Robert Patterson Finale wrote:
David Bailey:
I recall you making that recommendation at the time, Robert, and
much as I admire you, I thought you were wrong then and I still
think you're wrong now.
I think you misunderstand the point of my recommendation. It was
precisely that Finale *should* stick to being a notation package,
rather than reinventing the DAW wheel. By getting in bed with
ProTools, Sibelius has relieved itself of the need (in the long run)
of becoming everything. It now has the opportunity to focus on
notation.
Yes, I did misunderstand you -- to a point we are in complete agreement.
But I remain skeptical that Sibelius will remain strictly a notation
program. It's already got film sync built into it (2 versions before
Finale added that capability) and while that aspect is for locking in
notation to the video, I don't think it's going to be too long before it
adds audio capabilities, just what you and I are hoping won't happen
with Finale.
Here's hoping that Sibelius is allowed to focus on notation -- something
I'm not optimistic about.
I see it more as a front-end/back-end thing. Eventually things will be
rolled into one application, and simply marketed with two different
front-ends for different markets but in reality the same piece of
software. One will be a notation program with all the bells and
whistles of a DAW, and the other will be a full-fledged DAW with one of
the best notation capabilities available today. One will be marketed
towards educators and "serious" (I hate that term, maybe I should use
"non-pop") composers who will increasingly incorporate audio with their
notation (like the 20th century works for acoustic instruments and
electronic tape) and the other will be marketed to the pop/rock/movie
world which works with audio first and finally gets around to notation
for those acoustic instruments they wish to include.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
