till wrote: > I was just wondering what is it then that you like so much in Finale? You > said both are good, but for different things. What is this thing? Is it that > it is easier to correct typesetting errors in Finale?
Another third-party view .... What makes Finale and Sibelius nice in many situations is that they are not just notation tools but _composition_ tools, which allow you to enter into a dialogue between notation, playback and performance. As a result, it tends to smooth the passage between experimental and sketching stages of composition and producing the final score. Lilypond is more suitable for a case where you already know precisely what you want to notate. To take an example, recently I was working with a friend on some songs: I used Rosegarden to sketch out the notes and rhythms and to play around with some ideas we wanted tested, and then later used Lilypond to produce the final notation. With Finale, a step would have been removed in that process. Further benefits of Finale/Sibelius: you can concern yourself purely with what the score looks like and not have to worry about the underlying data structures (this is a disadvantage sometimes, too); typo spotting and correction is indeed easier (the close relationship with playback helps here); and it's much easier to be very precise with the visuals of your notation. I'm very, very fussy about the precise placement of dynamic marks and other such notation and this is non-trivial with Lilypond. Of course, Lilypond has some BIG advantages. For example, what other notation program can understand and logically and correctly interpret a 7/10 time signature? Perhaps not a big issue for a lot of people, but it does say a lot about the power and flexibility of Lilypond's data structures. -- Joe _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user