Moving from Sibelius to Finale... [Archive]

Matthew S Phillips

05-11-2008, 11:08 AM

Hi Guys.

Its ironic that I should pose this question since I just recently commented on how much I appreciated Sibelius's intuitiveness....

BUT...After another round of beating my head against the wall to get Sib 5's most recent update to do the SIMPLEST tasks (changing to pizz/arco on the right note this time) I find myself brousing the Finale website and downloading a demo. And this is after ten years not only as a user, but as a passionate advocate of Sibelius!

Well, anyway my question is: does anyone have any experience in learning Finale after multiple years using Sib (or vice versa)? What kind of advantages and disadvantages could I expect from Finale should I switch. How is the interface on Finale? I know I will have to get used to it, but once I do, is it intuitive?

And most importantly (at least from the perspective of a veteran of the Sib playback issues) how well does it integrate GPO and (possibly) other sound libraries? Are they easy to use? Are legatos, keyswitches and such easy to pull off?

I think my biggest complaint with Sibelius at the moment is it just doesn't let me do what I want; which is to compose music and not worry about why the wrong patch is loading, why "con sord" doesn't play back, why tremelos don't respond to dynamics on the first note, why my playback keeps stalling, why everything is happening a note too late, why staccatto notes in strings are too loud, why why....... (breathe....)

Any thoughts on the subject would be helpful and appreciated.

Thanks,
Matt

P.S. I doubt I even have to mention this here, but (however frustrated I sound) I really don't want a platform war so...civil please:)

qccowboy

05-11-2008, 11:15 AM

I can only tell you of my experience as a long-time user of Finale but a relatively recent inductee into the school of sample libraries.

Finale 2008a integrates rather seemlessly with GPO (and the other Garritan libraries which I have... which is almost all of them right now).

If your score contains tempi, dynamics, slurs, and articulations, HumanPlayback (the playback plug-in that allows Finale to playback in a considerably less robotic fashion) then it WILL recognize all of those indications.

Every once in a while, I will include an invisible articulation or expression to augment a particular moment (sometimes I want an accent on a staccato, for example, or a "pianissimo" that's actually closer to a mezzo piano). Finale is VERY easy to use in this sense.

A simple text expression with no playback definition is all that is needed for HumanPlayback to recognize keyswitches with Garritan libraries. So just writing the word "pizz" or "arco" will make Finale automatically switch to the appropriate KS.

A quick note: to use this playback feature, you MUST use instruments from the "9. Notation" folder when selecting instruments. The set-up wizard automatically uses instruments from this folder, so it's only an issue when manually adding instruments.

If you would like me to send you a Finale file of a piece loaded with expressions, both visible and invisible, I'd be happy to. Just let me know.

Jeff Turner

05-11-2008, 12:55 PM

I agree with all of Michel's comments about Finale's Human Playback. And the more markings you put in a score, the better it will play back.

Regarding learning Finale, there's a saying that "the first 10 years are the hardest". :wow:

While that's a exaggeration, it is very different from Sibelius. I learned Finale first, then I bought Sibelius to be able to work on both platforms. But I approached learning Sib. without disregarding my Finale teachings. I became very frustrated. I wanted it to be similiar, and it's not.

There are many users who are expert at both programs, but you really need to start from scratch.

The biggest difference is Finale's modality. You choose a different tool to perform a different task. Although with the most recent version of Finale, they've made changes to combine some tools.

When both programs were introduced, Finale was time consuming to learn, Sibelius was learned quicker. But as both programs have matured, and take features from each other, they have moved closer together in the learning curve.

Good luck,
Jeff

bmdaustin

05-11-2008, 01:22 PM

I for one am hoping that Sibelius will actually man up and admit how screwed up their audio system is and start over from scratch. They were doing so well until Ver.5 came out and they started focusing on (pandering to?) the hobbyists instead of the pros. They've also broken parts of the printer driver and actually ran a survey to see if it was worth fixing! For now, I have to print to pdf first and then print to paper in some cases. I can't wait until this summer's trade show when I can vent to their people face to face. Right now, I'm a very disappointed customer, and I've been with them since Ver.1.

Michael_uk

05-11-2008, 01:57 PM

Hello Matthew,

I too am a long term Finale user. Over the years I have tried the demos of both Finale and Sibelius and, for me, Finale is unbeatable.

I cannot agree more concerning the Finale Human Playback feature which is just totally superb. Finale integrates seamlessly with all of Gary's libraries I have; GPO, JaBB and COMB.

I would add that moving from Sib to Finale will involve a learning curve and this is only natural. If you do decide to make the move there are Finale users here more than willing to try to ease the transition and to help where we can.

This is not to pretend that you may find some irritating issues with Finale; again this is only natural with the majority of software. However, I am one very happy Finale 2008 user.

Good luck with your decision. :)

LouisD

05-11-2008, 07:32 PM

I too switched from Sibelius3 years ago, first to Overture and then to Finale2008, and despite the learning curve, I have NEVER looked back. The playback from the score with GPO (and all other Garritan libraries) is quite amazing. Sibelius' playback simply can't match HumanPlayback.... One thing, that has been mentioned, is forces one to be quite meticulous about performance indications on the score. The more specific you are, the better the playback.

One word of advice, while researching Finale, I would advise you not to look at the Finale forum first, there is a small number of very unhappy users that seem to bash Finale at every opportunity. If I had read that forum, I would never have bought Finale. They seem to exaggerate obscure bugs all the time. Finale is a solid program with some problems here and there just like ANY other software.

rolifer

05-11-2008, 08:20 PM

I have only been using sib for 2 years but I know where you are coming from.

I think your smartest move is to go with a sequencer/DAW. Take your midi from sib and do all of the final work in it. I use Sonar 7 Studio and have found it to be a lot easier to do the fine work there then in Sib. You draw in CC data instead of typing in all of the stuff. There is a lot more control there than Sib could ever do.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Ron

darrob

05-11-2008, 09:00 PM

Hi

I've been using Finale for a few years now, and love it.
The interface is a lot different to Sibelius.

It did take quite a while to get to grips with the Finale way of doing things. It is quite a lot different in approach than both Sibelius and Rosegarden (a linux based scoring app - free and very nice). The learning Curve is quite steep and you *need* to have the manual handy at all times (you can download printable versions of the manuals, or buy them directly from MM).

One word of advice, while researching Finale, I would advise you not to look at the Finale forum first, there is a small number of very unhappy users that seem to bash Finale at every opportunity. If I had read that forum, I would never have bought Finale. They seem to exaggerate obscure bugs all the time. Finale is a solid program with some problems here and there just like ANY other software.

While this may have been true in the recent past, it no longer appears to be the case. There still are people who will be quite happy to point out the shortcomings of Finale but they are, in the main, positive about the product. I find that the Finale Forum is possibly the best place to go for help with problems using the app.

As others have pointed out, HP is quite possibly the best thing since sliced bread, as far as playback is concerned. Garritan libraries are specifically catered for, and HP has the flexibility to allow for customisation so that it can use other libraries. There are only two caveats:

1) Library use is limited to those which use NI instruments for playback (kontakt, kompakt etc)
2) When using the internal VST system, output to midi is not possible. So it is not possible to use a mixture of Garritan and physical devices (such as a keyboard/sound module) without going down the route of using a software midi yoke.

As with all software, Finale has its strengths and its weaknesses. On the whole, I have found that its strengths by far outweigh its weaknesses.

Cheers...

Daz :0)

raz.bari.88

05-12-2008, 12:04 AM

I'm actually one of the few that knows how to use both pretty well. I learned both so that I can do cross-platform stuff. The playback system of Sibelius doesn't even come close to Sibelius', but I still end up going back to Sibelius for writing. Unlike Sibelius were you can just click a note and type something in, in Finale you have to make the expression first than attach it to the note. A lot of the things you know from Sibelius you Will have to forget in Finale. But once you get used to the work flow, it's not that bad.

For playback traight from score, I would have to go with Finale, the integration of Garritan and other Kontakt based libraries is very good, i don't think it's as friendly as Sibelius is with other kinds of libraries though, I'm not sure on that though.

rwayland

05-12-2008, 03:33 PM

Well, Matt, I am surprised!

It seems to me that most of the complaints about Sibelius are concerning playback issues. So, since I seldom use Sibelius for playback, I can not comment much on that. Since most of my compositions are for piano or organ, that also limits my playback experience.

My biggest problem with Sibelius is positioning of slurs. It is frequently impossible to end them where I want them. I know the reason is the matter of voices, but that does not help solve the problem. I am also less that satisfied with the handling of the usual contrapuntal devices. However, I do all work first with Sonar, then open in Sibelius when ready to create to final printable score. The problem this generates is the adding of expression marks. I have spent hours adding slurs to my latest piece, and have plenty more to add. This phase takes me nearly as long as the composing.

The best notation program I have used is SCORE, but I can't get it to run on my present system. It had a lousey user interface, and essentially no playback, but I could put anything anyplace.

Now and then, I consider Finale, but I will probably stay with Sibelius, but am unlikely to go to the current version.

Richard

Nickie Fønshauge

05-13-2008, 03:46 AM

I think your smartest move is to go with a sequencer/DAW. Take your midi from sib and do all of the final work in it. I use Sonar 7 Studio and have found it to be a lot easier to do the fine work there then in Sib. You draw in CC data instead of typing in all of the stuff. There is a lot more control there than Sib could ever do.

Ron has a good point here, Matt. Consider this: do you want playback to be simple & easy & good (Finale) or do you want it to be as good as possible, but more work intensive(Sonar/Cubase/etc)? What is your priority?

Matthew S Phillips

05-13-2008, 10:02 AM

Hi Nicki,

My priority is for my playback to be as good as I can get it with as little work possible. )(~

In all seriousness, I have thought about a DAW like Sonar or Cubase before, even tried Cubase. But unless I have other libraries (only have GPO) I didn't see what it could do that Sibelius couldn't. I know I'm pretty ignorant; haven't used digital editors since my college days when Digital Performer was brand new, and the Mac G3 was all the rage! So I had a hard time seeing what benifits there were in scoring music in Sibelius and then moving it to a new program that I don't know as well.

Although now that sibelius doesn't seem to work very well, maybe thats a more viable option. Infuriating though that I would have to buy Sonar because Sibelius can't do what its supposed to. :mad:

I feel that the general consensus is Sibelius=better for scoring and notation; Finale=better for playback. Is this a plausible estimation? That puts me in a real bind as both are important to me.

Obviously many people here use Finale for scoring. And I am very much aware that there is little or nothing that the one can do and the other can't between Finale and Sibelius. But my question in this regard is (as it has always been) how easily? Back in those same college days I hand wrote all my scores and then copied them into Finale 98. Even those amateurish scores of my youth were catastrophically difficult to get into that program (can't imagin my current orchestral tone poems :wow:). I am sure Finale has come a long way, but how far?

How close are they on the learning curve these days? ;)

Matt

qccowboy

05-13-2008, 10:14 AM

Actually, the truth of the matter is that when compared to a sequencer Sibelius = better for scoring, while Finale = fractionally better than Sibelius for scoring (depending on the sort of music you're making) and, for the time being, massively better for playback (until Sibelius get their act together and catch up on the playback side of things).

The hard truth is that while Finale has infinitessimal control over just about every minute detail of score layout, it IS considerably more difficult to learn than Sibelius.

For very straight-forward music, however, there's nothing difficult in Finale. It does everything automatically when set-up properly.

The big advantage is that Finale also PLAYS what you've written, and plays it properly.

I've looked at the work that people put into their sequences. I admire it, but honestly can't imagine myself doing that. I want a score. And I want my notation programme to playback my score as I've written it. But then, my scores are the final product... not the recordings. The recordings are only demos used to convince the musicians that they should be playing this piece. And so far, it's working.

rolifer

05-13-2008, 10:19 AM

Matt

I bought Sonar 7 Studio in Dec.and the more I use it, the easier it has become.

If you want good playback with ease of enteringg the CC data, go with Sonar. The learning curve is not all that steep, there are plenty of users here that can help and depending on which version, comes with more libraries as well.

I haven't touched Sibelius in the last month or so, because everything is so much easier in Sonar.

I honestly believe that if you switch from one notation program to the other, you will just find new problems to overcome.

The answer is to rough it out in Sib and perfect it for playback in a DAW/Sequencer. Or, just play it in into sonar and it is done.

Good luck

Ron

Jeff Turner

05-13-2008, 01:34 PM

I feel that the general consensus is Sibelius=better for scoring and notation; Finale=better for playback. Is this a plausible estimation? That puts me in a real bind as both are important to me.

I don't think that's true. Though they both can produce high quality notation, but most of the publishers I've dealt with still use Finale. Hal Leonard for instance, uses Finale for band/orchestra and Sibelius for it's pop music division. But if you examine examples of each, you will see more consistency in the Finale engravings.

In my opinion the difference is that Sibelius is a little easier to learn, beacuse it does more for you automatically. It gets you maybe 80-85% of the way to high quality notation, but the remaining 15-20% is sometimes really hard if not impossible to achieve. Finale might take more knowledge to get to that 80-85% mark, but if you want to take the time to make it look stellar, that last 15% is much easier to get.

Jeff

Michael_uk

05-13-2008, 02:03 PM

.....

I feel that the general consensus is Sibelius=better for scoring and notation; Finale=better for playback. Is this a plausible estimation? That puts me in a real bind as both are important to me.

.....

Matt
I too cannot agree with this. I find it sooo easy to score in Finale. There are several ways to score; play-in using a midi keyboard, enter using your computer keyboard, drag and drop using the 'Simple Entry Tool' or the 'Speedy Entry Tool'. Apart from being very accurate and easy, just about everything is configurable. I really don't see how this could be any easier!

I also have Sonar Producer 7 and having prepared my score with as much detail as possible in Finale, I then move across to Sonar for fine-tuning. Sonar did involve quite a learning curve but, for me, it was well worth it. It is just about possible to do anything with a score and playback. I accept that, for many people, they can achieve anything they want within Finale. Personally, the Finale/Sonar route works for me.

Journeyman

05-13-2008, 02:07 PM

Your logic is rather flawed:

The hard truth is that while Finale has infinitessimal control over just about every minute detail of score layout, it IS terribly difficult to learn. If it were "terribly difficult" to learn, it wouldn't be the industry standard. Does it automagically create your score for you? No. Should you expect to "just know" how to use it right out of the box? Of course not. Is Sib easier to learn? Yes. But that doesn't make Finale "terribly difficult" either. There's a difference between "terribly difficult" and "less intuitive".

I've looked at the work that people put into their sequences. I admire it, but honestly can't imagine myself doing that.
Ah, so other folks manage to operate their software just fine. It's just you that find it terribly difficult.

FWIW, I find apps like Excel, Quicken and Powerpoint difficult, but wouldn't presume that that's the case for anyone other than me. Final two points:

1. Like anything else, there is a learning curve with ANY new software, and notation software is no exception. Those that are willing to put in the time to learn their software will get better results than those that don't bother to crack open the manual, and just expect to be able to "just figure it out" on their own.

2. This is NOTATION SOFTWARE that we're talking about. It's primary function is to create scores and parts FOR MUSICIANS TO READ. The desire for it to output high quality audio playback is a fairly recent one. The developers are scrambling to catch up with this feature, but it's not there yet, and currently Finale does a better job. But understand that high quality audio playback has been the purview of sequencer programs like Logic, Sonar, Cakewalk, Performer, etc. The pros still use sequencers for the most realistic mock-ups, and notation software to print scores and parts for musicians.

rwayland

05-13-2008, 02:41 PM

2. This is NOTATION SOFTWARE that we're talking about. It's primary function is to create scores and parts FOR MUSICIANS TO READ. The desire for it to output high quality audio playback is a fairly recent one. The developers are scrambling to catch up with this feature, but it's not there yet, and currently Finale does a better job. But understand that high quality audio playback has been the purview of sequencer programs like Logic, Sonar, Cakewalk, Performer, etc. The pros still use sequencers for the most realistic mock-ups, and notation software to print scores and parts for musicians.

Exactly my position! I did not find Finale or Sibelius particularly difficult, but perhaps because I started with SCORE, which was good, but had an unfriendly user interface. I have been using Sonar since the time it was called Cakewalk, which may be why I find it easy enough to use. The combination of Sonar, Sibelius, and Garritan is a winning combination for me. I just ordered the Concert & Marching Band and expect it by the weekend.

Richard

bmdaustin

05-13-2008, 03:00 PM

The reason Finale is the "industry standard" is that it's been around for roughly 20 years, much longer than anybody else. For the longest time Finale is all there was so everybody had to use it. My second point is this - the most common thing I hear when trying to persuade somebody to switch to Sibelius is, "but I've already got 15 years invested in learning Finale!"

My impressions are that both Finale and Sibelius can do what most people want/need to be done. Finale will probably cover that last 5% of arcane minutiae, but if that's what you need, then go for it. Sib does a great job on most of the rest, but, like Finale, it's not perfect. It is, however, much easier to learn quickly and become fluent with.

As for music playback, and as others have already said, neither program is designed to maximize playback. If a printed page is your final goal, use Finale or Sib and be happy. If an audio CD is your final goal, use a DAW. Don't try to make either program what it's not.

Journeyman

05-13-2008, 03:38 PM

Paul,

We're going to have to agree to disagree on some points:

The reason Finale is the "industry standard" is that it's been around for roughly 20 years, much longer than anybody else. For the longest time Finale is all there was so everybody had to use it.Partially true. The product that arrives first will likely garner the most market share. However, if Finale were as bad as some in this thread were making it out to be, then everyone would've jumped ship a long time ago. No one is disputing the fact that Sib has an easier learning curve than Finale. But end results matter, so everyone will have to decide for themselves if the product of their choice does the job.

My second point is this - the most common thing I hear when trying to persuade somebody to switch to Sibelius is, "but I've already got 15 years invested in learning Finale!"There's more to this point than you're making. Not only has someone spent many years using a program to the point that it's easy, but if they've used the program, then like me, they've amassed a large library of music. And if they ever need to edit it again, they won't be able to do so by switching to another program. I thought about checking out Sib for awhile, based on reports of a much faster workflow. But I still have to be able to go back and edit old work done in Finale, so it would cost me double to own Sib, and yet still keep updating Finale to keep up with OS updates. It just makes no sense; particularly when Finale is doing everything that I need it to do, on a professional level.

Finale will probably cover that last 5% of arcane minutiae,Something is only considered "arcane" until you need it. Is quality playback "arcane" to you? What about changing to pizz/arco, worry about why the wrong patch is loading, why "con sord" doesn't play back, why tremelos don't respond to dynamics on the first note, why playback keeps stalling, why everything is happening a note too late, why staccatto notes in strings are too loud? Doesn't sound "arcane" to me.

If a printed page is your final goal, use Finale or Sib and be happy. If an audio CD is your final goal, use a DAW. Don't try to make either program what it's not.On this we can agree. Notation programs were primarily written to function like Microsoft Word, but for music. Audio playback is the primary function of DAW's, and people need to understand that.

qccowboy

05-13-2008, 03:42 PM

I believe you are taking my comments out of context and need to reread what I wrote. There is nothing "faulty" in my logic.

I have been a Finale user almost since its first Windows version. I am saying that "yes it IS difficult to learn" if compared to Sibelius. I'm saying that for most of what you want it's actually quite easy, but that the incredible fine-tuning some peope require of it can get rather arcane.

I didn't say that I find sequencers terribly difficult. Did I? I said that I can't imagine putting the sort of work into my recordings that they require.

Your logic is rather flawed:
If it were "terribly difficult" to learn, it wouldn't be the industry standard. Does it automagically create your score for you? No. Should you expect to "just know" how to use it right out of the box? Of course not. Is Sib easier to learn? Yes. But that doesn't make Finale "terribly difficult" either. There's a difference between "terribly difficult" and "less intuitive".

Ah, so other folks manage to operate their software just fine. It's just you that find it terribly difficult.

FWIW, I find apps like Excel, Quicken and Powerpoint difficult, but wouldn't presume that that's the case for anyone other than me. Final two points:

1. Like anything else, there is a learning curve with ANY new software, and notation software is no exception. Those that are willing to put in the time to learn their software will get better results than those that don't bother to crack open the manual, and just expect to be able to "just figure it out" on their own.

2. This is NOTATION SOFTWARE that we're talking about. It's primary function is to create scores and parts FOR MUSICIANS TO READ. The desire for it to output high quality audio playback is a fairly recent one. The developers are scrambling to catch up with this feature, but it's not there yet, and currently Finale does a better job. But understand that high quality audio playback has been the purview of sequencer programs like Logic, Sonar, Cakewalk, Performer, etc. The pros still use sequencers for the most realistic mock-ups, and notation software to print scores and parts for musicians.

qccowboy

05-13-2008, 03:49 PM

Paul,
Something is only considered "arcane" until you need it. Is quality playback "arcane" to you?

I think you are missing the point of the "arcane" comments.
No one is saying that playback is arcane, or that basic notation input is arcane.

However, for a score that has different staff sizes for different instruments, cadenza measures, more "advanced" contemporary notation ability, extremely specific placement of minute notational elements, fine-tuning of slur end-points, notation of micro-tonal music... that's all a bit more difficult for a first-time user.

I don't think there was a need for you to jump to Finale's defence. From what I've read in this thread, most of the comments about Finale's difficulty have been made by people with sufficient "insider" knowledge and have been carefully balanced with comments that clearly state that Finale is a superior product.

Journeyman

05-13-2008, 03:54 PM

I'm sorry cowboy, but I'm not buying your comparison. Playing any musical instrument is certainly harder than say, breathing. Doing brain surgery is certainly harder than house painting. But you paint a biased picture when you use the expression "terribly difficult" in reference to Finale. It just isn't true, whether you compare it to Sib or not. I said it before, and I'm not arguing with you: Sib has an easier learning curve than Finale, but Finale just isn't "terribly difficult".

Folks, as you can see, the Notation program wars can get as passionate as the never ending Mac vs. PC debate. As with anything else, both of these apps have their strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately you're going to have to decide for yourself.

Now if you want to talk about a difficult program to learn, we can talk about Logic 7....

Journeyman

05-13-2008, 04:06 PM

that's all a bit more difficult for a first-time user.

But that's the problem; in my opinion it's the end result that should matter the most; not whether a newbie can learn it quickly, particularly if the easier program has important deficiencies. Music is an artform that takes time and practice, and the same can be said of using software. Yes, I guess it would be great if everything was easy. But evidentially Sib has some issues that even newbies need to be aware of.

I don't think there was a need for you to jump to Finale's defence. From what I've read in this thread, most of the comments about Finale's difficulty have been made by people with sufficient "insider" knowledge and have been carefully balanced with comments that clearly state that Finale is a superior product.
Fortunately, you don't get to decide who gets to enter a conversation, or the content of their posts. All opinions are equal here at NS, with the exception of the admins/moderators, and I don't think that I'm violating any TOS here. I don't mind giving an honest, clear picture about the strengths and weaknesses of both apps. It's clear that you want to slam Finale, and get away with it. Sorry, but I disagree.

qccowboy

05-13-2008, 04:11 PM

So, let's see:

Sibelius has an easier learning curve

which in essence is saying that Sibelius is easier than Finale

which has as a corollary that Finale is "more difficult" than Sibelius to learn.

and you have taken offence at my comment, which was my opinion by the way, that Finale is terribly difficult for certain things?

Well, I happen to disagree with your opinion. Finale is considerably more difficult to learn, particularly if you require complex notation. And as I said, while more difficult, it is also capable of achieving things that at this time Sibelius cannot.

I honestly don't give a darn if you buy my comparison or not. I'm not a Sibelius user, I'm actually considered a "power user" of Finale (one of my pieces of music is actually included as a demo when you purchase Finale).

The only "notation wars" going on here is your insistance on defending Finale from a perceived attack... yet there IS no attack, since I'm a Finale user, not a Sibelius user. I have never promoted Sibelius, nor do I intend on doing so in any forseeable future.

And by the way, I am comparing Finale and Sibelius. Not playing a musical instrument with breathing. There's no real need to jump into facetious and exagerated expansions on the actual discussion going on here.

I'm sorry cowboy, but I'm not buying your comparison. Playing any musical instrument is certainly harder than say, breathing. Doing brain surgery is certainly harder than house painting. But you paint a biased picture when you use the expression "terribly difficult" in reference to Finale. It just isn't true, whether you compare it to Sib or not. I said it before, and I'm not arguing with you: Sib has an easier learning curve than Finale, but Finale just isn't "terribly difficult".

Folks, as you can see, the Notation program wars can get as passionate as the never ending Mac vs. PC debate. As with anything else, both of these apps have their strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately you're going to have to decide for yourself.

Now if you want to talk about a difficult program to learn, we can talk about Logic 7....

qccowboy

05-13-2008, 04:14 PM

It's clear that you want to slam Finale, and get away with it. Sorry, but I disagree.

Please, please, please, take a bit of time to read my posts, as well as the multitude of other posts where I have said, repeatedly, that I am a Finale user and ONLY a Finale user. I don't use a seuqncer. I don't use Sibelius. I use Finale and only Finale.

Who the hell is "slamming Finale"???????

You're getting your britches in an uproar over something that you've obviously misunderstood.

Cransworth

05-13-2008, 05:14 PM

I have Finale and I've been using it for about two years, but last year my teacher had Sibelius on her computer. I some try to use it to compose, but I just never really liked it. It seemed like Finale could do much more and sounded much better during playback (this was before GPO).

About Finale being more difficult than Sibelius, if you check out the demo before you buy it and just mess around with the features, it is much easier. That's what I did, and I never really had any trouble. If an 8th grader was able to do it, it can't be too hard....

trimpe

05-13-2008, 08:06 PM

To get somewhat back on topic...

I've been using Finale since 1.0, so I will clearly have a bias towards it. I often describe it to people by equating it to a jet. It can do lots of stuff, and there are dials and knobs all over the place that do things. Aside from taking off and landing, however, only learn the things that are relevant to your needs. I rarely deal with lyrics, guitar tab, etc, so even though I have been using the program for 15 years, if I want to use it, I'll have to take the time to learn. That being said, knowing that I will be able to do it should I need it and have professional looking results is comforting.

For me, as a small publishing company, Finale is absolutely necessary because I can't get the exact results from Sibelius I want. As a composer, I think they both do fantastic jobs getting music to the paper. I also think that Sibelius coming along to challenge Finale has only been a good thing because it forced Finale to step up its game and innovate again. Both programs have by now borrowed from each other.

In terms of playback, I have never had any issues. Human playback is incredibly well done, and it does a wonderful job interpreting text expressions along with the standard dynamics and articulations. While not quite as forgiving in terms of what kinds of sound bank you can use, the results have only been limited by the power of my computer and my personal attention to detail.

Good luck, and I'm sure that there are enough of us here that would be happy to answer any specific questions that you might have.

Matthew S Phillips

05-14-2008, 09:33 AM

Thanks everyone for alll the comments and passion! )(~
I know I asked not to have any platform wars (and I know I then went and started one. sorry:() but that may just be impossible when people are so enthusiastic about their chosen brand.

Its funny how, while reading this thread, I have to supress the urge to jump to sibelius's defence, even though I've been bashing its playback pretty hard. I guess its like having a kid brother: I can pick on him mercilessly, but no one else better!!!:p

I should say that from a Notation standpoint, Sibelius has always met my needs, and I have occasionally asked alot. I always hear about the extra precision available in finale though. Tripe, can you explain what you mean when you say that Finale is nessecary for music publishing quality?

Its the playback about Sibelius that I find frustrating. Not their ideas about how it should work or the new engine really, but all the little stuff that keeps cropping up. I'm not really interested in how "easy to learn" sibelius is, since I already know how to use it. I am interested in how "easy to learn" Finale is because if I can learn Finale with reasonably little effort and get playback more easily, than I may be switching.

Thanks everyone for your help, and let's keep things civil, yes? Its only software, after all.:n:

Matt

darrob

05-14-2008, 09:53 AM

Its only software, after all.

<gasp> Blasphemy!!! :D

Cheers...

Daz :0)

raweber

05-14-2008, 12:56 PM

Which version of Finale was out in 1990? That's the one I started on, and have never used Sib. I picked up Finale 2000 as a graduation gift for myself (second degree, because the first one in music wasn't feeding my family - not that it's not possible, I'm just too lazy). It did everything I needed (mostly just lead sheets) until I upgraded to 2007 for the playback features.

Anyway, to my point/question. As someone who has never used anything but Finale, how is Sib. easier/more intuiutive?

In Finale, if I want to change the clef, I hit the clef button. If I want to change the key, I hit the key signature button. If I want to enter notes, I hit one of the three note entry buttons.

I don't mean to be flip, but I am honestly curious (maybe from one of our bi-platform users) what the fundamental differences are that make Sibelius more "user friendly."

Respectfully,

raweber

05-14-2008, 07:01 PM

I seem to remember something about earlier versions needing a whole bunch of customization just to do basic stuff. That all pretty much comes standard, now - all the articulations and that sort of thing. I just counted and Finale comes standard with 62 different articulations (like stacatto and tremolo) and 43 expressions (like mf, Largo and Arco). Of course all are customizable.

There are also 18 "smart shapes" like crescendos and slurs. I like the slurs because you can stick the ends to notes, and then there are three more handles (across the top of a trapazoid) that you can use the change the shape of the slur any way you want.

Anyone currently using both versions care to weigh in with the fundamental differences in usage that makes Sibelius more "user friendly?"

Respectfully,

tunesmith

05-14-2008, 09:51 PM

I started with finale when the user manual looked like several dictionaries. They were huge. When you wanted to do the simplist thing you had to get out the manual and read.

It took forever to get anything done. Not a bash, just the way it was. I remember printing out parts that were missing all sorts of things, like no dot on a dotted quarter note. You just checked your score and wrote it in by hand. Setting up your score was a nightmare, if you made a mistake, too bad, start over.

Then Sibelius came on the stage, and I thought I had gone to heaven. It was easy to setup your score, enter notes and fix something. Printing with no mistakes, I quickly left finale as my go to program.

I keep both programs because I work on scores for the local orchestra and others. It's easier to work in the native format. The orchestra was doing a concert with Ronnie Milsap and I was asked to print out the scores that the composer had sent them. They were Finale files. It was the biggest headach trying to get them done. It took me two evenings, and I still wasn't happy with them. The whole time I was wishing they were Sibelius files. I would have hed them done in a matter of hours. This was back around 2000 I think.

I know finale has change in that time, but Sibelius is not as cumbersome. True the playback needs some work, but if I want to get some work out, Sibleius is what I turn too.

Download the demos and see what works for you. We all work differently.

I was talking with John Rutter the english choral composer two years ago. He said he had been using Sibelius since the Alcon computer days. He said he puts the music in Sibelius, sends the publisher the file, and all they have to do is put a cover on it. I think that about says it.

Thanks

Jim

raweber

05-15-2008, 06:30 AM

...but Sibelius is not as cumbersome.

But how? What is it about Sibleius, objectively, and the current versions of both Sibelius and Finale, that makes it "not as cumbersome" as Finale?

raz.bari.88

05-15-2008, 12:42 PM

trimpe

05-15-2008, 01:04 PM

At risk of sounding too much like a format warrior, I have to disagree on a couple things concerning Finale. Concerning Finale copying everything over, that can be avoided using filters. You can select the kinds of data you want it to copy, from expressions, formatting, MIDI data, staff styles, and a host of other choices. Yes, it used to function quite poorly, but that issue has been resolved.

Also, a lot of the frustrations that many of you are speaking of can be avoided with a little pre-planning. It is possible that some of this comes from a different philosophy in how the programs are put together, I'm not sure. I always work from templates where I have already set up everything from margins, instrument banks, articulations, formatting, everything. When I start a project, the only modification I really need to make is to remove the staves I will not be needing. And should you create an articulation or expression that you will be using again, save them as a library and merge them into your default document later so it's always there.

If I had to rebuild all my personal preferences and customizations with every project I worked on, it would be painful. But aside from the initial setup I did a long time ago, issues that some of you are describing in this thread are essentially unknown to me.

.02

Jeff Turner

05-15-2008, 01:15 PM

Okay, you now how you have to go through a bunch of menus and a bunch of steps to do something in Finale? For example, you're entering chord changes into your score. In Finale, you can easily type the basic ones in, but for the more complex chords, you have to go through menus and importing libraries to get the more complex ones made. And for each one, you make a new ending, like m7b6b13. In Sibelius, you just select the note you want, hit ctrl-k, and type the suffix in, and Sibelius will do all the formating of it for you (which can be changed easily). And any ending you don't know how to type in, just right click anywhere on the screen, and you can select from a bunch of parts to make the suffix out of.

Also, if you want to make a custom text expression or dynamic, like "rfl" or "Get gradually softer", you would have to go into the expression menu in Finale, create it, define what it means, close that window, and then you can put it in the score. With sibelius, you just hit crtl-t or crtl-alt-t (depending if you want technique or dynamic) and type it in.

Pretty much enrything in Sibelius has a keystroke shortcut. And one thing in Finale that really annoys me is that when you copy a chunch of music to another part of the score, it takes every piece of text with it, like tempo and rehearsal marks. Sibelius will only copy technique and expression, or any thing attached to just that bar.

My $.02
Anthony,

Respectively, your wrong on all counts in your Finale examples.

Putting chord symbols in with Finale you can:
1. choose :type into score" - just what it says, you type each chord and suffix above any note or rest you choose.
2. or choose "manual input" - Here you select the name of each chord, then you choose your desired chord suffix from a pre-made list of many choices.

Expressions:
In Finale you do create these in a text expression designer window instead of directly on the score. In both programs typing "cresc. poco a poco" takes exactly the same amount of effort. But with Finale, after you've created it once, you never have to create it again. And you also have the option of assigning a meta-tool (a keyboard shortcut) to it. So you can assign this text anywhere with a single keystroke.

Copying chunks of music:
It only copies what you tell it to copy. You can copy everything, or just specific elements. It's totally up to the user.

Now tell me how easy it is in Sibelius to control the shape of slurs.

Jeff

Matthew S Phillips

05-15-2008, 01:16 PM

Also you can select anything in Sibelius, hit "backspace" and its gone. No "eraser" tool. (only had the finale demo for a week and that already bugs me ;))

Plus you don't have to be in any specific tool, or voice to select anything in sibelius and edit it. Dynamics and hairpins can be moved, text can be selected and edited. Stem directions can be flipped (shortcut = x. can't be simpler!). All no matter what voice is currently selected. (When you select something in a voice THAT voice is now the voice thats selected) And with no tools at all.

As someone else said rhythmic values, and artiuclations correspond to the numeric keypad, which is graphically represented on the score. If you want to add an articulation or change the rhythmic value, select the note and hit the approriate button on the keypad. Sibelius even adds the appropriate resulting rests, or deletes extra notes as needed.

Also there are shortcuts for everything: Key sig window = K. Time sig. = T You can enter Tempo text (ctrl+alt+t) chord symbols (ctrl +K), Slurs (S), Hairpins (H for cresc. Shift + H for decresc.) And hundreds of others without searching through menus or tools or anything else. Although if you like menus there is ONE MENU called "create" in Sibelius that has practically everything you need in it, from trill lines to titles. All rationally organized and categorized.

Also as someone pointed out, you can create a type of text such as Expression or Technique, and choose from lists of options (mf, ppp, esspressivo etc.) or just type in whatever you want, which I gather Finale is a little grumpy about. (Just what I gather; true?).

These sort of things make Sibelius much easier to learn and use. Finale seems to have come a very long way and both programs seem to have copied each other in alot of respects but when people today talk about the "user friendliness" of Sibelius, its usually things like this to which they are refering.

Its when you try to fight its defaults that you can get in trouble ;). To do things like hide instruments, split one stave into two (i.e. for a string section playing divisi) create different time signatures for different instruments, change ANYTHING about playback, or do things very out of the ordinary; well lets just say you have to really speak sibelius's language (although these are all entirely possible). Finale seems to have only one difficulty level: hard. Everything is hard but nothing is any harder than anything else. Sibelius goes from laughably easy to bang-your-head-on-your-keyboard hard.

Matt

Matthew S Phillips

05-15-2008, 01:22 PM

Also to Jeff, regarding your sibelius slur question:

In Sibelius, you can click on a slur and drag it to change its shape, or click on the ends and drag them to change its position. X flips from slur above to slur below and vice versa, and S creates a slur afterwhich the Space bar will move the far end to the next note (i.e. tap space until you get it to the note you want. or you can just drag it.)

Pretty much the same as Finale from what I can tell.

Matt

darrob

05-16-2008, 01:00 AM

The very first time I looked at Sibelius (around Sib. ver 1) I was able to jump in and start entering music very quickly. I never eventually got Sibelius, not being able to afford it then. Fast forward many years. I have been using Finale for a few years now. I got it mainly based on it's playback capabilities. Finale 2006 left Sibelius 4 for dead as far as playback was concerned.
I recently downloaded the Sib 5 demo, to see if things were any better.

I found that I was not able to immediately get into entering music.
The whole interface was alien, and I found myself getting frustrated very quickly stopped using the demo.

The reason - I have become so used to the Finale way of doing things that doing things differently seems illogical.

Going from one product to the other is bound to cause frustration, especially when someone is very used to (and proficient in) doing something in one particular way.

Personally, I am more than happy with Finale. As with all software there are annoyances and irritations. On the whole I have found that there are many different ways of doing any one particular thing and at the end of the day, I have the best playback engine currently available.

Cheers...

Daz :0)

trimpe

05-16-2008, 01:04 AM

Also you can select anything in Sibelius, hit "backspace" and its gone. No "eraser" tool. (only had the finale demo for a week and that already bugs me ;)) Plus you don't have to be in any specific tool, or voice to select anything in sibelius and edit it.
Unless I'm understanding you wrong, you can do that with Finale. The selection tool lets you do basic movement or deletions without changing tools. If you want to get into significant edits, double clicking will move you to the correct tool.

If you want to add an articulation or change the rhythmic value, select the note and hit the approriate button on the keypad. Sibelius even adds the appropriate resulting rests, or deletes extra notes as needed.I believe what you are describing can also be done from the speedy note tool in Finale.

Also there are shortcuts for everything:Finale also has an extensive list of keyboard shortcuts, all laid out and available under the Help menu. Personally, aside from cut, paste, and undo, I still pretty much do everything with the mouse, so I may not be the best person to be an advocate for that feature.

Also as someone pointed out, you can create a type of text such as Expression or Technique, and choose from lists of options (mf, ppp, esspressivo etc.) or just type in whatever you want, which I gather Finale is a little grumpy about. (Just what I gather; true?).Never experienced that. Can you be more specific? When you create the expression, one of the tabs is dedicated to playback, the others for note and measure positioning. The playback options are everything from note length, MIDI data, repeats, tons of stuff.

Finale seems to have only one difficulty level: hard.To be fair, the first time I tried to use Sibelius, I was ready to strangle somebody, but that was probably more because I already had nearly a decade of Finale experience under my belt and was trying to force one program to be the other. It is possible that some of this is what causes people to run into road blocks when trying to work with the other program.

I don't know what kind of support materials you get from the demo, but between the "getting started" video tips and the extremely extensive help system, I think they do a pretty good job of getting the info out to the user. And yes, I too recall the days of the 3 giant manuals of doom that came with Finale. I still may have a set. While daunting, it was actually smart. The first smaller book was the tutorial and basic info. The second book was broken up by tools and their respective uses. The third book was essentially the same as the second, but it was instead laid out more like an alphabetical encyclopedia. Depending on your need, you had a variety of ways of getting to the same info. I feel that they have managed to still have that kind of info available with their in-program user manual. I wouldn't be surprised if you were not able to get to it with the demo.

In response to an earlier question of yours, from my limited experience in Sibelius, getting precise customization of layout was not easily achievable, particularly with slurs. This may have been fixed in version 5, but when showing my Sibelius friends what I was trying to do, most of them didn't know or thought that it was out of the realm of the program. Again, to be fair, I have not spent nearly as much time trying to make Sibelius work for me when I can do it easily in Finale already. I occasionally give clinics on how to use Finale, so I'm clearly going to be biased.

Sorry that it has been frustrating to get going with it. Hopefully you will find a way to get what you want from either of the 2 programs.

raz.bari.88

05-16-2008, 10:27 AM

Anthony,

Respectively, your wrong on all counts in your Finale examples.

Putting chord symbols in with Finale you can:
1. choose :type into score" - just what it says, you type each chord and suffix above any note or rest you choose.
2. or choose "manual input" - Here you select the name of each chord, then you choose your desired chord suffix from a pre-made list of many choices.

Expressions:
In Finale you do create these in a text expression designer window instead of directly on the score. In both programs typing "cresc. poco a poco" takes exactly the same amount of effort. But with Finale, after you've created it once, you never have to create it again. And you also have the option of assigning a meta-tool (a keyboard shortcut) to it. So you can assign this text anywhere with a single keystroke.

Copying chunks of music:
It only copies what you tell it to copy. You can copy everything, or just specific elements. It's totally up to the user.

Now tell me how easy it is in Sibelius to control the shape of slurs.

Jeff

Eh, I'm just saying that's my experience, more specifically with '07 and '08. The point I was trying to make with the chord symbols was that some of the chord symbols are not already loaded. That they have to be created from scratch. Also, it's the way you write them, like -7 vs. m7. Yes, those are should already be loaded, but the more complex "jazz chords" need to be created and formated. In sibelius, you just start typing and everything is just a keystroke or a right click away.

And, in Sibelius, you don't have to type in cresc. poco a poco if you don't want, it's just a right-click away, or a key-stroke.

My main point is with all the extra steps you have to go through, and Sibelius you can create them faster. There are a lot of things in FInale you have to define that are already defined in Sibelius.

As for copying chunks without the other stuff....how do you do that. What I was thinking about when I wrote that was when you're copying something that has an expression attached to every staff in that measure, but only shows up on 1 or 2 bars (ex. tempo or rehearsal marks). When I copy stuff, I have to go back and make sure it doesn't show up in the target measure.

This is just my standpoint from a Sibelius to Finale user. I don't do a lot of hardcore work, I'm just a music student who experiments with arranging. It also doesn't help that I've been spoiled by Sibelius. :) I'm too used to it's interface, even though I do use both.

raweber

05-16-2008, 10:38 AM

There are roughly 75 chord suffixes that come pre-loaded in Finale. If you type in a suffix that's not in the library, the program prompts you to create it. If you're happy with just in-line text, all you do is hit enter. You can, however, change font sizes, stack symbols and letters, etc. You can also set how the chord plays back, although that's not a function I find very useful - that's because the chord only plays back for the duration of the note it's attached to. For auto-accompaniment, I turn to Band-in-a-Box...

So, since cresc. poco a poco is one of the expressions that comes pre-loaded in Sibelius, just how many are there? I reported earlier how many come in Finale, so I'm curious how they compare.

All that being said, I don't think we're going to get any really intellegent or comprehensive answer until someone who is truly a regular user in both platforms weighs in - not someone who uses one and used the other 10 years ago - not someone who uses one and downloaded the demo of the other to play with it. We just don't know enough about the other side to have an intelligent conversation.

Does anyone fit that description? And, if they do, do they have time to be posting on forums?

qccowboy

05-16-2008, 11:33 AM

Just to be clear, lest anyone get the wrong impression:

if you need an expression that is not already in the expressions list in Finale, you create it and give it a playback definition if it requires it (HumanPlayback actually recognizes a HUGE list of playback effects, meaning you don't have to define ANY playback parameters).

Once that expression is created, you only need to save your expression library. It's there whenever you need it in future, no need to re-create expressions every time.

trimpe

05-16-2008, 01:05 PM

As for copying chunks without the other stuff....how do you do that.
With the selection tool, select your measures and right click. One of the options should be "Use Filter". You'll want that on. Under it is the choice to edit the filter. In there, you can select the things you want it to copy and what you want it to ignore.

As for keyboard macros, you can define them in Finale as well for almost every tool. Once you define it (again, something I choose to do in my templates so they are always there), press the key and click.

Jeff Turner

05-16-2008, 01:46 PM

With the selection tool, select your measures and right click. One of the options should be "Use Filter". You'll want that on. Under it is the choice to edit the filter. In there, you can select the things you want it to copy and what you want it to ignore.

As for keyboard macros, you can define them in Finale as well for almost every tool. Once you define it (again, something I choose to do in my templates so they are always there), press the key and click.

And another way: (These are Mac keystrokes)
Highlight some measures, opt-shift-click the destination measure. The filter comes up automatically giving you the choice of what to include when copying.

or:

Highlight the measures then opt-click the destination measure. The filter won't come up this time, it will simply use your last filter choices.

Jeff

darrob

05-17-2008, 10:01 AM

And, in Sibelius, you don't have to type in cresc. poco a poco if you don't want, it's just a right-click away, or a key-stroke.

In Finale you need to type this expression in just once.
you can then assign the expression to a meta key.
Further application is simply a matter of holding down the meta key and clicking where you want the expression placed.

Finale has shortcuts for just about everything. Most expressions are in libraries, which can get loaded if and when required.

As with most programs of this complexity, there are more than one way of doing things. Some methods take longer, other methods take less time. It's just a matter of finding the quickest method

Cheers...

Daz :0)

Jeff Turner

05-17-2008, 02:10 PM

I think this is exactly the point though. The major appeal of Sibelius is that this is all done for you. You don't have to type it, assign playback instructions, assign a meta key, find it's library, etc. It's all already done from the first time you fire up the program.

It sounds like you're saying every possible text playback instruction has already been created and is in Sibelius by default. This is not true. A standard set of expressions and dynamics is included with both programs. If you need an expression or a dynamic that's not there you have to create it. Same thing in both programs.

And Sibelius cannot compare to Finale's Human Playback. Any of the following text items, can be placed in Finale and Human playback will interpret it correctly. The user does not have to do anything other than placing this text where they want it:

acc, accel, accelerando, accelerato,
affretando, incalzando, ristringendo,
stringendo, string, stretto, en pressant,
pressez, en accélérant, faster,
beschleunigend, eilend, drängend, belebend,
rall, rallentando, calando, rit,
ri, ritar, riten, ritenuto, ritenente,
ritardando, slargando, morendo, ritardo,
allargando, allarg, retenu, rallentir,
en retenant, en cédant, cédez, zurückhaltend,
breiterwerdend, breiter, a
tempo, tempo, on time, au mouvement,
zeitmass, zeitmaß,

cresc, crescendo, en augmentant, augmentez,
erhebend, aufschlagend, dim,
dimin, diminuendo, decrescendo, decresc,
decr, perdendosi, smorzando, smorz, en
diminuant, en s’éloignant, en atténuant,
abnehmend, nachlassend, nachgebend, fz,
sf, sfz, sffz, rf, rfz, fp, fp, sfp, ffp,
fpp, ffpp, ffpp, sfpp,

poco a poco, peu à peu, nach und nach, little by little, sempre,
toujours, always, immer, molto, moltissimo, moltiss, très,
beaucoup, much, un poco, poco, pochissimo, poch, un peu,
légèrement, etwas, a little,

con pedale, ped., pedale, solo, non arpeggio, g.p., grand pause,

In addition to text, Human Playback also recognizes musical characters from the Finale music
fonts (Maestro, Engraver, etc.), including symbols like trills, accents and turns. You can even
combine characters in the Text Expression Designer. For example, entering a turn with accidentals
above and/or below, such as , will be recognized and performed. For this example, you would
simply add the characters into a note expression as you want it to appear and then attach the
expression to the desired note. Similarly, you can add an accidental to a trill character or other
such symbols to customize the performance.

Abstract of ornaments caught: Trill (short, long), trill on several notes or several layers, trill
with changing notes behind (long piano trill), trill with specified accidental (as articulation or
within the smartshape/expression), trillo (short baroque trill), mordent, all Bach/Couperin ornaments
(mostly found in November font), including cadenza and coulé, gruppeto (with specified
accidental(s) or not, can be combined with mordent like in Bach), Baroque appogiatura, classical
accacciatura, timpani/drum trill, all Jazz Font ornaments (prebend, bend, doit, fall, …) as articulation,
jazz shake (wavy line), guitar expression tremolo (wavy line).

That was all from the Finale manual. So what can be easier for playback than simply putting in the same text that you would put in for a live person?

Jeff

Jeff Turner

05-17-2008, 02:57 PM

GrahamKeitch

05-17-2008, 03:43 PM

I guess it comes down to our own personal needs and requirements. Actually I do work for the Chicago Symphony among other groups. And for my needs, Finale lets me create music of the highest standards.

JT

Hi Matt, I'm late getting to this post -but I've been following it on and off with great interest. I think Jeff makes a valid point point above and presumably, you - like most of us on this forum - want to hear a reasonable representation of what your music might sound like in real life. For me, it's a no brainer - Finale is light years ahead! And thank goodness you're raising this subject here because there are some elsewhere that would swipe you down for even mentioning a notation program! Funny thing is, EastWest and Vienna (and I'm sure Gary as well) are all looking at how playback can be made more intuitive and realistic. Sure, there are some individuals that are only concerned about creating a printed score but if you want playback as well, it has to be Finale. And that doesn't just apply to GPO.

Furthermore, Human Playback isn't just about recognising expressions. It allows you to apply degrees of expression and intelligently handles a host of other things ranging from swing to waltz to romantic etc.

Regards, Graham

GrahamKeitch

05-17-2008, 04:27 PM

But if you want the best playback possible, forget the notation software altogether.

Jon

Thanks Jon, that's an interesting point and one I wouldn't dispute entirely - but I would like to think the more that is achieved by the notation software, the better. Once we enter the discussion of DAW versus notation, we bring a lot of other subjective issues into play that are more related to the effects that methodology has on composition and creativity. Despite any shortcomings, I prefer notation software because it helps me to see the score as a 'piece of paper' upon which I'm creating a musical landscape. It's possibly not fair to say this but I can often recognise a piece of music that's been played via keyboard into a DAW - it sounds like keyboard music in it's structure, often chord-like and lacking contrapuntal qualities. I think you're correct in saying that notation software alone isn't adequate - but Finale, as you have implied, is the right tool for those concerned about playback from a notational perspective.

Regards, Graham

darrob

05-17-2008, 09:04 PM

But if you want the best playback possible, forget the notation software altogether.

I'm not sure I can totally agree with this one.

It may be true if you're gifted in the use of sequencers. For others (such as myself) who are not that handy with sequencers, I think that the best possible solution is a combination of both.

1) Use Notation software to create/enter the music
2) Use HP to produce the playback
3) Tweak the resulting Midi file in a sequencer.

This approach is (again, referring to myself here) the quickest and yields the best results

cheers...

darrob

05-17-2008, 09:57 PM

Now, with HP it may not be necessary to wipe out all the CC data.... but that's not to say the resulting MIDI file won't be due its share of editing as well....

Now that I can totally agree with :)

Cheers...

Daz :0)

tradivoro

05-17-2008, 10:08 PM

As a guy who has dabbled with the demos of both programs, I can tell you that getting Finale up and running was no problem, whereas sibelius was problematic... I'm very experienced in using daw's so it's not like my first experience with music programs... But if I ever get a notation program, finale would be the one, since without looking at the instrucitons, I was already putting a score, not so with sibelius... Even reading the manual, it wasn't doing what it said... so, for me, Finale works easier...

GrahamKeitch

05-18-2008, 02:15 AM

ok, no argument that a combination of the two works (in another thread you'll see that I use this combination myself!).
Jon

That's true Jon, you need every tool available - DAW, Finale / Sib, keyboard or a combination of each. Even then, lot of tweaking is required for the best playback results regardless of the method. A lot easier and cheaper than getting an orchestra together though - and they don't always behave themselves!

Graham

caher

05-19-2008, 07:02 PM

on guard:samurai:

jon

Fencers ready? Fence!

Attack from the left is parried, riposte is no, remise from the left arrives.

Touch Left!
:D

Regards,
Chris

GrahamKeitch

05-20-2008, 04:25 PM

Alright, there's too much agreement happening in this thread. Arguing, fighting, debating endlessly the importance of the color of the desktop icon - that's what needs to be happening.

on guard:samurai:

:D

jon

Well, now you've mentioned it.......!

Anyway, what I'd like to know is whether Matt has opted for Finale or not? Hopefully, the more people that buy it, the more that should go into R&D. And competition between the various vendors is no bad thing.

Now, talking about competition, what have I done with my sword.........Swooooosh, now take that ole chap!

G

Matthew S Phillips

05-21-2008, 09:37 AM

Hi Graham,

Well jury's still out. I have been experimenting with the Finale demo, and it seems to me that neither program has an obvious or observable advantage over the other in ease of workflow. Rather they do things in different ways, which leads to largely ingrained habits in their users, who then percieve the one they have learned as "easy" and the other as "hard."

Currently I know all of Sibelius's shortcuts, quirks and tricks so I can obviously work faster on Sibelius. But had I learned Finale the opposite would be true.

I suspect the same is true for Finale's playback. I got alot of "Finale beats Sibelius" comments about playback but not a whole lot about why, which leads me to believe that, like the general interface, its what you have known how to do for years that appears "easy." So the only reason for a 10 year sibelius user like myself to switch would be if Sibelius's bugginess continues to bug me;).

So right now I'm still using Sibelius, but still trying to learn Finale just in case I decide to switch.

Consider Sibelius on notice. ;)
Matt

darrob

05-21-2008, 10:22 AM

Hi

For me the decision came when I compared the playback of Finale 2006 and Sibelius 4

The biggest thing was a decrescendo.
In Sibelius, using midi sounds, the decrescendo seemed to come in 'steps'.

In other words, going from a notated f to a notated p over a period of 4 1/2 notes, Sib output was one 1/2 note at one volume, then next slightly softer, the next slightly softer etc.
Finale was able to produce a smooth decresc.

The problem was that Sib was using only velocity, whereas Finale was using velocity and volume.

As I've used Finale more, there are other nice things.

I can take a score and play back with Softsynth (midi sounds) full of arco-pizz, staccato, marcato accents etc and it will play back properly.
I can then load Garritan sounds, and without changing anything in the score, playback will still be correct. To the extent that sampled tremolos will be played when notes are marked as such. (ie, using softsynth, there will be an automatic patch change, using GPO the appropriate keyswitch will occur)

HP will correctly interpret a solo passage.
When marked with "Solo", the volume for the marked section will be bumped up by a small amount, then drop back to normal when then end of the solo passage is indicated.

Instrument techniques for Garritan and standard midi are very well supported by HP. Load a library with a huge number of pre-defined expression or create new ones. No need to actually define what actions the software needs to take to get the expressions to work. HP has a large dictionary that it can properly interpret.
If you're using an unsupported library (such as EWQL SO or First Call Horns) add a technique to HP preferences. This needs to be done exactly once per technique. Once done and saved in HP preferences, any new (or existing) scores that use the library will be able to use the technique.

I cannot directly compare how playback is handled in Sib 5, having gotten frustrated very quickly when playing with the demo, but it is still my opinion that Finale2006 was by far better at playing back what was notated then Sibelius 4 was.

Cheers...

Daz :0)

raz.bari.88

05-21-2008, 11:09 AM

Hi

I cannot directly compare how playback is handled in Sib 5, having gotten frustrated very quickly when playing with the demo, but it is still my opinion that Finale2006 was by far better at playing back what was notated then Sibelius 4 was.

Cheers...

Daz :0)

You pretty much described it right. Sibelius 4 was even worse with notated elements than Sibelius 5 is. Sib 5 has come a long way with recognizing elements of the score, but it still doesn't touch Human Playback. What I really like about HP is that the range between dynamics seems to be larger than Sib's, HP recognizes more of the graphic elements like scoops and lip-trills, and no matter what device you use, HP will interpret every thing the same way.

Don't get me wrong, Sib is getting better, but it just isn't there yet. And I forgot to add, HP will add swells and other dynamic changes to long tied notes to make them a little more interesting, whereas Sib 5 just holds the notes at the same volume.

It seems like HP takes a little more liberty with interpreting the score, whereas Sib 5's playback is a lot more strict; it will only playback what you tell it to, no more, no less.

GrahamKeitch

05-21-2008, 03:20 PM

And I forgot to add, HP will add swells and other dynamic changes to long tied notes to make them a little more interesting, whereas Sib 5 just holds the notes at the same volume.

It seems like HP takes a little more liberty with interpreting the score, whereas Sib 5's playback is a lot more strict; it will only playback what you tell it to, no more, no less.

Absolutely right - Finale HP doesn't just interpret expressions, in the sense of adding an articulation or keyswitch to the score. It allows you to specify playback style to a part or whole of the score, eg classical, romantic, waltz etc. And you can specify the intensity of the effects. It breathes life into the playback which makes such a difference. Sure, you may wish to go and tweak the interpretation later to gain absolute control over every note but you get instant results out of the box and these are optimised for GPO.

For me, notation software is the right tool to compose with and the more playback intelligence it has the better. That, afterall, is the purpose of a score - to enable musicians to create a soundscape as instructed by the score! Only, we're using samples not real musicians (thankfully!!) Finale 2004 HP was indeed messy but those concerned in resolving the issues have made great progress and I think they should be congratulated for their ground breaking efforts! That includes, Robert P, Gary G and his team and others.

Regards, Graham

www.soundclick.com/grahamkeitch

raweber

05-21-2008, 08:07 PM

As much as a supporter of Finale and HP that I am, I am now going to stand up on my soapbox and complain. Maybe this doesn't happen to anyone else, but I am now working on my second largish piece using the Finale GPO, and am having the same problem.

See, HP is a miracle... when it works! For some reason, in my projects, it occasionally goes to sleep, and will never wake up again. In my first project, I came out of a pizz section with the section strings and it ignored the "arco" notation. In the end I had to attach a keyswitch to the notation to get my strings back.

Tonight I'm working on another project, and again I'm coming out of a pizz
section with the section strings, and again it's ignoring the arco. So, back to the keyswitch. But, now it's ignoring all the notation after the arco! No ff, no slurs.

My HP went to sleep! How do I wake it up?!?

Come to think of it, after coming back into the arco section on the last piece, it ignored the slurs, as well.

Why do I come to a point in the piece and all of the sudden Finale turns off HP? Has anyone else ever had this problem? Could it be because I attached keyswitches to notation? Maybe I should just load in the separate articulations and write in three different staves?

Sorry for rambling - I'm just ticked off tonight.