Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 upgrade sale
Hi Darcy-- The correct price is $85, not $65 dollars, and its regularly $169, not $129 http://shop.avid.com/store/product.do?product=306830378742688 The sale has been going on for the entire month of January and has been extended to Feb 14, due to strong demand , and problems keeping upgrades in stock in Sib's web store for nearly two weeks over the last month, Thanks Bob Morabito On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi all, For those on this list who also use Sibelius from time to time (as I do), you may be interested to know that they are offering heavily discounted upgrades to Sib6 from earlier versions (currently $65 instead of $129): http://store.soundtree.com/Sibelius-6-Upgrade-Academic_p_239.html Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 upgrade sale
Hi Bob, If you had actually clicked the link in my original message, you would have found that the offer I mentioned is indeed $65, reduced from $129. Here's the link again: http://store.soundtree.com/Sibelius-6-Upgrade-Academic_p_239.html Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On 3 Feb 2011, at 4:29 PM, Bob Morabito wrote: Hi Darcy-- The correct price is $85, not $65 dollars, and its regularly $169, not $129 http://shop.avid.com/store/product.do?product=306830378742688 The sale has been going on for the entire month of January and has been extended to Feb 14, due to strong demand , and problems keeping upgrades in stock in Sib's web store for nearly two weeks over the last month, Thanks Bob Morabito On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi all, For those on this list who also use Sibelius from time to time (as I do), you may be interested to know that they are offering heavily discounted upgrades to Sib6 from earlier versions (currently $65 instead of $129): http://store.soundtree.com/Sibelius-6-Upgrade-Academic_p_239.html Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 upgrade sale
Hi all, Well, that message came off as rather grumpier than I'd intended! Sorry about that, Bob. The $65 upgrade price I linked to is the Academic price. Bob is indeed correct that the upgrade price for non-academic users is $85 -- unlike Finale, Sibelius has tiered pricing for upgrades as well as the full version. Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On 3 Feb 2011, at 4:23 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi Bob, If you had actually clicked the link in my original message, you would have found that the offer I mentioned is indeed $65, reduced from $129. Here's the link again: http://store.soundtree.com/Sibelius-6-Upgrade-Academic_p_239.html Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On 3 Feb 2011, at 4:29 PM, Bob Morabito wrote: Hi Darcy-- The correct price is $85, not $65 dollars, and its regularly $169, not $129 http://shop.avid.com/store/product.do?product=306830378742688 The sale has been going on for the entire month of January and has been extended to Feb 14, due to strong demand , and problems keeping upgrades in stock in Sib's web store for nearly two weeks over the last month, Thanks Bob Morabito On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi all, For those on this list who also use Sibelius from time to time (as I do), you may be interested to know that they are offering heavily discounted upgrades to Sib6 from earlier versions (currently $65 instead of $129): http://store.soundtree.com/Sibelius-6-Upgrade-Academic_p_239.html Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 upgrade sale
No problem Darcy-- and i had already emailed the list, previous to your email here, explaining about the Academic vs the Professional upgrade.. however my emails to this list sometimes take hours to get here.. Thanks Bob On Feb 3, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi all, Well, that message came off as rather grumpier than I'd intended! Sorry about that, Bob. The $65 upgrade price I linked to is the Academic price. Bob is indeed correct that the upgrade price for non-academic users is $85 -- unlike Finale, Sibelius has tiered pricing for upgrades as well as the full version. Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On 3 Feb 2011, at 4:23 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi Bob, If you had actually clicked the link in my original message, you would have found that the offer I mentioned is indeed $65, reduced from $129. Here's the link again: http://store.soundtree.com/Sibelius-6-Upgrade-Academic_p_239.html Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On 3 Feb 2011, at 4:29 PM, Bob Morabito wrote: Hi Darcy-- The correct price is $85, not $65 dollars, and its regularly $169, not $129 http://shop.avid.com/store/product.do?product=306830378742688 The sale has been going on for the entire month of January and has been extended to Feb 14, due to strong demand , and problems keeping upgrades in stock in Sib's web store for nearly two weeks over the last month, Thanks Bob Morabito On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi all, For those on this list who also use Sibelius from time to time (as I do), you may be interested to know that they are offering heavily discounted upgrades to Sib6 from earlier versions (currently $65 instead of $129): http://store.soundtree.com/Sibelius-6-Upgrade-Academic_p_239.html Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 upgrade sale
Hi Bob, Thanks for your understanding! The occasional very long delays before emails go out to the list are a mystery to me too. Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On 3 Feb 2011, at 4:58 PM, Bob Morabito wrote: No problem Darcy-- and i had already emailed the list, previous to your email here, explaining about the Academic vs the Professional upgrade.. however my emails to this list sometimes take hours to get here.. Thanks Bob On Feb 3, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi all, Well, that message came off as rather grumpier than I'd intended! Sorry about that, Bob. The $65 upgrade price I linked to is the Academic price. Bob is indeed correct that the upgrade price for non-academic users is $85 -- unlike Finale, Sibelius has tiered pricing for upgrades as well as the full version. Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On 3 Feb 2011, at 4:23 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi Bob, If you had actually clicked the link in my original message, you would have found that the offer I mentioned is indeed $65, reduced from $129. Here's the link again: http://store.soundtree.com/Sibelius-6-Upgrade-Academic_p_239.html Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On 3 Feb 2011, at 4:29 PM, Bob Morabito wrote: Hi Darcy-- The correct price is $85, not $65 dollars, and its regularly $169, not $129 http://shop.avid.com/store/product.do?product=306830378742688 The sale has been going on for the entire month of January and has been extended to Feb 14, due to strong demand , and problems keeping upgrades in stock in Sib's web store for nearly two weeks over the last month, Thanks Bob Morabito On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi all, For those on this list who also use Sibelius from time to time (as I do), you may be interested to know that they are offering heavily discounted upgrades to Sib6 from earlier versions (currently $65 instead of $129): http://store.soundtree.com/Sibelius-6-Upgrade-Academic_p_239.html Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 upgrade sale
Hi Darcy-- Yes and thats for the ACADEMIC upgrade..the price I quoted was for the PROFESSIONAL upgrade, which I believe more people would be using, and qualified for. Thanks Bob Morabito On Feb 3, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi Bob, If you had actually clicked the link in my original message, you would have found that the offer I mentioned is indeed $65, reduced from $129. Here's the link again: http://store.soundtree.com/Sibelius-6-Upgrade-Academic_p_239.html Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On 3 Feb 2011, at 4:29 PM, Bob Morabito wrote: Hi Darcy-- The correct price is $85, not $65 dollars, and its regularly $169, not $129 http://shop.avid.com/store/product.do?product=306830378742688 The sale has been going on for the entire month of January and has been extended to Feb 14, due to strong demand , and problems keeping upgrades in stock in Sib's web store for nearly two weeks over the last month, Thanks Bob Morabito On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi all, For those on this list who also use Sibelius from time to time (as I do), you may be interested to know that they are offering heavily discounted upgrades to Sib6 from earlier versions (currently $65 instead of $129): http://store.soundtree.com/Sibelius-6-Upgrade-Academic_p_239.html Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 upgrade sale
Hi Darcy- You're welcome..and I see my referred to post below just arrived..almost an hour later..:) Thanks Bob On Feb 3, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi Bob, Thanks for your understanding! The occasional very long delays before emails go out to the list are a mystery to me too. Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On 3 Feb 2011, at 4:58 PM, Bob Morabito wrote: No problem Darcy-- and i had already emailed the list, previous to your email here, explaining about the Academic vs the Professional upgrade.. however my emails to this list sometimes take hours to get here.. Thanks Bob On Feb 3, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi all, Well, that message came off as rather grumpier than I'd intended! Sorry about that, Bob. The $65 upgrade price I linked to is the Academic price. Bob is indeed correct that the upgrade price for non-academic users is $85 -- unlike Finale, Sibelius has tiered pricing for upgrades as well as the full version. Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On 3 Feb 2011, at 4:23 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi Bob, If you had actually clicked the link in my original message, you would have found that the offer I mentioned is indeed $65, reduced from $129. Here's the link again: http://store.soundtree.com/Sibelius-6-Upgrade-Academic_p_239.html Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On 3 Feb 2011, at 4:29 PM, Bob Morabito wrote: Hi Darcy-- The correct price is $85, not $65 dollars, and its regularly $169, not $129 http://shop.avid.com/store/product.do?product=306830378742688 The sale has been going on for the entire month of January and has been extended to Feb 14, due to strong demand , and problems keeping upgrades in stock in Sib's web store for nearly two weeks over the last month, Thanks Bob Morabito On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi all, For those on this list who also use Sibelius from time to time (as I do), you may be interested to know that they are offering heavily discounted upgrades to Sib6 from earlier versions (currently $65 instead of $129): http://store.soundtree.com/Sibelius-6-Upgrade-Academic_p_239.html Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Sibelius 6 upgrade sale
Hi all, For those on this list who also use Sibelius from time to time (as I do), you may be interested to know that they are offering heavily discounted upgrades to Sib6 from earlier versions (currently $65 instead of $129): http://store.soundtree.com/Sibelius-6-Upgrade-Academic_p_239.html Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 to 5
Send it to me Dennis. On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 2:48 PM, dc den...@free.fr wrote: Could anyone convert one Sibelius 6 file to 5 (or to xml)? Many thanks, Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 to 5
At 8:48 PM +0200 10/3/10, dc wrote: Could anyone convert one Sibelius 6 file to 5 (or to xml)? Many thanks, Dennis Yes. Anyone with Sibelius 6 can save it (Export it in Sib-speak) as anything back to and including Sibelius 2. I can also open anything back to Sibelius 2. It is only opening a later version file in an earlier version that cannot be done. Students in my arranging class have anything from Sibelius 4 to 6, depending on when they entered school, and we have no problem sharing files. I don't know about XML because I've never tried to use it, but I believe that it's been better implemented in Finale because it was needed in order to deal with cross-version files. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On 25.05.2009 David W. Fenton wrote: How is pointing out past history in danger of starting a platform war? David, I didn't mean that you were starting one, but I wanted to prevent anyone else from making one out of this. It has happened every single time in the past. Johannes ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 25.05.2009 David W. Fenton wrote: How is pointing out past history in danger of starting a platform war? David, I didn't mean that you were starting one, but I wanted to prevent anyone else from making one out of this. It has happened every single time in the past. Johannes I quite agree, Johannes, and was surprised that none erupted. Must be a sign of maturity for all of us. :-) -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
I use a G5 2.7ghz dual OS 10.4.11 and Digital Performer 6.01. This runs well with Kontact 2 and Mach Five 2. In the past, notation (Finale) has not been the reason I buy a new computer. I guess I'll leave well enought alone. Mark McCarron --- On Mon, 5/25/09, Johannes Gebauer li...@musikmanufaktur.com wrote: From: Johannes Gebauer li...@musikmanufaktur.com Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Monday, May 25, 2009, 1:29 AM On 25.05.2009 David W. Fenton wrote: On 24 May 2009 at 19:21, Darcy James Argue wrote: It's been three and a half years since the Intel Macs were first introduced, which is practically an eternity in tech-years. You are going to see a lot of new software dropping PPC support soon. There's history on this. After the switch to PPC, how long was it before Mac software dropped support for the Motorola chips (whatever the class of them was called)? Without any intention of making this a platform war: Yes, you are right. It also means that the current Mac System doesn't carry much weight from the past. I have just ordered my new MacBook, as my ancient iBook is finally showing its age (the HD was beginning to fail). I will probably have to replace some of my software in the process. Johannes ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On 25 May 2009 at 7:29, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 25.05.2009 David W. Fenton wrote: On 24 May 2009 at 19:21, Darcy James Argue wrote: It's been three and a half years since the Intel Macs were first introduced, which is practically an eternity in tech-years. You are going to see a lot of new software dropping PPC support soon. There's history on this. After the switch to PPC, how long was it before Mac software dropped support for the Motorola chips (whatever the class of them was called)? Without any intention of making this a platform war: Yes, you are right. How is pointing out past history in danger of starting a platform war? There's history here, and the way things played out in the past might be a guide as to how things will play out this time around. If it was 5 years before everybody stopped supporting the old chips last time around, maybe it will be about 5 years this time, too. I don't know the answer to how long support for the old platform lasted, but I suspect that Mac users might remember. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Sibelius 6 requires Core Duo or better, 1GB+ total physical RAM (2GB recommended), 3.5GB total hard disk space Those of us who still use G5s would have to upgrade before using Sibelius 6. Mark McCarron ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On Sat, 23 May 2009 13:20 -0700, Mark McCarron mmcg...@yahoo.com wrote: Sibelius 6 requires Core Duo or better, 1GB+ total physical RAM (2GB recommended), 3.5GB total hard disk space Those of us who still use G5s would have to upgrade before using Sibelius 6. That's not what the web site says. It says here: http://www.sibelius.com/products/sibelius/features/requirements.html that for minimum requirements, you need Mac OS X 10.4.9 or later. The *recommended* requirements include an Intel Core Duo, if you want to use the built-in sounds. But I've run the Sibelius 6 demo on my G5 and it works fine. Hard to say how well the included sounds would work on my Mac without buying the upgrade. Best, -WR -- Will Roberts whrcompo...@fastmail.fm ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On 25.05.2009 Will Roberts wrote: On Sat, 23 May 2009 13:20 -0700, Mark McCarron mmcg...@yahoo.com wrote: Sibelius 6 requires Core Duo or better, 1GB+ total physical RAM (2GB recommended), 3.5GB total hard disk space Those of us who still use G5s would have to upgrade before using Sibelius 6. That's not what the web site says. It says here: http://www.sibelius.com/products/sibelius/features/requirements.html that for minimum requirements, you need Mac OS X 10.4.9 or later. The *recommended* requirements include an Intel Core Duo, if you want to use the built-in sounds. But I've run the Sibelius 6 demo on my G5 and it works fine. Hard to say how well the included sounds would work on my Mac without buying the upgrade. The German blurb says only: Mac Sibelius 5: Mac OS X 10.4.9 oder neuer oder Mac OS X 10.5, 350 MB Festplattenkapazität, 512 MB oder mehr RAM empfohlen, DVD-ROM-Laufwerk Sibelius Sounds Essentials und Kontakt Player 2: 3,5 GB Festplattenkapazität insgesamt, 1 GB oder mehr RAM empfohlen, G5 oder Intel Prozessor empfohlen So not even a core duo, just intel as recommendation (which would include the original intel mac mini I guess). Johannes ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
It's been three and a half years since the Intel Macs were first introduced, which is practically an eternity in tech-years. You are going to see a lot of new software dropping PPC support soon. Cheers, - Darcy - djar...@earthlink.net Brooklyn, NY On 23 May 2009, at 4:20 PM, Mark McCarron wrote: Sibelius 6 requires Core Duo or better, 1GB+ total physical RAM (2GB recommended), 3.5GB total hard disk space Those of us who still use G5s would have to upgrade before using Sibelius 6. Mark McCarron ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On 24 May 2009 at 19:21, Darcy James Argue wrote: It's been three and a half years since the Intel Macs were first introduced, which is practically an eternity in tech-years. You are going to see a lot of new software dropping PPC support soon. There's history on this. After the switch to PPC, how long was it before Mac software dropped support for the Motorola chips (whatever the class of them was called)? -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On 25.05.2009 Johannes Gebauer wrote: The German blurb says only: Mac Sibelius 5: Mac OS X 10.4.9 oder neuer oder Mac OS X 10.5, 350 MB Festplattenkapazität, 512 MB oder mehr RAM empfohlen, DVD-ROM-Laufwerk Sibelius Sounds Essentials und Kontakt Player 2: 3,5 GB Festplattenkapazität insgesamt, 1 GB oder mehr RAM empfohlen, G5 oder Intel Prozessor empfohlen So not even a core duo, just intel as recommendation (which would include the original intel mac mini I guess). Johannes Sorry, I just realized that this was for Sibelius 5, they haven't updated the site... Johannes ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On 25.05.2009 David W. Fenton wrote: On 24 May 2009 at 19:21, Darcy James Argue wrote: It's been three and a half years since the Intel Macs were first introduced, which is practically an eternity in tech-years. You are going to see a lot of new software dropping PPC support soon. There's history on this. After the switch to PPC, how long was it before Mac software dropped support for the Motorola chips (whatever the class of them was called)? Without any intention of making this a platform war: Yes, you are right. It also means that the current Mac System doesn't carry much weight from the past. I have just ordered my new MacBook, as my ancient iBook is finally showing its age (the HD was beginning to fail). I will probably have to replace some of my software in the process. Johannes ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
I wanted to reply to a couple of the comments raised regarding file conversion back and forth between Finale and Sibelius: I won't switch until either MakeMusic goes under or until Sibelius can open, natively, Finale files. The latter will not happen. Sibelius 6 has removed the importers for Finale, SCORE, Acorn Sibelius, and ASCII tab files. Daniel Spreadbury stated on the Yahoo list that we elected to remove them, and there's no going back from that decision. We are committed to continuing to improve the MusicXML importer, which is now the notation interchange format of choice for most applications. One of our goals when starting the MusicXML project was to reduce the number of file converters that music software developers had to write. Sibelius 6's streamlining of its file importers is an example of what we had in mind. The problem at the moment seems to be in the other direction, importing Sibelius files into Finale, but that problem goes back to Coda's refusal to support a universal protocol some years ago... Well, the translation in both directions is pretty good these days, making it an enormous time saver. Of course there is room for improvement in both directions, and those gaps are more critical for some scenarios than for others. When going from Sibelius to Finale, the problems are largely due to gaps in Sibelius's plug-in development support. However, Sibelius's plug-in support has been getting better with each release. The new ManuScript features added in Sibelius 6 should allow for higher quality MusicXML export from Sibelius in the future. Coda indeed did not support the NIFF effort, but the NIFF format was very graphical, making it a poor match for the way that programs like Finale and Sibelius work. This is one reason why NIFF never came close to being a universal protocol. Coda was the first major notation company to support the MusicXML format starting with Finale 2003. MakeMusic still leads in notation interchange across applications, given the level of MusicXML support in everything from Finale 2009 to NotePad 2009. Best regards, Michael Good Recordare LLC www.recordare.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
- sibelius' user base is (still) mainly based on the people who use it lightly or for industrial purposes, and not for serious engraving. these persons are usually happy with the program/standard output as is, and many times don't go down enough to get into some of the small bugs/incongruences. I do think you'd get some argument on that statement, although it really depends on what you specifically mean by industrial purposes and by serious engraving. In my own work, I'm not preparing copy for big publishers and probably never will be, but I will always need good, clean, readable copy that looks professional, with the least possible hassle, and almost all of my work is in common practice notation. Composer's Mosaic, which seems archaic today, gave me good copy right out of the box because the programmers chose good defaults. So does Sibelius, and I've never found any reason to use anything but the default House Style. Finale, in contrast--AT THE TIME OUR DEPARTMENT WAS USING IT--looked just plain ugly out of the box, because the choices of defaults simply sucked! Mosaic had linked score and parts 15 years before either Finale or Sibelius. It not only allowed page layout in parts but required it. Sibelius still doesn't do automatic layout well enough for me (although it will be interesting to see what Sib6 does), but it comes very close, and I'm used to finishing up with hand work on layout. In contrast, the Finale parts I've played that come from Nashville arrangers who DO use Finale right out of the box are just awful! Perhaps you'd judge my standards as low. Perhaps you'd be right. But I came to computer engraving from decades of hand copying, and from decades of reading published music that sometimes did not reflect very high standards of engraving in the first place (and don't even talk to me about French publishers!!!), and once Mark of the Unicorn moved from their really amateurish Professional Composer to Composer's Mosaic I haven't looked back or regretted not having to hand copy one bit. Today I arrange and compose directly to computer, and have stacks of old score paper that will probably never be used. It really comes down to intelligent choice of defaults. Mark of the Unicorn and Sibelius both had those. Coda never did, and ugly slurs across staff breaks were a dead giveaway. Finale may allow anything you want to do (although the discussions on this very list suggest otherwise), but it also REQUIRES defeating the defaults and making your own, for no very good reason. 90% of our students hated it, but they are actually using Sibelius. That's important to me. that was my point exactly. for most people, sibelius out of the box is good enough, because they were clever to make their product attractive already from day 1. I don't judge any standards besides if they're appropriate or not - and for most of the users, they are really appropriate, so there's no need to go even deeper with the program, if the program already offers what you want without even opening up the manual or start editing parameters in your house style. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
At first, I just let that roll off. Over the years, I have come to expect that kind of condescending attitude from some Finale users. Indeed, that was my frist response to Sibelius (v.1) 10 years ago after years of Finale use (beginning with Fin 2.2). probably that sounds condescending, but that's not what I meant. I said mainly, I never said that sibelius can't be used for serious engraving etc. - I would never say that, as I am myself involved in that area, and those were always my main critiques on the sibelius list: that industry-related features get implemented faster than fine-tuning of engraving details - but it's their policy, and they're sucessful with it. And I say what I said, because when I want to see tips about experienced engraving (not only software, but everything to do with the process), I go to the finale list. If I go to the sibelius list, I'll see for the 1xxxth time questions like how to switch lyric verses or why string players complain when I use the same slurs as I did for the winds. - sibelius' user base is (still) mainly based on the people who use it lightly or for industrial purposes, and not for serious engraving. these persons are usually happy with the program/standard output as is, and many times don't go down enough to get into some of the small bugs/incongruences. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
- sibelius' user base is (still) mainly based on the people who use it lightly or for industrial purposes, and not for serious engraving. these persons are usually happy with the program/standard output as is, and many times don't go down enough to get into some of the small bugs/incongruences. That statement is quite wrong for so many reasons. care to say at least some of them, if not all? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: If you approach Sibelius as if it were Finale, you'll be frustrated. If you're willing to let Sibelius be itself and change your working method to fit Sibelius, you'll probably be very happy. Finale and Sibelius think differently. If you think like Sibelius you'll love it. But if you think like Finale, you'll probably find Sibelius clumsy and not to you liking. I will add that it was Richard's peaceful and concise statements such as that which made me give Sibelius a second, better look after facing great frustration when I purchased the cross-grade offer back at Sibelius 2.11. There are those of us who can realize that both programs have their two different methods of data entry and can switch fluently between them: Finale - pitch first and then duration (speedy entry using computer keyboard) Sibelius - duration first and then pitch It's like being able to speak/think in two different verbal languages. Once one learns the idiocyncracies of any language, one can use it fluently, no matter whether it's the first, second, third language, and with practice at however many languages one learns, one can remain fluent in them all simultaneously. The same is true of Finale and Sibelius -- I can fire up Sibelius and get right to work now because I approached it as a brand new program, working through the tutorials and reading the manual (what a concept!) and I stopped trying to think of it as Finale-East or some such nonsense. And I can just as easily fire up Finale and get right to work with that, and I can even have the two programs working at the same time and switch between them and not have a problem. It all depends greatly on how you approach learning Sibelius, if you're coming from Finale. Don't think of the Finale procedure and try to figure out how to do it in Sibelius because the process may be quite different. Rather, think of it as I need to get this notational result, how do I do it in Sibelius. You will run into lots of gee, that's easier in Finale and you'll run into just as many Oh my God, that is so easy situations. But be patient and remember how long it took you to learn Finale well enough to get the elegant results you want, and realize that it'll take time to get to the same point with Sibelius. Don't buy it and tell a client you'll have his project completed by Monday. :-) -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Yeah ... it's kind of like finding a church you like. Sort of -- usually with finding a church you like, that's where you stay, rather than finding two different churches you like and alternating worship services between the two. But with notation software, there's nothing preventing people from being fluent in both Finale and Sibelius and enjoying working with them both, using whichever one seems to be easier for whatever project is on the table. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Christopher Smith wrote: That sounds fair enough. The only trouble is my entire computer notation life was built ground up with Finale, so I find Sibelius hard to get around. Mine had been as well, moving from MusicPrinterPlus to Finale way back around 1991 or so, and then making the first investigative steps toward Sibelius back around 6 years ago. I find both programs easy to get around now. I realize there are some Finale users who won't become comfortable with Sibelius, and that's fine. But I don't want anybody to be scared away from Sibelius just because others have found it hard to get comfortable with it. By the way, whenever someone on the Sibelius list makes outrageous complaints about how obtuse Finale is, I make the same sort of reply as I'm making about Sibelius on this group, that one program isn't any more obtuse than the other, and neither is easier to learn (fully) than the other. A user who wants to gain the best understanding about either program (or any major computer program regardless of the type) needs to work through tutorials and to read the manual and to begin to practice with the new program by taking baby steps and gradually increasing in complexity. Neither program is the sort that anybody should buy it, install it, and tell someone they'll have a project completed in a few days. Unless it's a melody-only lead-sheet without words for Mary Had A Little Lamb. ;-) -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
João Pais wrote: - sibelius' user base is (still) mainly based on the people who use it lightly or for industrial purposes, and not for serious engraving. these persons are usually happy with the program/standard output as is, and many times don't go down enough to get into some of the small bugs/incongruences. That statement is quite wrong for so many reasons. care to say at least some of them, if not all? Just read a cross-sample of the backgrounds of the users on the Sibelius list -- There are people who are making arrangements which are performed at the prestigious Proms concerts at the Albert Hall in London, there are people whose arrangements and compositions are published by major publishers such as C.L.Barnhouse, there are composers working in the film genre, there are authors using Sibelius to create musical examples for their books, there are university students who are composition majors, there are essentially the same level and spectrum of Sibelius users represented on that list as Finale users represented on this list. Neither program has a lock on serious notation users, nor on light notation users. I still don't understand what industrial purposes means -- unless by that you are writing off all the people who use either program to computer-engrave music for publication. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
João Pais wrote: At first, I just let that roll off. Over the years, I have come to expect that kind of condescending attitude from some Finale users. Indeed, that was my frist response to Sibelius (v.1) 10 years ago after years of Finale use (beginning with Fin 2.2). probably that sounds condescending, but that's not what I meant. I said mainly, I never said that sibelius can't be used for serious engraving etc. - I would never say that, as I am myself involved in that area, and those were always my main critiques on the sibelius list: that industry-related features get implemented faster than fine-tuning of engraving details - but it's their policy, and they're sucessful with it. And I say what I said, because when I want to see tips about experienced engraving (not only software, but everything to do with the process), I go to the finale list. If I go to the sibelius list, I'll see for the 1xxxth time questions like how to switch lyric verses or why string players complain when I use the same slurs as I did for the winds. You've not been on this Finale list for very long, have you? The same sorts of discussions related to slurs and string players, as well as switching lyric verses (on the Finale list, quite often the question isn't how to switch verses but rather why did my copy/pasted lyrics end up in a different verse when they should be in the same verse?) have occurred here over the years. I'm a member of both lists and I've read the same sorts of discussions on both lists (regarding chord progressions, regarding the naming of certain combinations of pitches, etc., etc., etc.) and I see no overall difference between the two lists other than the grand presence of the senior product manager on the Sibelius list who fields users' questions with grace, with a calm voice no matter how volatile the diatribe, and who admits when there are shortcomings in the program and readily admits when something is on the list of things to work on and also admits when something had been decided to be tabled. And he usually discusses the reasoning behind the decisions, when pressed. But otherwise, the general discussions among the members of both lists are the same over a long period of time. There are few new members of this Finale list asking how to add a pickup measure with better results than the built-in mechanism, but there was a time when that was asked almost every other week. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Sibelius and Makemusic both understand that most of their user base are casual users. No shame in that. But it is true that Sibelius works better for the casual user - by design - than Finale does. And while there have been improvements in Finale's defaults, there is still much room for improvement and there is shame in that. Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 6:41 AM, João Pais wrote: At first, I just let that roll off. Over the years, I have come to expect that kind of condescending attitude from some Finale users. Indeed, that was my frist response to Sibelius (v.1) 10 years ago after years of Finale use (beginning with Fin 2.2). probably that sounds condescending, but that's not what I meant. I said mainly, I never said that sibelius can't be used for serious engraving etc. - I would never say that, as I am myself involved in that area, and those were always my main critiques on the sibelius list: that industry-related features get implemented faster than fine-tuning of engraving details - but it's their policy, and they're sucessful with it. And I say what I said, because when I want to see tips about experienced engraving (not only software, but everything to do with the process), I go to the finale list. If I go to the sibelius list, I'll see for the 1xxxth time questions like how to switch lyric verses or why string players complain when I use the same slurs as I did for the winds. - sibelius' user base is (still) mainly based on the people who use it lightly or for industrial purposes, and not for serious engraving. these persons are usually happy with the program/standard output as is, and many times don't go down enough to get into some of the small bugs/incongruences. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On May 22, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Sibelius and Makemusic both understand that most of their user base are casual users. No shame in that. But it is true that Sibelius works better for the casual user - by design - than Finale does. And while there have been improvements in Finale's defaults, there is still much room for improvement and there is shame in that. Christopher Here I go talking to myself, arguing with myself to make it worse... Actually, one area I see with my students is that Sibelius' default size for chord symbols is TINY. That is a default file problem. However, when I ask them to increase it, no problem; it's a very easy fix in Sibelius. But try to do the same thing in Finale with one of the JazzCord libraries... whoa! There, I just argued with myself, gave point, counterpoint and rebuttal, and I think I won the argument! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Just read a cross-sample of the backgrounds of the users on the Sibelius list -- There are people who are making arrangements which are performed at the prestigious Proms concerts at the Albert Hall in London, there are people whose arrangements and compositions are published by major publishers such as C.L.Barnhouse, there are composers working in the film genre, there are authors using Sibelius to create musical examples for their books, there are university students who are composition majors, there are essentially the same level and spectrum of Sibelius users represented on that list as Finale users represented on this list. I never said those people don't use sibelius (you can count me in in the group of persons that work for publishers/composers/film music/...). I said that besides those people, there are many people that only need something fast, who produces good enough results quick - and that sibelius delivers perfectly. for example, people who I bet would never go through the process to learn finale enough to produce something as decent-looking as sibelius does out of the box. eveytime a new upgrade comes up, there are 100s of people writing 5 minutes later about how great the new upgrade is, etc. Only too few ask for the bug fix list/detailed feature list and say: ok, that's nice. how about this *engraving* issue that was always since version x, and was mentioned several times on the mailing list? is it already solved? ah, didn't think so. but it's still on the wish list, right? I'll wait for that, I see a much more critic attitude on the finale list when a new version comes out - but maybe it's not that easy to compare, because of the yearly delivery standard, etc. (a mail commenting that was on the origin of this whole thread, if I remember correctly). Neither program has a lock on serious notation users, nor on light notation users. I would disagree with that. sibelius always adverted as intuitive, easy to use, etc - here are some citations (probably some from people you know?) http://hub.sibelius.com/products/sibelius/reviews/userquotes.html. And to my impression it is as well - I only started looking at the manual some time after starting using sibelius; from what I remember trying to use finale, I gave up to encore or something else quite fast (that was still in the mid 90s, I heard it's better now). if someone asks you I wanted to try out a notesetting program, but I'm really bad at computers, which program would you advise? I and many people I know (including expert finale users) advise sibelius without thinking twice. this doesn't happen by chance. the little I know from finale tells me that it has the possibility to go into much finer detail than sibelius - and has many things I would like to see implemented in sibelius (I guess that it *might* happen sooner or later - except if finale disappers). I still don't understand what industrial purposes means -- unless by that you are writing off all the people who use either program to computer-engrave music for publication. I meant industrial as something like film music, where it's only important to produce a good/clear score as fast as possible so that it can be read/played by the musicians without problems (also because sometimes you get the material some hours before the recording session). after the recording session the score isn't (in most cases) necessary anymore (and many scores wouldn't be published in the state they're sent to the recording sessions). in those cases the most important thing is that the program is able to deliver a decent-looking score with as less tweaking as possible, and as fast as possible - which sibelius always did, specially from version 4. basically, to produce something with enough quality as fast as possible and as mechanized as possible (like a mechanized factory, I guess). I'll try to illustrate my point with this example: I guess it's clear that many people changed from finale to sibelius from version 4, because of the dynamic partsTM alone. they're great, specially for film/traditional music. but for me (contemporary music), I can't use them most of the times. why? because if I use a big time signature on the score and change the distance to barline parameter on the house style, this parameter stays with the same value on the parts (and will look really bad). that means that if I do an orchestral score, I need 2 files, one for the score, and one for the parts - which kind of almost annuls the dynamic partsTm feature (there are anyway other advantages of having all parts on the same file, though). those are the kind of details that I mean that sibelius people are aware of what's important for most part of the users/general use, but sometimes don't go into fine details. they'll get to it eventually (I hope), but they have other priorities. and by the way they
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
I've been in both probably since I started earning my living mainly engraving, around 4 years ago - which is nothing compared with many of you guys. of course it's true what you say - but in the sibelius list I rarely/never saw a thread about good quality fonts, printers, binding, editing standards, requirements for orchestra materials, etc. That is, things that engravers should know, and aren't written in the software manual (or not written anywhere at all). Of course you'll always have begginers asking things around - if I would be using finale, I would be one of them. I usually skim through the list and delete what I don't need, and I end up having more to read in the finale list as in the sibelius one. You've not been on this Finale list for very long, have you? The same sorts of discussions related to slurs and string players, as well as switching lyric verses (on the Finale list, quite often the question isn't how to switch verses but rather why did my copy/pasted lyrics end up in a different verse when they should be in the same verse?) have occurred here over the years. I'm a member of both lists and I've read the same sorts of discussions on both lists (regarding chord progressions, regarding the naming of certain combinations of pitches, etc., etc., etc.) and I see no overall difference between the two lists other than the grand presence of the senior product manager on the Sibelius list who fields users' questions with grace, with a calm voice no matter how volatile the diatribe, and who admits when there are shortcomings in the program and readily admits when something is on the list of things to work on and also admits when something had been decided to be tabled. And he usually discusses the reasoning behind the decisions, when pressed. But otherwise, the general discussions among the members of both lists are the same over a long period of time. There are few new members of this Finale list asking how to add a pickup measure with better results than the built-in mechanism, but there was a time when that was asked almost every other week. -- Friedenstr. 58 10249 Berlin (Deutschland) Tel +49 30 42020091 | Mob +49 162 6843570 jmmmp...@googlemail.com | skype: jmmmpjmmmp ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
the little I know from finale tells me that it has the possibility to go into much finer detail than sibelius - and has many things I would like to see implemented in sibelius (I guess that it *might* happen sooner or later - except if finale disappers). Finale is *not* more capable of fine detail adjustment than Sibelius. It's just that the Sibelius approach is very different from Finale. Finale users tend to look for fine control where they are used to finding it in Finale. When it's not there they say Well Sibelius can't... and others believe them. In fact, most of the time they just didn't look in the right place. Sure there are thing that Finale does better than Sibelius or that Sibelius can't do at all. I know things that Sibelius does that Finale can't and the MM people have admitted to me that it won't. All that means is they are different. I'll try to illustrate my point with this example: I guess it's clear that many people changed from finale to sibelius from version 4, because of the dynamic partsTM alone. they're great, specially for film/traditional music. but for me (contemporary music), I can't use them most of the times. why? because if I use a big time signature on the score and change the distance to barline parameter on the house style, this parameter stays with the same value on the parts (and will look really bad). that means that if I do an orchestral score, I need 2 files, one for the score, and one for the parts - which kind of almost annuls the dynamic partsTm feature (there are anyway other advantages of having all parts on the same file, though). Well I just put a huge time sig in a score and kept the standard time sig in the parts. Easy. Took about 1 minute. You can have a different house style for score and parts. And even if gap before barline adjustment carries over from parts to score, it's very simple to re-adjust it when printing parts or score. You don't need two files. This is what I mean about it just not being the same as Finale. Yet some people will read the statement above, accept it uncritically and pass it on to others. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On 21 May 2009, at 22:09, David W. Fenton wrote: On 21 May 2009 at 9:45, Chuck Israels wrote: On May 21, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: the Magnetic layout is all there really is that stands out. I agree, but that seems extraordinarily attractive. I would second that (or, I guess, THIRD it). me too! I spent a while looking at the Sibelius 6 demo: the magnetic layout is really impressive. If I were starting from scratch and choosing a notation program, it would certainly make me lean towards Sibelius. It's clear to me that Finale desperately needs to catch up here. Michael ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius (6 chord size)
I recently had to increase the all of the chord suffics in a piece (in Finale) and I expected to have to resize and respace all of the chords seperatly. To my suprise there is a way do do it all at once. Mark McCarron --- On Fri, 5/22/09, Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca wrote: From: Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 8:30 AM On May 22, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Sibelius and Makemusic both understand that most of their user base are casual users. No shame in that. But it is true that Sibelius works better for the casual user - by design - than Finale does. And while there have been improvements in Finale's defaults, there is still much room for improvement and there is shame in that. Christopher Here I go talking to myself, arguing with myself to make it worse... Actually, one area I see with my students is that Sibelius' default size for chord symbols is TINY. That is a default file problem. However, when I ask them to increase it, no problem; it's a very easy fix in Sibelius. But try to do the same thing in Finale with one of the JazzCord libraries... whoa! There, I just argued with myself, gave point, counterpoint and rebuttal, and I think I won the argument! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius (6 chord size)
If you are using the Engraver default with the Arial suffixes, this can be done. But did you do this with the JazzCord library? If you increase the font size, the kerning is off and every item is mashed together. If you are using the library that ONLY has the individual JazzCord glyphs, then of course it is easy. But if you have the library loaded that has each suffix broken into different characters, then it is hell. I have kludged it before by attaching the chords to hidden Layer 4 items, then resizing ALL of Layer 4. This is nice, because the chord suffixes keep their kerning when you just zoom them. I have also attached them to another staff, which I have hidden with a staff style and resized, then I dragged the hidden staff down to be superimposed over the real staff. This is good for lead sheets, but it gets kludgy in extracted/linked parts. Quite a bit different from the one-click solution in Sibelius. Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 12:10 PM, Mark McCarron wrote: I recently had to increase the all of the chord suffics in a piece (in Finale) and I expected to have to resize and respace all of the chords seperatly. To my suprise there is a way do do it all at once. Mark McCarron --- On Fri, 5/22/09, Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca wrote: From: Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 8:30 AM On May 22, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Sibelius and Makemusic both understand that most of their user base are casual users. No shame in that. But it is true that Sibelius works better for the casual user - by design - than Finale does. And while there have been improvements in Finale's defaults, there is still much room for improvement and there is shame in that. Christopher Here I go talking to myself, arguing with myself to make it worse... Actually, one area I see with my students is that Sibelius' default size for chord symbols is TINY. That is a default file problem. However, when I ask them to increase it, no problem; it's a very easy fix in Sibelius. But try to do the same thing in Finale with one of the JazzCord libraries... whoa! There, I just argued with myself, gave point, counterpoint and rebuttal, and I think I won the argument! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
At 7:07 AM -0400 5/22/09, dhbailey wrote: Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Yeah ... it's kind of like finding a church you like. Sort of -- usually with finding a church you like, that's where you stay, rather than finding two different churches you like and alternating worship services between the two. Perhaps not the best analogy, since that's exactly what some split-religion families do to expose their children to both religions. Of course the Catholic church insists on children being raised Catholic, but then the Catholic church insists on a lot of things that practicing Catholics with functioning brain cells don't follow. But with notation software, there's nothing preventing people from being fluent in both Finale and Sibelius and enjoying working with them both, using whichever one seems to be easier for whatever project is on the table. Yes, which makes your language analogy much better. Although for truly native, non-accented speech the different languages really have to be learned from infancy. Gee, does that mean some people use Sibelius with a Finale accent?!!! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Maybe one can chalk this up to newbie ignorance, but here's another one against Sibelius: Let's say you have a high flute, violin or trombone part with several ledger lines, and the system breaks on a slurred passage. The engraver's default is that broken slurs over a system should end a few points above the top staff line, and begin again on the new system in a similar place. Both Finale and Sibelius end up crossing the stem on the last note of the system, and again on the first note of the new system, with the slur. In Finale it is trivial to drag the too-low end of the slur higher on the linked part, which will not affect the score. But in Sibelius the only solution I found was to delete the slur, enter TWO slurs instead, and adjust the ends. This means TWO slurs (broken in the middle) appear on the score, unless you have a separate score and parts file. If I am wrong about this, please disabuse me of this right away! But it showed up several times in the few Sibelius files I worked on. Here's another minor one that my students get bugged by. Say you want to work in concert pitch on your score, which includes a bari sax. If you want to see the bari staff in bass clef while you work on it in concert pitch (and who doesn't!) then you have to set the clef to bass clef. This means that when you extract the parts, the bari is transposed, BUT IN BASS CLEF, unless you remembered to switch it back. Also, the score and parts can't be different, which means a separate parts and score file if you want the score in concert pitch and the bari staff to be in bass clef in the score. Once again, if there is something I don't know about, please let me know! In Sibelius the problem of DS signs appearing at the end of multimeasure rests doesn't seem to have a good solution, either (nor does Finale! But at least it can be kludged.) Sibelius would break an 8 bar rest into 7 bars and one to force appearance of the DS sign, which is not acceptable at all for published parts and I don't like it even for industrial copy work. Did Sibelius ever work out playback of non-centred articulations that are entered as expressions? Because that might be something Finale does well that Sibelius doesn't. One feature that Sibelius has that has saved my students many times is the notes that get redder and redder the more extreme in range they get. Finale has a plugin for that, but the pink notes are RIGHT THERE in Sibelius, which helps the poor idiots when they get confused. I would like to hear Richard's list, though. I am not a fan of platform wars, but I would like to know the comparison. Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 11:13 AM, dc wrote: mu...@rgsmithmusic.com écrit: Sure there are thing that Finale does better than Sibelius or that Sibelius can't do at all. I know things that Sibelius does that Finale can't and the MM people have admitted to me that it won't. Could you give a few examples? I can think of Unicode support, but that's about it. And then Robert will probably mention nested brackets. But what else? Does Sibelius let you decide where the first hyphen appears after a system break, for instance (under the note head, or shifted to the left)? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Yeah, the linguistic analogy serves the best, I think. In addition, when one abjures the religious analogy, one avoids any possible moral consequences prescribed by a given dogma. Brings to mind one of my favorite lines from Fiddler On The Roof, to wit, How can they both be right? Dean On May 22, 2009, at 10:03 AM, John Howell wrote: At 7:07 AM -0400 5/22/09, dhbailey wrote: Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Yeah ... it's kind of like finding a church you like. Sort of -- usually with finding a church you like, that's where you stay, rather than finding two different churches you like and alternating worship services between the two. Perhaps not the best analogy, since that's exactly what some split- religion families do to expose their children to both religions. Of course the Catholic church insists on children being raised Catholic, but then the Catholic church insists on a lot of things that practicing Catholics with functioning brain cells don't follow. But with notation software, there's nothing preventing people from being fluent in both Finale and Sibelius and enjoying working with them both, using whichever one seems to be easier for whatever project is on the table. Yes, which makes your language analogy much better. Although for truly native, non-accented speech the different languages really have to be learned from infancy. Gee, does that mean some people use Sibelius with a Finale accent?!!! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum And, I'd rather be composing than decomposing Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
It's been a few weeks since I've worked on a Band Score, but my memory is that if I set up the score via the Wizard, and want to work in Concert Pitch (which I always do), that the Bari Sax part is in bass clef, and as soon as I toggle to Transposed Score, it appears in Treble Clef properly transposed. Maybe I'm missing something here ... if so, I'm operating at normal capacity. Dean On May 22, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Here's another minor one that my students get bugged by. Say you want to work in concert pitch on your score, which includes a bari sax. If you want to see the bari staff in bass clef while you work on it in concert pitch (and who doesn't!) then you have to set the clef to bass clef. This means that when you extract the parts, the bari is transposed, BUT IN BASS CLEF, unless you remembered to switch it back. Also, the score and parts can't be different, which means a separate parts and score file if you want the score in concert pitch and the bari staff to be in bass clef in the score. Once again, if there is something I don't know about, please let me know! Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 11:13 AM, dc wrote: ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum And, I'd rather be composing than decomposing Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
mu...@rgsmithmusic.com écrit: Sure there are thing that Finale does better than Sibelius or that Sibelius can't do at all. I know things that Sibelius does that Finale can't and the MM people have admitted to me that it won't. Could you give a few examples? I can think of Unicode support, but that's about it. And then Robert will probably mention nested brackets. But what else? OK. Finale, unless it's been changed in the last version or so, will not permit re-assignment layers or voices on a note by note basis. Sibelius does that easily in two clicks. A client hired me to make keyboard reductions of some string quartets. The publisher specified Finale. The rhythms were not usually the same in the various string parts so, on reduction, both Finale and Sibelius inserted unnecessary ties in the middle of measures to make the rhythms agree. (I see that kind of engraving from the Nashville crowd frequently but will not do it myself.) With Sibelius, it was a simple matter of re-assign the note to a different voice. But the publisher insisted on Finale. I tried to find ways to re-assign the notes but couldn't. I posted to this list and to the MM list and was given solutions that did not work. I asked MM's tech people who said it couldn't be done. So I had to re-write many bars from scratch to make the ryhthms co-exist without unneeded ties. I don't know about the hyphen but there are lots of minute adjustments that are not immediately obvious. My first guess would be x y parameters in the properties menu. Visit the Sibelius ( http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/ )list and post your question. Daniel Spreadbury will probably answer quickly with an honest answer. Daniel's background is as vocalist and he will know. Richard Smith Does Sibelius let you decide where the first hyphen appears after a system break, for instance (under the note head, or shifted to the left)? Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
You are correct. That was fixed in Version 5. The sutdents need to be sure they select the right instrument. Bass reeds (and euphonia) have instruments configured to read in several different ways. To fit American conventions, they want to choose the one that is treble clef transposed in a transposed score and bass clef untransposed in a c-score. That one always annoyed me because Finale did it so easily. Sibelius was kind enough to listen to my complaint (and others I'm sure) and correct it in V.5 Richard Smith It's been a few weeks since I've worked on a Band Score, but my memory is that if I set up the score via the Wizard, and want to work in Concert Pitch (which I always do), that the Bari Sax part is in bass clef, and as soon as I toggle to Transposed Score, it appears in Treble Clef properly transposed. Maybe I'm missing something here ... if so, I'm operating at normal capacity. Dean On May 22, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Here's another minor one that my students get bugged by. Say you want to work in concert pitch on your score, which includes a bari sax. If you want to see the bari staff in bass clef while you work on it in concert pitch (and who doesn't!) then you have to set the clef to bass clef. This means that when you extract the parts, the bari is transposed, BUT IN BASS CLEF, unless you remembered to switch it back. Also, the score and parts can't be different, which means a separate parts and score file if you want the score in concert pitch and the bari staff to be in bass clef in the score. Once again, if there is something I don't know about, please let me know! Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 11:13 AM, dc wrote: ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum And, I'd rather be composing than decomposing Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
You are correct. That was fixed in Version 5. The sutdents need to be sure they select the right instrument. Bass reeds (and euphonia) have instruments configured to read in several different ways. To fit American conventions, they want to choose the one that is treble clef transposed in a transposed score and bass clef untransposed in a c-score. That one always annoyed me because Finale did it so easily. Sibelius was kind enough to listen to my complaint (and others I'm sure) and correct it in V.5 Richard Smith It's been a few weeks since I've worked on a Band Score, but my memory is that if I set up the score via the Wizard, and want to work in Concert Pitch (which I always do), that the Bari Sax part is in bass clef, and as soon as I toggle to Transposed Score, it appears in Treble Clef properly transposed. Maybe I'm missing something here ... if so, I'm operating at normal capacity. Dean On May 22, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Here's another minor one that my students get bugged by. Say you want to work in concert pitch on your score, which includes a bari sax. If you want to see the bari staff in bass clef while you work on it in concert pitch (and who doesn't!) then you have to set the clef to bass clef. This means that when you extract the parts, the bari is transposed, BUT IN BASS CLEF, unless you remembered to switch it back. Also, the score and parts can't be different, which means a separate parts and score file if you want the score in concert pitch and the bari staff to be in bass clef in the score. Once again, if there is something I don't know about, please let me know! Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 11:13 AM, dc wrote: ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum And, I'd rather be composing than decomposing Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Sib 6 answer: The slur now has 6 (I think) control boxes that can pull it in many different directions. You can drag it with a mouse (clumsy) or the arrow keys (elegant), and they can be adjusted independently in parts and score. You really should check out the new slurs. They're greatly improved. Richard Smith Maybe one can chalk this up to newbie ignorance, but here's another one against Sibelius: Let's say you have a high flute, violin or trombone part with several ledger lines, and the system breaks on a slurred passage. The engraver's default is that broken slurs over a system should end a few points above the top staff line, and begin again on the new system in a similar place. Both Finale and Sibelius end up crossing the stem on the last note of the system, and again on the first note of the new system, with the slur. In Finale it is trivial to drag the too-low end of the slur higher on the linked part, which will not affect the score. But in Sibelius the only solution I found was to delete the slur, enter TWO slurs instead, and adjust the ends. This means TWO slurs (broken in the middle) appear on the score, unless you have a separate score and parts file. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Thank you! I will be sure to pass that on to my students. I am happy to know that it was fixed recently. If a student comes to me with a score that he DIDN'T use the Wizard, what should I tell him? Obviously, use the Wizard next time, but until then? Christopher On May 22, 2009, at 1:44 PM, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: You are correct. That was fixed in Version 5. The sutdents need to be sure they select the right instrument. Bass reeds (and euphonia) have instruments configured to read in several different ways. To fit American conventions, they want to choose the one that is treble clef transposed in a transposed score and bass clef untransposed in a c-score. That one always annoyed me because Finale did it so easily. Sibelius was kind enough to listen to my complaint (and others I'm sure) and correct it in V.5 Richard Smith It's been a few weeks since I've worked on a Band Score, but my memory is that if I set up the score via the Wizard, and want to work in Concert Pitch (which I always do), that the Bari Sax part is in bass clef, and as soon as I toggle to Transposed Score, it appears in Treble Clef properly transposed. Maybe I'm missing something here ... if so, I'm operating at normal capacity. Dean On May 22, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Here's another minor one that my students get bugged by. Say you want to work in concert pitch on your score, which includes a bari sax. If you want to see the bari staff in bass clef while you work on it in concert pitch (and who doesn't!) then you have to set the clef to bass clef. This means that when you extract the parts, the bari is transposed, BUT IN BASS CLEF, unless you remembered to switch it back. Also, the score and parts can't be different, which means a separate parts and score file if you want the score in concert pitch and the bari staff to be in bass clef in the score. Once again, if there is something I don't know about, please let me know! Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 11:13 AM, dc wrote: ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum And, I'd rather be composing than decomposing Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Sibelius 6
-Original Message- From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [mailto:finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Smith Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 12:07 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 Maybe one can chalk this up to newbie ignorance, but here's another one against Sibelius: Let's say you have a high flute, violin or trombone part with several ledger lines, and the system breaks on a slurred passage. The engraver's default is that broken slurs over a system should end a few points above the top staff line, and begin again on the new system in a similar place. Both Finale and Sibelius end up crossing the stem on the last note of the system, and again on the first note of the new system, with the slur. In Finale it is trivial to drag the too-low end of the slur higher on the linked part, which will not affect the score. But in Sibelius the only solution I found was to delete the slur, enter TWO slurs instead, and adjust the ends. This means TWO slurs (broken in the middle) appear on the score, unless you have a separate score and parts file. Hi Christopher, This problem has been addressed in version 6. Here's another minor one that my students get bugged by. Say you want to work in concert pitch on your score, which includes a bari sax. If you want to see the bari staff in bass clef while you work on it in concert pitch (and who doesn't!) then you have to set the clef to bass clef. This means that when you extract the parts, the bari is transposed, BUT IN BASS CLEF, I am looking at the Sib 6 demo. In the instrument list there is: Baritone Sax (bass clef, treble transposition). Cheers, Dan C ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4097 (20090522) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4097 (20090522) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4098 (20090522) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4098 (20090522) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Oo, nice! So my ledger line problem is a thing of the past? And adjusting it in the part doesn't make it too ugly for words in the score? Christopher On May 22, 2009, at 1:49 PM, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: Sib 6 answer: The slur now has 6 (I think) control boxes that can pull it in many different directions. You can drag it with a mouse (clumsy) or the arrow keys (elegant), and they can be adjusted independently in parts and score. You really should check out the new slurs. They're greatly improved. Richard Smith Maybe one can chalk this up to newbie ignorance, but here's another one against Sibelius: Let's say you have a high flute, violin or trombone part with several ledger lines, and the system breaks on a slurred passage. The engraver's default is that broken slurs over a system should end a few points above the top staff line, and begin again on the new system in a similar place. Both Finale and Sibelius end up crossing the stem on the last note of the system, and again on the first note of the new system, with the slur. In Finale it is trivial to drag the too-low end of the slur higher on the linked part, which will not affect the score. But in Sibelius the only solution I found was to delete the slur, enter TWO slurs instead, and adjust the ends. This means TWO slurs (broken in the middle) appear on the score, unless you have a separate score and parts file. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Thank you! I will be sure to pass that on to my students. I am happy to know that it was fixed recently. If a student comes to me with a score that he DIDN'T use the Wizard, what should I tell him? Obviously, use the Wizard next time, but until then? Christopher Make sure nothing is selected. If the cursor is blue, hit escape. Then ctrl+shift+alt+I allows you to change instruments (PC. Macs use their version of the same commands). When you get that menu just select the correct isntrument then point your cursor (now that wonderful Sibelius blue) to the instrument name at the beginning of the staff to be changed. Click! Richard Smith ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On May 22, 2009, at 3:20 PM, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: Thank you! I will be sure to pass that on to my students. I am happy to know that it was fixed recently. If a student comes to me with a score that he DIDN'T use the Wizard, what should I tell him? Obviously, use the Wizard next time, but until then? Christopher Make sure nothing is selected. If the cursor is blue, hit escape. Then ctrl+shift+alt+I allows you to change instruments (PC. Macs use their version of the same commands). When you get that menu just select the correct isntrument then point your cursor (now that wonderful Sibelius blue) to the instrument name at the beginning of the staff to be changed. Click! Richard Smith Beautiful! I've noted it for next semester. You have saved many students hours of work (and low grades!) We thank you. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Hmm. Am 21.05.2009 um 18:45 schrieb Chuck Israels: Bill Duncan fonts What's so special about them? Gerhard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
That's comon practise to have two masterfiles also in Finale. Use the one for your score, and the other for the parts! regards Stigc56 Den 22/05/2009 kl. 14.43 skrev João Pais: Just read a cross-sample of the backgrounds of the users on the Sibelius list -- There are people who are making arrangements which are performed at the prestigious Proms concerts at the Albert Hall in London, there are people whose arrangements and compositions are published by major publishers such as C.L.Barnhouse, there are composers working in the film genre, there are authors using Sibelius to create musical examples for their books, there are university students who are composition majors, there are essentially the same level and spectrum of Sibelius users represented on that list as Finale users represented on this list. I never said those people don't use sibelius (you can count me in in the group of persons that work for publishers/composers/film music/...). I said that besides those people, there are many people that only need something fast, who produces good enough results quick - and that sibelius delivers perfectly. for example, people who I bet would never go through the process to learn finale enough to produce something as decent-looking as sibelius does out of the box. eveytime a new upgrade comes up, there are 100s of people writing 5 minutes later about how great the new upgrade is, etc. Only too few ask for the bug fix list/detailed feature list and say: ok, that's nice. how about this *engraving* issue that was always since version x, and was mentioned several times on the mailing list? is it already solved? ah, didn't think so. but it's still on the wish list, right? I'll wait for that, I see a much more critic attitude on the finale list when a new version comes out - but maybe it's not that easy to compare, because of the yearly delivery standard, etc. (a mail commenting that was on the origin of this whole thread, if I remember correctly). Neither program has a lock on serious notation users, nor on light notation users. I would disagree with that. sibelius always adverted as intuitive, easy to use, etc - here are some citations (probably some from people you know?) http://hub.sibelius.com/products/sibelius/reviews/userquotes.html . And to my impression it is as well - I only started looking at the manual some time after starting using sibelius; from what I remember trying to use finale, I gave up to encore or something else quite fast (that was still in the mid 90s, I heard it's better now). if someone asks you I wanted to try out a notesetting program, but I'm really bad at computers, which program would you advise? I and many people I know (including expert finale users) advise sibelius without thinking twice. this doesn't happen by chance. the little I know from finale tells me that it has the possibility to go into much finer detail than sibelius - and has many things I would like to see implemented in sibelius (I guess that it *might* happen sooner or later - except if finale disappers). I still don't understand what industrial purposes means -- unless by that you are writing off all the people who use either program to computer-engrave music for publication. I meant industrial as something like film music, where it's only important to produce a good/clear score as fast as possible so that it can be read/played by the musicians without problems (also because sometimes you get the material some hours before the recording session). after the recording session the score isn't (in most cases) necessary anymore (and many scores wouldn't be published in the state they're sent to the recording sessions). in those cases the most important thing is that the program is able to deliver a decent-looking score with as less tweaking as possible, and as fast as possible - which sibelius always did, specially from version 4. basically, to produce something with enough quality as fast as possible and as mechanized as possible (like a mechanized factory, I guess). I'll try to illustrate my point with this example: I guess it's clear that many people changed from finale to sibelius from version 4, because of the dynamic partsTM alone. they're great, specially for film/traditional music. but for me (contemporary music), I can't use them most of the times. why? because if I use a big time signature on the score and change the distance to barline parameter on the house style, this parameter stays with the same value on the parts (and will look really bad). that means that if I do an orchestral score, I need 2 files, one for the score, and one for the parts - which kind of almost annuls the dynamic partsTm feature (there are anyway other advantages of having all parts on the same file, though). those are the kind of details that I mean that sibelius people are aware of
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On 22 May 2009, at 19:49, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: Sib 6 answer: The slur now has 6 (I think) control boxes that can pull it in many different directions. You can drag it with a mouse (clumsy) or the arrow keys (elegant), and they can be adjusted independently in parts and score. You really should check out the new slurs. They're greatly improved. As far as I can tell from the demo, the slurs in Sibelius 6 are very similar to Finale slurs. The six control points seem to work the same way: there's one that moves the whole slur (in Finale this main handle is bigger than the others), two for the ends of the slur and three to control height and curvature. In both programs it's possible to make an S-shaped slur, in exactly the same way. Both programs allow the control points to be dragged or nudged with arrow keys. Sibelius additionally allows their positions to be defined numerically. Sibelius also allows the thickness of any particular slur to be changed. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Christopher Smith wrote: Thank you! I will be sure to pass that on to my students. I am happy to know that it was fixed recently. If a student comes to me with a score that he DIDN'T use the Wizard, what should I tell him? Obviously, use the Wizard next time, but until then? In selecting the instrument from the long list, he needs to look for the instrument called Bari Sax (Bass Clef, Treble Clef Transposition) -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius (6 chord size)
the chord suffixs used the Jazz font, and I used the change chord suffix fonts in the chord menu. I checked the Fix Chord Suffix Spacing and it worked like a charm. Mark McCarron --- On Fri, 5/22/09, Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca wrote: From: Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius (6 chord size) To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 12:18 PM If you are using the Engraver default with the Arial suffixes, this can be done. But did you do this with the JazzCord library? If you increase the font size, the kerning is off and every item is mashed together. If you are using the library that ONLY has the individual JazzCord glyphs, then of course it is easy. But if you have the library loaded that has each suffix broken into different characters, then it is hell. I have kludged it before by attaching the chords to hidden Layer 4 items, then resizing ALL of Layer 4. This is nice, because the chord suffixes keep their kerning when you just zoom them. I have also attached them to another staff, which I have hidden with a staff style and resized, then I dragged the hidden staff down to be superimposed over the real staff. This is good for lead sheets, but it gets kludgy in extracted/linked parts. Quite a bit different from the one-click solution in Sibelius. Christopher On 22-May-09, at 22-May-09 12:10 PM, Mark McCarron wrote: I recently had to increase the all of the chord suffics in a piece (in Finale) and I expected to have to resize and respace all of the chords seperatly. To my suprise there is a way do do it all at once. Mark McCarron --- On Fri, 5/22/09, Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca wrote: From: Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 8:30 AM On May 22, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Sibelius and Makemusic both understand that most of their user base are casual users. No shame in that. But it is true that Sibelius works better for the casual user - by design - than Finale does. And while there have been improvements in Finale's defaults, there is still much room for improvement and there is shame in that. Christopher Here I go talking to myself, arguing with myself to make it worse... Actually, one area I see with my students is that Sibelius' default size for chord symbols is TINY. That is a default file problem. However, when I ask them to increase it, no problem; it's a very easy fix in Sibelius. But try to do the same thing in Finale with one of the JazzCord libraries... whoa! There, I just argued with myself, gave point, counterpoint and rebuttal, and I think I won the argument! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
At 10:18 AM -0700 5/22/09, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Yeah, the linguistic analogy serves the best, I think. In addition, when one abjures the religious analogy, one avoids any possible moral consequences prescribed by a given dogma. Brings to mind one of my favorite lines from Fiddler On The Roof, to wit, How can they both be right? ... but on the other hand ... ! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Hi Gerhard, There are things that look especially good to my eye: an elegant chord symbol font with well spaced suffixes and reasonably easy control of making new ones; softened slashes at a slightly more vertical angle (allowing more of them in a measure, if needed); softened rhythmic notation; elegant and attention getting drop shadow boxed font for important rehearsal markings (including DS and Coda symbols); special harp symbols; useful smart shapes; brackets with automated correct vertical sizing...those are things that occur to me quickly. You can see some of these things on Nick Carter's site http://www.npcimaging.com/books/BillDuncan.htm but I don't see examples there on the site. If you need to see some, and Nick can't send any, contact me and I will send a few. Many of us like this material a lot. I am now simply so used to the way my music looks using these fonts and articulations (including some special jazz articulations Bill made when a few of us asked for them that look good with Maestro - there are some jazz people who don't like the look of the jazz font in Finale but need articulations that can only be found in the jazz font or in Bill's articulation set) that I'd feel deprived without them. Chuck On May 22, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Torges Gerhard wrote: Hmm. Am 21.05.2009 um 18:45 schrieb Chuck Israels: Bill Duncan fonts What's so special about them? Gerhard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
THERE IS NO OTHER HAND!! Dean :) On May 22, 2009, at 3:49 PM, John Howell wrote: At 10:18 AM -0700 5/22/09, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Yeah, the linguistic analogy serves the best, I think. In addition, when one abjures the religious analogy, one avoids any possible moral consequences prescribed by a given dogma. Brings to mind one of my favorite lines from Fiddler On The Roof, to wit, How can they both be right? ... but on the other hand ... ! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum And, I'd rather be composing than decomposing Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
I am one of those few Finale users who always purchase the new upgrades and I'm never dissapointed. I'm not usually vocal about that. Mark McCarron --- On Wed, 5/20/09, dhbailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com wrote: From: dhbailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 6:39 AM Darcy James Argue wrote: The demo video is really impressive. There are always hiccups and stuff that doesn't work quite as well as it could, but this feature set sure looks like a worthy upgrade, with lots of notation-centric improvements. I hope it spurs Finale to match Sib's new features, especially the layout tools. As a Finale loyalist, It burns to see the principles behind Finale's vertical collision plug-in -- a great idea crippled by shoddy implementation -- featured so prominently in the new version of Sibelius. The auto-aligning dynamics and hairpins looks great, and is something Finale should have and could have implemented a long time ago. I think this also clearly shows the insanity of Finale's yearly update schedule. Sibelius looks now to be on a biennial update schedule and for the last three versions now, the improvements have been substantial, allowing them to charge more ($169.00 for an upgrade from Sib5) and, I suspect, sell a lot more upgrades. As a member of the Sibelius group at yahoogroups, I have to say that there I don't recall there being anybody who complains about the upgrade schedule. And while there are those who don't upgrade due to financial restrictions, I've never read that people aren't upgrading because they want to wait to see how the new features work and whether they really work at all, and never has anybody posted that they're skipping an upgrade because the improvements and additions in any single Sib upgrade aren't worth it. At least that I recall. One thing that Finale has done is to create a gun-shy user base, at least as indicated on this group. Many people don't jump on Finale upgrades the way they used to because of the horrible bugs which have been prevalent in the initial releases of the past several annual Finale upgrades. How many messages on this group have been of the I'll wait until they bring out the Fin200Xa patch which can't be helpful to the financial engine of the company. I wonder how many people hold off waiting for the first update patch to the upgrade (what a stupid thing that a company's user base has to wait for such a thing to feel comfortable with a new version) only to find that when the update patch is released the early-adopters aren't raving about how much got fixed. There must be many people who waited for the update patch and then waited an additional period for the b patch (not there always is one) or simply decide they were smart not to fall for that upgrade and simply wait for the next full version upgrade hoping the major bugs introduced in the current version manage to get fixed in the next full version upgrade? Sibelius' current biennial update schedule does several things, all of which seem to be positive: 1) people have longer to get comfortable with the additions and changes and can actually get a lot of work done before having to relearn stuff in the new version; 2) the cost of a biennial Sibelius upgrade is a little cheaper than what the early-adopters of the annual Finale upgrades have to pay for their concurrent 2-version upgrades matching the Sibelius single upgrade; 3) the Sibelius development team has much longer to squash any bugs and to ensure that everything is working as it should so that complaints are minimal with new releases, raising the confidence level for the end-users; 4) people can buy the Sibelius upgrade and hold off on installing it if they would rather finish current projects in the older version, knowing that even if they wait nine months to install it, they'll get well over a year's use out of the new version before upgrading again. With Finale, if a person does that, they only get 3 months of use out of a new version (hardly enough time to really learn all the new features and to feel comfortable with the annually-rearranged menu structure) so I recall reading some posts where people have held off installing the new version of Finale they paid for, only to complain that it's still shrink-wrapped when the next version comes out. The prevailing attitude towards the corporation on the Sibelius group is positive. Can the same be said about the prevailing attitude towards the corporation on this Finale list? We'll know in a couple of months whether Finale has finally solved the problems that arose in Fin2009 and managed any similar improvements to what Sibelius has to offer. I sure hope so because I want Finale to continue to survive and to keep its user base, if only to keep providing inspiration for Sibelius
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
I'm actually very happy to hear that! It's entirely possible that on the average, Finale users are just pickier and crankier than your average Sibelius user. I doubt it, though. I think the comments about Sibelius' general attitude toward users are accurate, and their attitude is much better than MakeMusic's. MM seems to treat the whole operation like just another software app, rather than the rather specialised tool for a specialised community that it is. We AREN'T just a bunch of casual computer users, who can discard a browser if we don't like it and pick up Firefox or Opera and continue happily. We are artists and craftsmen, and Finale is our tool just as a favourite chisel is for a woodworker, or my trombone is for my playing career. It's hard for me to accept that a rather large and inconvenient bug would go unfixed for several versions simply because they don't judge that it is cost-effective to fix it just yet. A series of bugs like those that affected lyrics for a number of versions were deal- breakers for many high-end users. The still-present bug of shape expressions that don't keep their places in any predictable way renders that entire aspect of the program useless. Worse than useless, in fact, because anyone who believes the manual will spend hours or days (as I did) on something that is simply unworkable in the end. There is one aspect of Sibelius' former attitude that I am glad went away. When I was first becoming acquainted with version 2, I sent in a few questions about some simple newbie problems, like how to hide key and time signatures separately, how to stretch measures and how to force stems up (for theory handouts). The answer was something like why would you want to do that? Sibelius does it correctly by default. Grr! I don't get that now. Even at MakeMusic I get the tech people acknowledging bugs, which they never did before. Hooray for competition! Christopher On May 21, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Mark McCarron wrote: I am one of those few Finale users who always purchase the new upgrades and I'm never dissapointed. I'm not usually vocal about that. Mark McCarron ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
I thought it was kind of funny that Sibelius has now even put in crap that Finale has had. Like singing in music. Which never works right. Or dynamics notated depending on how hard you played a note. Finale has had these for a while. And I wonder how the Store thing is going to monitor for copyright infringement.I mean, can I put a lead sheet up of a standard and sell it there? Or some other song that someone holds the copyright to? The versions thing is rather interesting...and the rewire support as well. But other than that, the Magnetic layout is all there really is that stands out. On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Christopher Smith christopher.sm...@videotron.ca wrote: I'm actually very happy to hear that! It's entirely possible that on the average, Finale users are just pickier and crankier than your average Sibelius user. I doubt it, though. I think the comments about Sibelius' general attitude toward users are accurate, and their attitude is much better than MakeMusic's. MM seems to treat the whole operation like just another software app, rather than the rather specialised tool for a specialised community that it is. We AREN'T just a bunch of casual computer users, who can discard a browser if we don't like it and pick up Firefox or Opera and continue happily. We are artists and craftsmen, and Finale is our tool just as a favourite chisel is for a woodworker, or my trombone is for my playing career. It's hard for me to accept that a rather large and inconvenient bug would go unfixed for several versions simply because they don't judge that it is cost-effective to fix it just yet. A series of bugs like those that affected lyrics for a number of versions were deal-breakers for many high-end users. The still-present bug of shape expressions that don't keep their places in any predictable way renders that entire aspect of the program useless. Worse than useless, in fact, because anyone who believes the manual will spend hours or days (as I did) on something that is simply unworkable in the end. There is one aspect of Sibelius' former attitude that I am glad went away. When I was first becoming acquainted with version 2, I sent in a few questions about some simple newbie problems, like how to hide key and time signatures separately, how to stretch measures and how to force stems up (for theory handouts). The answer was something like why would you want to do that? Sibelius does it correctly by default. Grr! I don't get that now. Even at MakeMusic I get the tech people acknowledging bugs, which they never did before. Hooray for competition! Christopher On May 21, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Mark McCarron wrote: I am one of those few Finale users who always purchase the new upgrades and I'm never dissapointed. I'm not usually vocal about that. Mark McCarron ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On May 21, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: the Magnetic layout is all there really is that stands out. I agree, but that seems extraordinarily attractive. In fact, it is more than I imagined to be possible (perhaps more a reflection of my lack of programming imagination than anything else). It had not occurred to me that such a level of computer understanding of what was on the page would be practical to write into the code and automate, but now that Sibelius claims to have done it, I will expect it in Finale (and want it tomorrow, please!). There are a number of things that will be likely to prevent me from changing programs - big ones are: pitch before time value entry in Speedy; the ability to use Bill Duncan fonts; and familiarity with the way things work. But I am still impressed. Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Yes, pitch before time is a great thing in Finale. Love it. Well, hopefully Finale 2010 will have something similar to Magnetic but I think we'll probably get something like goofy notation for kids or automatic Pop music background generation rather than something actually useful. On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Chuck Israels cisra...@comcast.net wrote: I agree, but that seems extraordinarily attractive. In fact, it is more than I imagined to be possible (perhaps more a reflection of my lack of programming imagination than anything else). It had not occurred to me that such a level of computer understanding of what was on the page would be practical to write into the code and automate, but now that Sibelius claims to have done it, I will expect it in Finale (and want it tomorrow, please!). There are a number of things that will be likely to prevent me from changing programs - big ones are: pitch before time value entry in Speedy; the ability to use Bill Duncan fonts; and familiarity with the way things work. But I am still impressed. Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Ye of little faith! It won't be that bad, but I don't know about magnetic stuff this soon. How much faith is correct? Hard to know. Chuck On May 21, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: Yes, pitch before time is a great thing in Finale. Love it. Well, hopefully Finale 2010 will have something similar to Magnetic but I think we'll probably get something like goofy notation for kids or automatic Pop music background generation rather than something actually useful. On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Chuck Israels cisra...@comcast.net wrote: I agree, but that seems extraordinarily attractive. In fact, it is more than I imagined to be possible (perhaps more a reflection of my lack of programming imagination than anything else). It had not occurred to me that such a level of computer understanding of what was on the page would be practical to write into the code and automate, but now that Sibelius claims to have done it, I will expect it in Finale (and want it tomorrow, please!). There are a number of things that will be likely to prevent me from changing programs - big ones are: pitch before time value entry in Speedy; the ability to use Bill Duncan fonts; and familiarity with the way things work. But I am still impressed. Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
At 1:07 PM +0200 5/20/09, João Pais wrote: - sibelius' user base is (still) mainly based on the people who use it lightly or for industrial purposes, and not for serious engraving. these persons are usually happy with the program/standard output as is, and many times don't go down enough to get into some of the small bugs/incongruences. I do think you'd get some argument on that statement, although it really depends on what you specifically mean by industrial purposes and by serious engraving. In my own work, I'm not preparing copy for big publishers and probably never will be, but I will always need good, clean, readable copy that looks professional, with the least possible hassle, and almost all of my work is in common practice notation. Composer's Mosaic, which seems archaic today, gave me good copy right out of the box because the programmers chose good defaults. So does Sibelius, and I've never found any reason to use anything but the default House Style. Finale, in contrast--AT THE TIME OUR DEPARTMENT WAS USING IT--looked just plain ugly out of the box, because the choices of defaults simply sucked! Mosaic had linked score and parts 15 years before either Finale or Sibelius. It not only allowed page layout in parts but required it. Sibelius still doesn't do automatic layout well enough for me (although it will be interesting to see what Sib6 does), but it comes very close, and I'm used to finishing up with hand work on layout. In contrast, the Finale parts I've played that come from Nashville arrangers who DO use Finale right out of the box are just awful! Perhaps you'd judge my standards as low. Perhaps you'd be right. But I came to computer engraving from decades of hand copying, and from decades of reading published music that sometimes did not reflect very high standards of engraving in the first place (and don't even talk to me about French publishers!!!), and once Mark of the Unicorn moved from their really amateurish Professional Composer to Composer's Mosaic I haven't looked back or regretted not having to hand copy one bit. Today I arrange and compose directly to computer, and have stacks of old score paper that will probably never be used. It really comes down to intelligent choice of defaults. Mark of the Unicorn and Sibelius both had those. Coda never did, and ugly slurs across staff breaks were a dead giveaway. Finale may allow anything you want to do (although the discussions on this very list suggest otherwise), but it also REQUIRES defeating the defaults and making your own, for no very good reason. 90% of our students hated it, but they are actually using Sibelius. That's important to me. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
They are probably the same ones that vote for American Idol singers..so90% doesn't mean right. But whatever works. I won't switch until either MakeMusic goes under or until Sibelius can open, natively, Finale files. On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:36 AM, John Howell john.how...@vt.edu wrote: 90% of our students hated it, but they are actually using Sibelius. That's important to me. John ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
At 10:53 AM -0700 5/21/09, Eric Dannewitz wrote: They are probably the same ones that vote for American Idol singers..so90% doesn't mean right. Granted, of course. But whether or not they vote for American Idol is entirely beside the point. They're our music majors, and they're the ones I work with. There's an awful lot of current pop culture that means nothing to me, but that's also entirely beside the point. A mature program is a tool that can be used right out of the box to produce professional output, that is intuitive to use and doesn't require memorizing obscure procedures or convoluted menu permutations, and doesn't require programming abilities. By those criteria (if you happen to agree), neither Finale or Sibelius is a mature program. But at the moment Sibelius comes a little closer. That may change. Most things do. But whatever works. I won't switch until either MakeMusic goes under or until Sibelius can open, natively, Finale files. I thought that had been covered with MusicXML export and import. Or don't you consider that native? The problem at the moment seems to be in the other direction, importing Sibelius files into Finale, but that problem goes back to Coda's refusal to support a universal protocol some years ago, when they had the majority of the market and wanted to keep it. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
At 1:07 PM +0200 5/20/09, João Pais wrote: - sibelius' user base is (still) mainly based on the people who use it lightly or for industrial purposes, and not for serious engraving. these persons are usually happy with the program/standard output as is, and many times don't go down enough to get into some of the small bugs/incongruences. That statement is quite wrong for so many reasons. Thanks, Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Eric Dannewitz ericd...@jazz-sax.comwrote: They are probably the same ones that vote for American Idol singers..so90% doesn't mean right. But whatever works. I won't switch until either MakeMusic goes under or until Sibelius can open, natively, Finale files. Funny, that's what Score users say about Finale users. Heh. Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On 21 May 2009 at 9:45, Chuck Israels wrote: On May 21, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: the Magnetic layout is all there really is that stands out. I agree, but that seems extraordinarily attractive. I would second that (or, I guess, THIRD it). In fact, it is more than I imagined to be possible (perhaps more a reflection of my lack of programming imagination than anything else). It had not occurred to me that such a level of computer understanding of what was on the page would be practical to write into the code and automate, It was always theoretically possible. The problem as I see it is that it was not practical until we got the level of processors and RAM and graphics that we have nowadays. A lot of Finale's annoyances are actually holdovers from the days when PCs weren't powerful enough to do things dynamically. but now that Sibelius claims to have done it, I will expect it in Finale (and want it tomorrow, please!). Don't we all? :) -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
At first, I just let that roll off. Over the years, I have come to expect that kind of condescending attitude from some Finale users. Indeed, that was my frist response to Sibelius (v.1) 10 years ago after years of Finale use (beginning with Fin 2.2). I'm actually writing to say how pleased I am to see so little of this attitude from most Finale users lately. I think the capability of the last two Sibelius updates have inspired Finale folk to view Sibelius and Finale as peers and simply say they respect Sibelius but prefer Finale. As it should be. I'm so glad the paltform wars appear to be over. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com At 1:07 PM +0200 5/20/09, João Pais wrote: - sibelius' user base is (still) mainly based on the people who use it lightly or for industrial purposes, and not for serious engraving. these persons are usually happy with the program/standard output as is, and many times don't go down enough to get into some of the small bugs/incongruences. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
I would happily switch to Sibelius (I own version 5) if I could tweak things like I can in Finale. If Bill Duncan's fonts/templates were on it, and, more importantly, if there was a way to Natively open Finale files. No XML, none of that. If Sibelius could open a Finale file and have it work just fine. Or covert it. Or something. The Sibelius list is excellent, and they actually have an official person on there who will answer questions. Not like MakeMusic which throws you into their dungeon...I mean forums...to get an official answer. On May 21, 2009, at 1:49 PM, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: At first, I just let that roll off. Over the years, I have come to expect that kind of condescending attitude from some Finale users. Indeed, that was my frist response to Sibelius (v.1) 10 years ago after years of Finale use (beginning with Fin 2.2). I'm actually writing to say how pleased I am to see so little of this attitude from most Finale users lately. I think the capability of the last two Sibelius updates have inspired Finale folk to view Sibelius and Finale as peers and simply say they respect Sibelius but prefer Finale. As it should be. I'm so glad the paltform wars appear to be over. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
I have used Finale for years, almost from version 1. Is it hard to make the switch as far as learning it? Jane On Thu, 21 May 2009 14:37:47 -0700, Eric Dannewitz ericd...@jazz-sax.com wrote: I would happily switch to Sibelius (I own version 5) if I could tweak things like I can in Finale. If Bill Duncan's fonts/templates were on it, and, more importantly, if there was a way to Natively open Finale files. No XML, none of that. If Sibelius could open a Finale file and have it work just fine. Or covert it. Or something. The Sibelius list is excellent, and they actually have an official person on there who will answer questions. Not like MakeMusic which throws you into their dungeon...I mean forums...to get an official answer. On May 21, 2009, at 1:49 PM, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: At first, I just let that roll off. Over the years, I have come to expect that kind of condescending attitude from some Finale users. Indeed, that was my frist response to Sibelius (v.1) 10 years ago after years of Finale use (beginning with Fin 2.2). I'm actually writing to say how pleased I am to see so little of this attitude from most Finale users lately. I think the capability of the last two Sibelius updates have inspired Finale folk to view Sibelius and Finale as peers and simply say they respect Sibelius but prefer Finale. As it should be. I'm so glad the paltform wars appear to be over. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
At 3:39 PM -0600 5/21/09, j...@janefrasier.com wrote: I have used Finale for years, almost from version 1. Is it hard to make the switch as far as learning it? Easier than learning Finale from scratch, I'm told. But there are certainly differences, and some of those differences are very important to some people. (Check with Chuck Israels about his feelings about note entry!) But there is a Sib6 demo now up and available on their website, and it might be worth trying it to see whether there are things that bother you equally. And the price is right! Both programs seem to be fine tools, but not perfect tools, and certainly not identical tools. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
I'm so glad the paltform wars appear to be over. don't get too excited yet, there is still to come the final installment of the Fin-Sib war as the clans fight over who gets to feed on the charred bodily remains of score... ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
shirling neueweise wrote: I'm so glad the paltform wars appear to be over. don't get too excited yet, there is still to come the final installment of the Fin-Sib war as the clans fight over who gets to feed on the charred bodily remains of score... Rumors of Score's death are greatly exaggerated. :-) -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Rumors of Score's death are greatly exaggerated. :-) perhaps, but it *is* deathly ill. imagine the last 10 years of finale's bugs, poor implementations and general errors crammed into and you have the new windows version of score, their ONLY upgrade in 10 years. that is pretty much how it sounds on the score list. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Jane, I HAVE used Finale since v1.0, for over 20 years. I made the switch to Sibelius about 18 months ago. It was very easy and my karma and attitude has never been better because of it. Try it, you'll like. J D Thomas ThomaStudios On May 21, 2009, at 2:39 PM, j...@janefrasier.com j...@janefrasier.com wrote: I have used Finale for years, almost from version 1. Is it hard to make the switch as far as learning it? Jane On Thu, 21 May 2009 14:37:47 -0700, Eric Dannewitz ericd...@jazz-sax.com wrote: I would happily switch to Sibelius (I own version 5) if I could tweak things like I can in Finale. If Bill Duncan's fonts/templates were on it, and, more importantly, if there was a way to Natively open Finale files. No XML, none of that. If Sibelius could open a Finale file and have it work just fine. Or covert it. Or something. The Sibelius list is excellent, and they actually have an official person on there who will answer questions. Not like MakeMusic which throws you into their dungeon...I mean forums...to get an official answer. On May 21, 2009, at 1:49 PM, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: At first, I just let that roll off. Over the years, I have come to expect that kind of condescending attitude from some Finale users. Indeed, that was my frist response to Sibelius (v.1) 10 years ago after years of Finale use (beginning with Fin 2.2). I'm actually writing to say how pleased I am to see so little of this attitude from most Finale users lately. I think the capability of the last two Sibelius updates have inspired Finale folk to view Sibelius and Finale as peers and simply say they respect Sibelius but prefer Finale. As it should be. I'm so glad the paltform wars appear to be over. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
If you approach Sibelius as if it were Finale, you'll be frustrated. If you're willing to let Sibelius be itself and change your working method to fit Sibelius, you'll probably be very happy. Finale and Sibelius think differently. If you think like Sibelius you'll love it. But if you think like Finale, you'll probably find Sibelius clumsy and not to you liking. Richard Smith I have used Finale for years, almost from version 1. Is it hard to make the switch as far as learning it? Jane On Thu, 21 May 2009 14:37:47 -0700, Eric Dannewitz ericd...@jazz-sax.com wrote: I would happily switch to Sibelius (I own version 5) if I could tweak things like I can in Finale. If Bill Duncan's fonts/templates were on it, and, more importantly, if there was a way to Natively open Finale files. No XML, none of that. If Sibelius could open a Finale file and have it work just fine. Or covert it. Or something. The Sibelius list is excellent, and they actually have an official person on there who will answer questions. Not like MakeMusic which throws you into their dungeon...I mean forums...to get an official answer. On May 21, 2009, at 1:49 PM, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: At first, I just let that roll off. Over the years, I have come to expect that kind of condescending attitude from some Finale users. Indeed, that was my frist response to Sibelius (v.1) 10 years ago after years of Finale use (beginning with Fin 2.2). I'm actually writing to say how pleased I am to see so little of this attitude from most Finale users lately. I think the capability of the last two Sibelius updates have inspired Finale folk to view Sibelius and Finale as peers and simply say they respect Sibelius but prefer Finale. As it should be. I'm so glad the paltform wars appear to be over. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Yeah ... it's kind of like finding a church you like. Dean On May 21, 2009, at 6:58 PM, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: If you approach Sibelius as if it were Finale, you'll be frustrated. If you're willing to let Sibelius be itself and change your working method to fit Sibelius, you'll probably be very happy. Finale and Sibelius think differently. If you think like Sibelius you'll love it. But if you think like Finale, you'll probably find Sibelius clumsy and not to you liking. Richard Smith I have used Finale for years, almost from version 1. Is it hard to make the switch as far as learning it? Jane On Thu, 21 May 2009 14:37:47 -0700, Eric Dannewitz ericd...@jazz- sax.com wrote: I would happily switch to Sibelius (I own version 5) if I could tweak things like I can in Finale. If Bill Duncan's fonts/templates were on it, and, more importantly, if there was a way to Natively open Finale files. No XML, none of that. If Sibelius could open a Finale file and have it work just fine. Or covert it. Or something. The Sibelius list is excellent, and they actually have an official person on there who will answer questions. Not like MakeMusic which throws you into their dungeon...I mean forums...to get an official answer. On May 21, 2009, at 1:49 PM, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: At first, I just let that roll off. Over the years, I have come to expect that kind of condescending attitude from some Finale users. Indeed, that was my frist response to Sibelius (v.1) 10 years ago after years of Finale use (beginning with Fin 2.2). I'm actually writing to say how pleased I am to see so little of this attitude from most Finale users lately. I think the capability of the last two Sibelius updates have inspired Finale folk to view Sibelius and Finale as peers and simply say they respect Sibelius but prefer Finale. As it should be. I'm so glad the paltform wars appear to be over. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Canto ergo sum And, I'd rather be composing than decomposing Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
That sounds fair enough. The only trouble is my entire computer notation life was built ground up with Finale, so I find Sibelius hard to get around. Christopher On May 21, 2009, at 9:58 PM, mu...@rgsmithmusic.com wrote: If you approach Sibelius as if it were Finale, you'll be frustrated. If you're willing to let Sibelius be itself and change your working method to fit Sibelius, you'll probably be very happy. Finale and Sibelius think differently. If you think like Sibelius you'll love it. But if you think like Finale, you'll probably find Sibelius clumsy and not to you liking. Richard Smith I have used Finale for years, almost from version 1. Is it hard to make the switch as far as learning it? Jane ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:52 PM, shirling neueweise shirl...@newmusicnotation.com wrote: Rumors of Score's death are greatly exaggerated. :-) perhaps, but it *is* deathly ill. imagine the last 10 years of finale's bugs, poor implementations and general errors crammed into and you have the new windows version of score, their ONLY upgrade in 10 years. that is pretty much how it sounds on the score list. It's a nightmare since WinScore was released. Buyers' comments have been brutal about its buggy nature, and the extreme complexity in making it work. I'm amazed at the dedicated users that still come to the defense of Score; they are very loyal. It's almost like a religion to them. But on the other hand, I've seen several users write on-list they've moved on Sibelius. Thanks, Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On 20.05.2009 Matthew Hindson wrote: And hopefully the slur improvements mean that one will no longer receive RSI as a by-product. From watching the video the slurs look very much like Finale's now, only with even more control (which I am not sure I would use), and possibly less bugs. Sibelius is becoming more and more attractive for me. The competitive upgrades make me think... Johannes ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Darcy James Argue wrote: The demo video is really impressive. There are always hiccups and stuff that doesn't work quite as well as it could, but this feature set sure looks like a worthy upgrade, with lots of notation-centric improvements. I hope it spurs Finale to match Sib's new features, especially the layout tools. As a Finale loyalist, It burns to see the principles behind Finale's vertical collision plug-in -- a great idea crippled by shoddy implementation -- featured so prominently in the new version of Sibelius. The auto-aligning dynamics and hairpins looks great, and is something Finale should have and could have implemented a long time ago. I think this also clearly shows the insanity of Finale's yearly update schedule. Sibelius looks now to be on a biennial update schedule and for the last three versions now, the improvements have been substantial, allowing them to charge more ($169.00 for an upgrade from Sib5) and, I suspect, sell a lot more upgrades. As a member of the Sibelius group at yahoogroups, I have to say that there I don't recall there being anybody who complains about the upgrade schedule. And while there are those who don't upgrade due to financial restrictions, I've never read that people aren't upgrading because they want to wait to see how the new features work and whether they really work at all, and never has anybody posted that they're skipping an upgrade because the improvements and additions in any single Sib upgrade aren't worth it. At least that I recall. One thing that Finale has done is to create a gun-shy user base, at least as indicated on this group. Many people don't jump on Finale upgrades the way they used to because of the horrible bugs which have been prevalent in the initial releases of the past several annual Finale upgrades. How many messages on this group have been of the I'll wait until they bring out the Fin200Xa patch which can't be helpful to the financial engine of the company. I wonder how many people hold off waiting for the first update patch to the upgrade (what a stupid thing that a company's user base has to wait for such a thing to feel comfortable with a new version) only to find that when the update patch is released the early-adopters aren't raving about how much got fixed. There must be many people who waited for the update patch and then waited an additional period for the b patch (not there always is one) or simply decide they were smart not to fall for that upgrade and simply wait for the next full version upgrade hoping the major bugs introduced in the current version manage to get fixed in the next full version upgrade? Sibelius' current biennial update schedule does several things, all of which seem to be positive: 1) people have longer to get comfortable with the additions and changes and can actually get a lot of work done before having to relearn stuff in the new version; 2) the cost of a biennial Sibelius upgrade is a little cheaper than what the early-adopters of the annual Finale upgrades have to pay for their concurrent 2-version upgrades matching the Sibelius single upgrade; 3) the Sibelius development team has much longer to squash any bugs and to ensure that everything is working as it should so that complaints are minimal with new releases, raising the confidence level for the end-users; 4) people can buy the Sibelius upgrade and hold off on installing it if they would rather finish current projects in the older version, knowing that even if they wait nine months to install it, they'll get well over a year's use out of the new version before upgrading again. With Finale, if a person does that, they only get 3 months of use out of a new version (hardly enough time to really learn all the new features and to feel comfortable with the annually-rearranged menu structure) so I recall reading some posts where people have held off installing the new version of Finale they paid for, only to complain that it's still shrink-wrapped when the next version comes out. The prevailing attitude towards the corporation on the Sibelius group is positive. Can the same be said about the prevailing attitude towards the corporation on this Finale list? We'll know in a couple of months whether Finale has finally solved the problems that arose in Fin2009 and managed any similar improvements to what Sibelius has to offer. I sure hope so because I want Finale to continue to survive and to keep its user base, if only to keep providing inspiration for Sibelius to use to actually implement the concepts better, and to provide competition so that Sibelius as a company doesn't become complacent but continues to make huge improvements with each new version. I would love to once again feel confident enough in a new version of Finale that I would place my order the day I learn about the upgrade. I used to do that, all the way from Fin3.5 (my first Finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 20.05.2009 Matthew Hindson wrote: And hopefully the slur improvements mean that one will no longer receive RSI as a by-product. From watching the video the slurs look very much like Finale's now, only with even more control (which I am not sure I would use), and possibly less bugs. Sibelius is becoming more and more attractive for me. The competitive upgrades make me think... Johannes ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale I don't know how taxes and business deductions work in Germany, but if you can deduct the cost of the Sibelius cross-grade purchase as a business expense (in the U.S. that's an allowable expense) I'd suggest that you do it, if only as a test to see if Sibelius will work for you. Not that I'm trying to make you into a convert who will abandon Finale, but any good workers will be sure to have the best tools in their toolboxes, and having both Sibelius and Finale gives a person two excellent tools to work with, and can then decide which is the best tool for the job. Some things are still easier for me in Finale, so I use that. Others are easier in Sibelius, so I use that. The balance has tipped recently so that I use Sibelius far more than Finale, because the projects I've been working on recently have been easier in Sibelius. But for a down-and-dirty, do-it-in-a-minute worksheet or transposition for my students, I still fire up Finale. But a send it to the publisher project I'm using Sibelius most of the time. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
dhbailey wrote: [snip] As a member of the Sibelius group at yahoogroups, I have to say that there I don't recall there being anybody who complains about the upgrade schedule. And while there are those who don't upgrade due to financial restrictions, I've never read that people aren't upgrading because they want to wait to see how the new features work and whether they really work at all, and never has anybody posted that they're skipping an upgrade because the improvements and additions in any single Sib upgrade aren't worth it. At least that I recall. [snip] I forgot to add that all this Sibelius upgrading is done despite the fact that there is never an offer of a free t-shirt or coffee-mug. :-) -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On 20.05.2009 dhbailey wrote: But for a down-and-dirty, do-it-in-a-minute worksheet or transposition for my students, I still fire up Finale. But a send it to the publisher project I'm using Sibelius most of the time. Well, for me, this was simply not an option with Sibelius slurs prior to version 6. I don't think I will want to maintain both applications. My work is pretty much of the same kind most of the time. If I switch, then I switch completely. Johannes ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Hi, I'm another sibelius (only) user As a member of the Sibelius group at yahoogroups, I have to say that there I don't recall there being anybody who complains about the upgrade schedule. And while there are those who don't upgrade due to financial restrictions, I've never read that people aren't upgrading because they want to wait to see how the new features work and whether they really work at all, and never has anybody posted that they're skipping an upgrade because the improvements and additions in any single Sib upgrade aren't worth it. At least that I recall. I guess this is mainly due to 2 reasons: - sibelius' user base is (still) mainly based on the people who use it lightly or for industrial purposes, and not for serious engraving. these persons are usually happy with the program/standard output as is, and many times don't go down enough to get into some of the small bugs/incongruences. - and as you said, by putting each release out around every ~2 years (a non-official practise) it's possible to make a bigger jump (or even revolutionary, as with dynamic partsTM) between versions. so that at each version there are concrete features that target a user group (dyn parts at sib4, playback at sib5, now more engraving etc at sib6). there are bugs and there are persons that wait for the update packs. but due to reason #1, that doesn't take such an expressive importance. Sibelius' current biennial update schedule does several things, all of which seem to be positive: 2) the cost of a biennial Sibelius upgrade is a little cheaper than what the early-adopters of the annual Finale upgrades have to pay for their concurrent 2-version upgrades matching the Sibelius single upgrade; don't know about the costs of finale upgrades, but the cost of sib6up is less than half of the cost of sib5up (don't know why), which was strangely high. I don't buy upgrades 5 minutes before they're available (as some people really do), but so far always felt that I had my value for money - or got even more value than gave money. 3) the Sibelius development team has much longer to squash any bugs and to ensure that everything is working as it should so that complaints are minimal with new releases, raising the confidence level for the end-users; it doesn't mean that all bugs do get squashed and that *everything* works 100% or was intelligently programmed, but it's true. The prevailing attitude towards the corporation on the Sibelius group is positive. Can the same be said about the prevailing attitude towards the corporation on this Finale list? 2 things about that: - in sibelius, you can open/save files from version X to version Y. Finale is the only program I know that only allows you to save in the latest version (or am I not updated)? - sibelius manages 2 mailing lists, the yahoo + the official one. in the yahoo they have one of their top managers replying to anything that the other users can't; in the official list both Finn brothers (one more than the other) write several posts a day. both these people reply sometimes minutes after the original post. including on sundays around midnight. also on chrismas day and other holidays. as I understand, you can't even get the time of day from makesomething. I sure hope so because I want Finale to continue to survive and to keep its user base, if only to keep providing inspiration for Sibelius to use to actually implement the concepts better, and to provide competition so that Sibelius as a company doesn't become complacent but continues to make huge improvements with each new version. I hope that finale puts it's act together, because if it doesn't get on track, sibelius will eat it fast. and without finale, sibelius won't be as good (can't prove it, but seems logical). besides these two, there's no other serious contender around (score is having a slow and painful death) - so I guess they need each other. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On 20 May 2009 at 13:07, João Pais wrote: Finale is the only program I know that only allows you to save in the latest version (or am I not updated)? This is very common for database programs, and Finale is built around a database engine, and I've always assumed that explained the issue. Microsoft had enough resources to devote to Access back c. 1999 that they made it support multiple file formats (to different degrees), though the usable multi-version support was really about subversions of a single file format (the Jet 4 file format, which comes in 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2007 formats; 2007 opens all the earlier versions). But MakeMusic apparently doesn't have those kinds of resources. While it would be convenient, I would say that for my work, it's hardly an issue. While I've had the occasional conversion issue, there has never been anything terribly serious in the result that wasn't a reflection of flaws in the version being converted from (such as measure-attached slurs when they got converted to the version that supported the new slurs, whatever they are called). -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Sibelius 6
... is out Apparently the magnetic layout feature is a real plus for engraving, saving a lot of time. And hopefully the slur improvements mean that one will no longer receive RSI as a by-product. http://www.sibelius.com/products/sibelius/6/index.html Matthew ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
What is RSI? Jane On Wed, 20 May 2009 08:53:32 +1000, Matthew Hindson mhindson2...@gmail.com wrote: ... is out Apparently the magnetic layout feature is a real plus for engraving, saving a lot of time. And hopefully the slur improvements mean that one will no longer receive RSI as a by-product. http://www.sibelius.com/products/sibelius/6/index.html Matthew ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Repetitive Strain Injury...from too much mousing and other futzing with slurs, endings, etc. From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf Of j...@janefrasier.com [j...@janefrasier.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:07 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6 What is RSI? Jane On Wed, 20 May 2009 08:53:32 +1000, Matthew Hindson mhindson2...@gmail.com wrote: ... is out Apparently the magnetic layout feature is a real plus for engraving, saving a lot of time. And hopefully the slur improvements mean that one will no longer receive RSI as a by-product. http://www.sibelius.com/products/sibelius/6/index.html Matthew ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
Williams, Jim wrote: Repetitive Strain Injury...from too much mousing and other futzing with slurs, endings, etc. Good thing that's never a problem with Finale, eh? ;-) -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
On May 19, 2009, at 8:03 PM, dhbailey wrote: Williams, Jim wrote: Repetitive Strain Injury...from too much mousing and other futzing with slurs, endings, etc. Good thing that's never a problem with Finale, eh? ;-) Mmphhh! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 6
The demo video is really impressive. There are always hiccups and stuff that doesn't work quite as well as it could, but this feature set sure looks like a worthy upgrade, with lots of notation-centric improvements. I hope it spurs Finale to match Sib's new features, especially the layout tools. As a Finale loyalist, It burns to see the principles behind Finale's vertical collision plug-in -- a great idea crippled by shoddy implementation -- featured so prominently in the new version of Sibelius. The auto-aligning dynamics and hairpins looks great, and is something Finale should have and could have implemented a long time ago. I think this also clearly shows the insanity of Finale's yearly update schedule. Sibelius looks now to be on a biennial update schedule and for the last three versions now, the improvements have been substantial, allowing them to charge more ($169.00 for an upgrade from Sib5) and, I suspect, sell a lot more upgrades. Cheers, - Darcy - djar...@earthlink.net Brooklyn, NY On 19 May 2009, at 6:53 PM, Matthew Hindson wrote: ... is out Apparently the magnetic layout feature is a real plus for engraving, saving a lot of time. And hopefully the slur improvements mean that one will no longer receive RSI as a by-product. http://www.sibelius.com/products/sibelius/6/index.html Matthew ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
