On 15 Oct 2006 at 8:31, dhbailey wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > On 14 Oct 2006 at 6:13, dhbailey wrote: > [snip] > >> As more layers of management get added at the top, local control > >> gets lost. As overall corporate focus shifts, development dollars > >> get moved from one department to another. Look at Finale and > >> Smartmusic > > > > Wasn't SmartMusic developed by the same team responsible for Finale? > > I don't know which team developed it -- it is my understanding that > the two teams are different these days.
Yes, of course, at this point they'd like have two programming teams. But my question was about whether or not Smartmusic was a product of MakeMusic and Finale a product of Coda. I thought Smartmusic came about from the Coda team, even if after the change of name to MM. Of course, I don't actually know if that was a purchase of Coda by MM or if Coda just changed its name after the infusion of new investment. [] > > And given recent discussion on this list, this would be a *bad* > > thing? Wouldn't a sequencer with Sibelius-quality notational output > > be a Finale killer? > > It would be as long as all those who use Sibelius for engraving mostly > and playback only for proof-listening (there are many on the Sibelius > list who are a lot like many on the Finale list who are > engravers/arrangers/composers predominantly and not the sort of > performers who want a sequencer program at all beyond what the > notation program already has for midi-entry. Well, you assume three things about the potential embedding Sibelius in a sequencer: 1. the development of Sibelius as a standalone product would cease 2. the development of notational improvements would cease 3. the embedded version would not have all the capabilities that the original version had. I don't see why any of those are warranted as an a priori assumption. > And I don't think I would like that at any rate, since the appearance > of a Finale-killer would sicken me beyond belief -- I own Sibelius but > I would dread the day it remains as the only major notation program > available, since I don't like using it. I like to be realistic. I see that Sibelius has all the mind-share for new users because of it's supposed ease of learning/use (I dispute both, actually, but that's not the conventional wisdom). We're already in a precarious place with Finale and have been since Sibelius aggressively upgraded its software in the last two versions. I'm not sure that notation software as anything other than a niche application could continue to exist once a sequencer got to the point of producing Sibelius-level notation. That means niche applications like Score and Lilypond, which can continue to exist below the radar because they aren't really commercially viable (because they don't have a user interface, which makes maintaining and enhancing them much easier). The reason Finale and Sibelius can exist is because they serve a broad number of users with different kinds of needs. Once a sequencer can provide excellent notation, there's no longer any need for a huge swath of potential users of notation programs to need the standalone notation package. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
