have a way of recording in a track and capturing all continuous data, so it can act as a sequencer, although it is certainly not in the same league as something like Sonar for this purpose.

[gungnir]

\"But there are giant features in Finale that Sibelius lacks in regards to manipulating MIDI data. For example, with Finale\'s MIDI Tool, you are able to select areas of the music and apply changes to the MIDI data, such as increasing the volume or decreasing it, changing note durations, etc. There really isn\'t any equivalent for this type of thing in Sibelius\"

Why not merely dab in a few ~C7,127\'s using alt-clicks below the phrases in question for volume fluctuations, or ~C16 messages to influence the releases of the Giga instruments. To anticipate/delay a midi event, just place it where you want it to take effect. I find that the level of fine tuning, still within the elegance of the Sibelius environment, considerable. Indeed, what is very intoxicating is how you can zero in on the individual notes, in, for an example, those exquisite violin arpeggio figures in Brahm\'s Third Symphony, Third Movement, and add dynamic nuances and inflections to each individual note very quickly, so that these figures are expressively shaped in a manner that is almost fun to do, especially since you can instantly hear the effect via the superb GigaStudio libraries that are currently available.

What is necessary is to configure all your GigaStudio instruments into one common format (dynamic layers, release parameters, etc.) so that you can then evoke specific responses using Sibelius messages that will influence all orchestral voices in the exact same way. At that stage you have, in effect, a customized midi communication language between the two most innovative musical composition tools available. You can install these messages in the word menus for chord symbols and technique (cont-K and cont-T), so that a palette of articulations are available immediately by right clicking. Then you have instant access to about 80 midi messages for detache, staccato, tremolo, sul tasto,etc, as well as the various dynamics, attack speeds, releases,etc. (Do not do this unless you are an advanced user and back up your registry in case you want to return things back to the original). I am only pointing out here that it is possible to create a \"hot-rod\" version of Sibelius that allows one to make Sibelius into a much better sequencer than it thinks it is.

Another necessary step is to change Milo Cooper\'s hairpin plugin to push out controller 1 (modwheel) messages rather than volume (7) messages, as obviously you want the changes in timbre that accompany dynamic changes via layered instruments.

Andrea makes the very valid point about the problem of direct real-time input using Sibelius, however I have found that to a significant extent, the inherent phrasing in well recorded samples such as Vitous and Garritan have enough variance in attacks and character that the results with direct input vs. actual playing the phrase often is totally convincing, provided of course that the required tempo nuances are constantly applied.

Rather than belabor the topic, I suppose the point I\'m trying to make is, IMHO, the future of computer assisted composition lies in the development of a comprehensive interface between these two exceptional music programs. This specific topic is being addressed with increasing frequency on the Sibelius user site, as people intuitively realize the massive potential. If Sibelius finally wakes up and stops heralding their silly defeatist default comment \"we are after all a notation program, not a sequencer\" and make a few simple adjustments to become a sequencer also, it instantly becomes the most comprehensive music composition tool on the planet.

Because I have taken a fair amount of time to \"soup up\" Sibelius, I have found personally that once you\'re used to conjuring a full orchestral palette (Garritan strings, Vitous for espressivo, Dean woods and brass, etc.) by merely dabbing GigaStudio articulations with alt-clicks on virtual parchment to add nuances to each phrase, there\'s no turning back. You just never want to go back to that sleazy world of silly looking sequencer gizmos and bells and whistles, but instead dwell within those beautiful Sibelius scores, imagining Sibelius himself, late at night in his snowy woodland retreat, quill in one hand and his obligatory glass of rum in the other, wishing he could only actually hear that cello ostinato in Lemminkainen\'s Return, and then pressing \"play\" in his honor.

[Thomas_J]

Spending time with Sibelius and Gigastudio is a waste imo. Sibelius and Finale are not dedicated sequencers and does not allow for the same kind of recording flexibility as Logic and Sonar etc.

No point in discussing this at all. I find it hard to believe you\'re getting \"totally convincing\" phrasing in Sibelius, unless of course you are easily convinced http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

I use my soundcard\'s internal 2mb soundfont bank with sibelius and in fact I could\'ve gone by with an FM synth setup because all I really need is to be able to hear wrong notes quickly in my scores.

Playing back a standard score in sibelius, hooked up to gigastudio with a couple of the standard orchestral instruments gives the most crappy renderition of the piece imaginable. I feel that even GM sounds work better most of the time.

Anyway, thanks for helping me out Andrea! I\'m still learning Sibelius.

Thomas

[astrt4]

---------------------------------
Why not merely dab in a few ~C7,127\'s using alt-clicks below the phrases in question for volume fluctuations, or ~C16 messages to influence the releases of the Giga instruments. To anticipate/delay a midi event, just place it where you want it to take effect.
----------------------------------

This really doesn\'t add the same type of control or speed that you have in Finale. You still don\'t have the ability to highlight a region and tell the program to scale all the durations or volume levels by 125%, or even gradually move in velocity or volume from 50% to 100% over the selected region. With that type of interface you really have to put in a bunch of individual messages all over the place. But Finale also handles that type of entry better with its metatools. I have all of my various articulations for my instruments set up to different positions on the mod wheel, and with metatools I simply hold 1 and click for a mod wheel 10 marking, 8 for a mod wheel 80 marking, etc. This is certainly quicker than typing in MIDI messages each time or even selecting them from a list. But a list is also readily available if you choose to work that way.

Sibelius does have a very nice feel for most things, and I enjoy working with it. Like ThomasJ says, neither program is really equipped for dealing with recorded phrases, although I do believe it\'s possible to get better results than what he suggests here. It depends a GREAT deal on the type of music you are doing. For the music he has composed and let us listen to, I completely agree that Finale and Sibelius are not going to cut it well (unless you spend a LOT of time with Finale\'s transcription mode). The only point I\'m trying to make is that Finale does have more capability in the area of controlling MIDI data than Sibelius does.

I\'m sure Sibelius and Coda would love to expand the sequencing capabilities of their programs, but they have very good reasons not to. As is the two companies have enough competition between the two of them, and I doubt that they have the resources to spare to focus on more than what they already are. There are still giant gaps in both programs as far as notation is concerned, and I actually am happy that they are staying focused on overcoming these flaws before entering too much into a market in which neither company is large enough to compete with giants like Cakewalk.

[ed buller]

My

Just what I wanted to see , a debate on the relative merits of Sibelius Vs Finale . I have been using Sibelius for a couple of years now and I am pleased the new version tidies stuff up alot . But I am a little disapointed that they still have not improved the midi stuff much . Yes you can enter a lot of Midi text messages and hide them ( how does the ~ symbol work on Sib2 ? I can\'t seem to turn it on) and if you do it in the right parts of the score it seems to work . I have been working on doing orchestral mock-ups for a while . I got a very convincing \"Venus\" from Holst and a bit of Scherazade (although I am not yet happy with the solo violin , hurry up Gary!# ) but it is a struggle .

I downloaded a demo of Finale and straight away it looks so much more imposing .And not as classy . Although it prints out just fine . Unfortunately there is no manual . Is there a website you could point me at , to learn how to use it,s midi functions before I drop the cash ?

I think for the most part a dedicated squencer is better suited towards realistic play back but I agree wholeheartedly with gungnir\'s romantic prose about the delights of writing your music on a score and hearing it back . If only someone would write the definative program . A sort of Sibelius meets Logic5


I live in hope

ED

[astrt4]

---------------------------------
Unfortunately there is no manual . Is there a website you could point me at , to learn how to use it,s midi functions before I drop the cash ?
----------------------------------
If you\'ve downloaded the Finale 2002 demo, you can pull up the WinHelp by pressing the F1 key. It isn\'t as complete as the full user manual, but it does help you get started using the MidiTool. You can also access the user forums on the Coda site or get free technical support from the company. If I were you, I would play with the demo a long time before purchasing the program. Sibelius is a fine program, and although Finale is generally considered to be faster and more powerful by the engraving world, it can be tough to switch over once you have learned a different program. I\'m a Finale expert, and although I\'m trying to learn Sibelius better, I find it hard to use much in the same way that Sibelius users find Finale difficult. It\'s tough to switch from one to the other, so unless you have specific needs that aren\'t being fulfilled in Sibelius, or you happen to know which company will be going out of business first, I generally don\'t recommend switching from one to the other.

[mschiff]

I did a study (and purchased) all of the major notation products for a client. He had been using Encore for years, and needed something that addressed more midi ports (Encore supports only 2) and that worked in Windows 2000 (Encore did not at that time). I am a very sophisticated computer user (have been consulting for 18 years) and was shocked that neither of the major products was \"usable\" in my opinion, and that of my client.

If you are composing for orchestra, then you want to be able to hear the score the way it will be played by the orchestra. Simply hearing wrong notes, is barely useful, and that is really all you can do with the playback in Sibelius. The user interface in Sibelius is a masterpiece. I was able to use it effectively immediately without even having to read the help file or manual. But the midi implementation is non-existent. This makes it virtually useless, IMO. If you have to move everything to a sequencer (I use Sonar for my own music and love it) and then you want to make changes to the score after hearing the orchestra play the piece, it is a nightmare.

Finale, on the other hand, has very powerful midi capabilities, and seems to be an extremely powerful piece of software, but the user interface is so horrible that it would take months just to learn how to use it effectively. I equate it to the Wordstar of scoring programs. If you don\'t know all the keyboard shortcuts, you can barely function.

Fortunately, for my client, Encore was bought by Gvox, and they released a version that runs in Windows 2000. It has a great user interface, and good midi implementation as well. Unfortunately, it still handles only 2 midi ports (32 channels), and the support from Gvox is atrocious, both for sales and technical support. So we are back to using Encore until Sibelius adds decent midi editing support, or Finale totally revamps their user interface (actually the latest version is somewhat better, but they still have a LONG way to go).

If only Sibelius and Finale would combine forces and use Finale\'s power with Sibelius\' interface, it would be a killer notation program that would allow you to preview your score the way you want it to sound.

-- Martin

[PatS]

The playback capabilities of GenieSoft\'s Overture 2 (soon to be Overture 3, I hope) are about as close as you can get to a decent MIDI sequencer in a notation program. In the current version, some notation features (e.g., crescendo/decrescendo and articulation marks) do not automatically playback as such, but the developer, Don Williams, is implementing them, among other things, in the forthcoming version. Fortunately, the program does include the same Piano Roll window found in Cakewalk\'s Pro Audio 9 (called \"Graphic\" in Overture 2), so you can easily tweak CCs to your heart\'s content. The \"Assign Instruments\" window is identical to that in Pro Audio and Sonar. Moreover, you can access the assigned instruments in the Track List window, which looks remarkably similar to the Pro Audio Track window (sans the MIDI/Audio display window).

For more information and a demo, go to www.geniesoft.biz (\"http://www.geniesoft.biz/\").

Pat

[astrt4]

---------------------------------------
Finale, on the other hand, has very powerful midi capabilities, and seems to be an extremely powerful piece of software, but the user interface is so horrible that it would take months just to learn how to use it effectively. I equate it to the Wordstar of scoring programs. If you don\'t know all the keyboard shortcuts, you can barely function.
----------------------------------------

I\'m curious... what keyboard shortcuts do you have to know in order to function? Through my years of teaching Finale, I\'ve seen a lot of variation in the time it takes new users to pick it up and learn it. With the later versions of Finale (2000 and beyond), I\'ve seen many people pick it up and be able to do major projects after just a couple of days of learning on their own (along with the tutorial book and user manual). I\'ve also talked to people who have used the program for many years and don\'t know how to use it at all. The interface logic makes a great deal of sense to some people and very little to others. The same is true of Sibelius. Both programs sport a relatively small number of rules which when learned make figuring things out in the programs much easier.

[lifeforce]

PatS - Thanks for the heads-up on Overture. To use the CC features you describe does it require that you be running Pro Audio ? Or do you just mean that these features just function in the same way in Overture if you\'re already familiar with them in Pro Audio? - LifeForce (not a cakewalk user, thats why I ask)

[Craig_L]

I have to agree with PatS on Overture - the most instinctive and flexible notation sequencer around (my opinion anyway). Hasn\'t got all the bells and whistles of Finale but makes up for it in different ways - ease of use to mention one. The graphical window is great for controlling tempo or dynamics (crescendos etc in volume or velocity) and it\'s easy to \'grab\' certain notes in a score and assign them to a different voice whether it be for dynamics FFF, mf, p or articulation - tremelo etc.
It would be really great if you could record tempo changes and volume on the run.

[PatS]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lifeforce:
Or do you just mean that these features just function in the same way in Overture if you\'re already familiar with them in Pro Audio?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they function in the same way and don\'t require that you have Pro Audio or Sonar installed. Check it out in the demo. Select \"Graphic Window\" from the Window menu. Next, select \"Control\" from the left-most drop-down menu, which also includes \"Velocity,\" \"Wheel\" (pitch bend), \"ChanAft\" (aftertouch), and \"Tempo.\" From the adjacent drop-down menu, select the desired CC number (e.g., \"11-Expression\"); the list of numbers and names is not exhaustive, but you can manually enter any MIDI value not listed. Finally, click on the pencil or line tool button, and start drawing in the lower \"Controllers\" pane.

Pat

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 04-21-2002).]

[gungnir]

I quess I feel the essence of this thread is too relevant to drop, and there are several pheriphal issues that can be discussed.

I however may require to send mp3\'s to back various points I may attempt to make, and because I don\'t get the time to visit this site as much as I would like, I don\'t know how to do that. So, for the sake of discussion on the optimal composing environment (which should be relevant to everybody here), could somebody tell where I could send an MP3 (about 1.5 megs) so that forum users could reference it?

Thanks for the help.

[apessino]

>>
Just what I wanted to see , a debate on the relative merits of Sibelius Vs Finale
<<

Exactly what we were trying to avoid, but I guess there is just no escaping it.. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

Thomas, I am glad I could help a bit, do not hesitate to ask again if you have any other problems.

Regarding the issue of \"realistic\" playback from notation programs I must restate that I agree with Thomas. I drive Giga from Sibelius (as I have done from Finale) more for personal enjoyment than anything else. The results are just not comparable to what \"performance\" sequencing can give you.

As far as control messages, plugins, etc. I did everything you list, gungnir, and then some. I have Sibelius scores with over 80 staves, many dedicated exclusively to control messages, layering, and every plugin, trick and technique I could devise to increase the amount of control I had over sample playback. It just is not enough.. The best way to work, at least for me, is compose in Sibelius without worrying about playback or samples (I use Giga and the other things I listed, but I might as well just use a Roland SC8850 or a soundcard..), then have it played by humans, if possible, otherwise sequence it in Cubase.

Moving on.. it is true that Finale has some sequencing features. As I\'ve said I used the thing for a decade and I am quite familiar with it. Nonetheless, as a sequencer it is awkward and inefficient, as it is, in my opinion, as a notation package. The fact that it does many things badly is hardly a selling point in my book. I much rather have tools that do less, but efficiently and out of my way.

Which brings me to my other point: somehow many people come to equate \"badly designed\" with \"powerful,\" I\'ll be damned if I understand why. Whenever someone talks about Finale they say things like \"it\'s hard to use, but oh so powerful!\" Well, if it\'s hard to use, then it isn\'t powerful! In fact, I don\'t even agree that Finale is \"hard to use,\" it\'s not like the program creates some innovative abstractions that open up new work methodologies once you \"learn\" them, nothing of the sort. It\'s just that mundane tasks are clumsily implemented into a minestrone of tools.. layers upon layers of functionality piled up just to make sure that not a single \"feature\" is missing, with little concern for how the whole thing comes together at the end.

Of course, Finale does give you more control over every aspect of your score.. no question about that. Perhaps if one were a professional engraver that degree of flexibility would become a desired asset, perhaps even a required one. Many copyists have learned to cope with the tool out of sheer necessity, and now they are big supporters simply because they are familiar with it, they have invested a lot in it, and, well, they overcame the hurdle, therefore they are \"special.\" http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif All of which, in my opinion, still points to the same conclusion: lots of features, bad design. If you are given scores to recreate verbatim than maybe Finale is a better choice, but I must stress the \"maybe\" here because I have seen people do miracles with Sibelius, and that was before version 2 added a whole bunch of refinements to Sibelius\' ability to control layout. It really has to be be something \"out there\" before the scale tilts toward Finale, IMHO.

For composing, for communicating ideas, for teaching.. well, for all musical activities other than staring at the finished page I find Sibelius to be an order of magnitude more effective, more pleasant, more elegant and more inspiring. I am sure many will disagree.. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

Cheers,

A-

[mschiff]

\"I\'m curious... what keyboard shortcuts do you have to know in order to function? Through my years of teaching Finale, I\'ve seen a lot of variation in the time it takes new users to pick it up and learn it. With the later versions of Finale (2000 and beyond), I\'ve seen many people pick it up and be able to do major projects after just a couple of days of learning on their own (along with the tutorial book and user manual). I\'ve also talked to people who have used the program for many years and don\'t know how to use it at all. The interface logic makes a great deal of sense to some people and very little to others. The same is true of Sibelius. Both programs sport a relatively small number of rules which when learned make figuring things out in the programs much easier.\"

I worked with Finale for a few days on several occasions, and found the user interface very difficult. I have been a computer software consultant and programmer for 18 years, and have used thousands of different programs, am an expert user of Cakewalk and Sonar, and very rarely find a program that I can\'t just pick up and use without reading the manual. With Finale, I found myself having to study the manual,the tutorials, and the help file just to do some of the simplest things. My client, who was the owner of a major computer hardware company that also developed software, felt the same way. It\'s midi capabilities were very good, but figuring out how to get to it and use it was ridiculous. Same for editing and entering notes, etc. Even just putting a title on the page was a challenge.

I don\'t even know which keyboard shortcuts I needed to know, because it was all so arcane. I truly believe that anyone who publishes Windows based software that does not follow even the simplest of conventions, should be forced to use a different DOS based word processor each day that can ONLY work with keyboard shortcuts that are all different. [grin]

-- Martin

[astrt4]

--------------------
>>
Just what I wanted to see , a debate on the relative merits of Sibelius Vs Finale
<<
Exactly what we were trying to avoid, but I guess there is just no escaping it..
---------------------
I\'m curious, why would you want to avoid a debate like this? It seems to me this is a great way for people to learn about the advantages and disadvantages of the programs.


----------------------
Which brings me to my other point: somehow many people come to equate \"badly designed\" with \"powerful,\" I\'ll be damned if I understand why. Whenever someone talks about Finale they say things like \"it\'s hard to use, but oh so powerful!\" Well, if it\'s hard to use, then it isn\'t powerful!
-----------------------
Can you give examples of how the program is badly designed? This is NOT the general consensus that I\'ve gotten from thousands of Finale users. I find that the program is more oriented towards speed, and I don\'t consider this a poor interface. It may take a very little bit longer to learn than Sibelius (this is debatable based on evidence gathered from many users), but the interface for doing common things is generally geared towards speed, and most publishers I\'ve spoken with will tell you that they can get their work done faster in Finale than Sibelius. This is true for note entry as well as page formatting.

---------------------------------
It\'s just that mundane tasks are clumsily implemented into a minestrone of tools.. layers upon layers of functionality piled up just to make sure that not a single \"feature\" is missing, with little concern for how the whole thing comes together at the end.
----------------------------------
The Tool concept in Finale works exceptionally well considering the fact that metatools can be setup for many of the tools to speed up the process immensely. There are only a small number of tools that are used frequently, and I\'ve simply set those to the buttons on my mouse. Unlike Sibelius, I don\'t have to flip between palettes to find the articulation I want and then turn it off before entering another note. With Finale 2002, Coda modified the Simple Entry to be a lot like the Sibelius mouse entry. But they had the foresight to include a feature which allows you to double press a note value so as to turn off all of the other attributes. I find it pretty silly in Sibelius that the program assumes that I would want two, sharped, dotted eighth notes with ties and fermatas over them in a row! With Sibelius I have to take an extra step to turn these elements off before entering the next note. You say that thought wasn\'t given to how it all comes together in the end. I don\'t see this. I find that common tasks are easily accessible and the more unusual things are buried farther down. Can you give me some examples?

----------------------------------
I worked with Finale for a few days on several occasions, and found the user interface very difficult. I have been a computer software consultant and programmer for 18 years, and have used thousands of different programs, am an expert user of Cakewalk and Sonar, and very rarely find a program that I can\'t just pick up and use without reading the manual. With Finale, I found myself having to study the manual,the tutorials, and the help file just to do some of the simplest things. My client, who was the owner of a major computer hardware company that also developed software, felt the same way. It\'s midi capabilities were very good, but figuring out how to get to it and use it was ridiculous. Same for editing and entering notes, etc. Even just putting a title on the page was a challenge.
-----------------------------
I haven\'t actually been hearing this very often at all. I\'ve spoken with many gradeschool and highschool students who have downloaded the free Finale NotePad software which does the \"simplest things\" of Finale. People in general seem to figure everything out in that program on there own in a few hours. As for putting a title on your page, there is a setup wizard that comes when you are creating your document that prompts you to enter a title. If you decide you want to change it afterwards, you select a tool that looks like a large capital A. I can\'t say that in teaching Finale I get questions on this.

To pretend that a program like Finale or Sibelius should be like other programs in that it can be learned without reading a manual is kind of crazy. Finale is closer in complexity to a program like AutoCad whereas Cakewalk might be compared to Word (except for understanding MIDI and Wave concepts). I would never take a program like Sibelius and not study the tutorial guide. You are bound to end up doing things inefficiently. And in all fairness, the Finale tutorial book is a one-day read, and it teaches a great deal about the way the program works so that figuring things out on your own is simpler.

------------------------------------
I don\'t even know which keyboard shortcuts I needed to know, because it was all so arcane.
------------------------------------
I really can\'t think of them either, since there really aren\'t any. It\'s helpful to know that holding ctrl+shift allows you to copy automatically from one area to another, very much like the keyboard shortcut for the same thing in Sibelius. Other than that I\'m at a loss for thinking of what keyboard shortcuts you are forced to remember.

------------------------------
I truly believe that anyone who publishes Windows based software that does not follow even the simplest of conventions, should be forced to use a different DOS based word processor each day that can ONLY work with keyboard shortcuts that are all different. [grin]
-------------------------------
What Windows conventions are you referring to? Let\'s see here, we have ctrl+c for copy, ctrl+v for paste, ctrl+z for undo, ctrl+y for redo, right clicking for contextual menus, shift clicking for selecting an area, ctrl+a for selecting all, all of the usual File/Edit menu alt/ctrl commands, ctrl+clicking for choosing individual elements, typical shortcut navigations through dialog boxes, etc. My experience has been that people with Windows experience have a HUGE advantage over people without it.