Finale blog: 27.1

[motet]

...if MuseScore, Dorico, Sibelius, Lilypond are so much better why not just switch and be done with it...

In my case, I've got dozens of pieces, most of them 3,000+ measures with 50-page parts, which would require considerable effort to port to another platform, even with MusicXML. I still need to fix little problems I find from time to time, so need everything ready to do that in case something comes up.

I spent at least a year learning Finale well enough to be really productive, and really many years becoming truly expert. These other programs are likely easier to learn, but would still require substantial effort and Q&A on help forums, likely months before really getting up to speed, which would detract from doing actual productive work.

That's why, in my case.

Jari's and Jan's work is amazing and brilliant and I'm very grateful for it, but the fact is, by definition as plug-ins they're bags on the side of Finale, even if MakeMusic were to distribute them itself as official plug-ins. Though they make up for some of Finale's shortcomings, it's not the same as having that functionality built in.

What I see at Dorico is a hard-working and enthusiastic open-minded team eager for bug reports and suggestions wanting to make the product better and better. I could be wrong, but what I see at MakeMusic looks like a reluctance to change anything for fear of breaking something, an inclination to write off bug reports as "not reproducible" or "only affects a small number of users," and considering recreating a problem file by running it through MusicXML a valid solution to a problem. That new releases always seem to introduce new bugs and "oops--didn't think of that" demonstrates that their fear is justified, I guess. I'm not sure what they can do about it, but these blog posts and the last few releases leave me very worried.

[Michel R E]

The solution seems so simple if MuseScore, Dorico, Sibelius, Lilypond are so much better why not just switch and be done with it.

ebiggs: be honest. if you could prepare your orchestral score, then spend 5 minutes with each part just making sure that your page turns are in the right place, wouldn't that be an immense improvement over what Finale does?

and while Perfect Layout is a good tool, it has to be applied like any plugin. it doesn't make its changes on-the-fly. it also doesn't get everything right every time (for example it tends to really mess up cross-staff material and harp glissandi).
Perfect Layout only does what Finale can already do (manually) by itself. So if this is the case, why doesn't Finale simply DO all these things innately by itself? Why did someone have to make a plugin to do all of that?

I have 30 years of material, scores, parts, musical examples, course materials, etc... invested in Finale's formats. It's not all that easy simply porting over to a new platform.
This is obviously why I'd rather Finale did something and caught up to its competition, rather than simply myself migrate to a new platform.

But being able to engrave - all the while struggling as I learn a completely new way of doing things - an entire concerto in less than a week, with usable parts, is nearly a miracle when I think that it took me months to get the same work done in Finale.

[Bill Reed]

https://www.scoringnotes.com/reviews/fi ... ws-deeper/

[BuonTempi]

The solution seems so simple if MuseScore, Dorico, Sibelius, Lilypond are so much better why not just switch and be done with it.

To be honest: I have. I've started about 1 new Finale document in the last 3 years. But, after more than 20 years of use, I have considerable back catalogue still in Finale.

Why, because you all know Finale is still the king of notation software even with its somewhat dubious "bugs". Do you guys really think MuseScore, Dorico, Sibelius, Lilypond don't have specific bugs. You are naive if so.
The addition of the Perfect Layout abilities and J W Change would put Finale on the top for a very long time to come.

This is palpable nonsense. King? on top? Perfect Layout just about keeps Finale in the game as a viable product. Nothing more. You clearly haven't seen what other apps are capable of.

And what new features do we get from the latest 27.1 update, in the words of the Scoring Notes review?
"In our opinion, this is the version 27 that we all needed and wanted from the start."

We get a completion of what we've already paid for.

[John Ruggero]

Someday I may be the only one here. It will be very quiet...

[miker]

Don’t worry, John. I’ll still be here!

[wessmusic]

Someday I may be the only one here. It will be very quiet...

I do not think so

[John Ruggero]

That's good. Maybe Daniel will drop by occasionally, just to see how we're doing.

[ebiggs1]

"... it's not the same as having that functionality built in."

Which has been my main most point from the start. Perfect Layout's ability has to be part of Finale not an add-on. Same is true for J W Change which, IMHO, is the most powerful plug-in there is.

[ebiggs1]

This is palpable nonsense. King? on top? Perfect Layout just about keeps Finale in the game as a viable product. Nothing more. You clearly haven't seen what other apps are capable of.

Really? No it's not "palpable nonsense". Believe it or not. Most of us don't live in a bubble. We do get out and see what the rest of the music world is doing.

You are all still here. You are all still using Finale. I feel for Motet but most of us don't have "dozens of pieces, most of them 3,000+ measures with 50-page parts." That's a real issue for him/her.

I have a close friend that is a Sibelius super user. Full time composer. He has many scores published and many scores sold. I have watched him, talked with him and see nothing in Sibelius that would make me switch. It has some things which I see as moving backwards. It does have export to YouTube that is pretty nifty!

I have 30 years of material, scores, parts, musical examples, course materials, etc... invested in Finale's formats. It's not all that easy simply porting over to a new platform.

But you may have to port them over if the doom and gloom predicted here comes to fruition. It might be wise to do it under your terms than later when you don't have the choice.

Bottom line still is, none of those programs can do what Finale can do.

[BuonTempi]

Bottom line still is, none of those programs can do what Finale can do.

You keep saying that, but you haven't said what it is that only Finale can do. And there is plenty that those apps can do with one click, which in Finale are time-consuming fiddly manual labour.
Flat, S-shaped, or segmented slurs?
Score condensing?
Figured bass? (as opposed to workarounds with lyrics or chord symbols).
Collision avoidance of staves, lyrics and other items? Only by paying extra for the Perfect Layout 'upgrade'.

[motet]

Finale should do what Perfect Layout does, but to do it right wouldn't be just a matter of adding PL, which you run after the fact and runs slowly due to how it's implemented (not Jan's fault--it's the only option he had). To do it right they could perhaps make use of Jan's algorithms, but it would have to be done automatically and instantaneously. A major effort which I can't foresee happening.

I don't see how JW Change would work any differently than it does now. But definition it's something you use to make changes to what you've already done. They could put in in the Edit menu, I guess, but I think it's fine as a plug-in. I agree it would be good if it was supported by MM; since Jari seems to be missing in action, his plug-ins are subject to break at any time.

[Michel R E]

Bottom line still is, none of those programs can do what Finale can do.

You keep saying that, but you haven't said what it is that only Finale can do. And there is plenty that those apps can do with one click, which in Finale are time-consuming fiddly manual labour.
Flat, S-shaped, or segmented slurs?
Score condensing?
Figured bass? (as opposed to workarounds with lyrics or chord symbols).
Collision avoidance of staves, lyrics and other items? Only by paying extra for the Perfect Layout 'upgrade'.

agreed 100%.
I'd also like to hear all of those wonderful things that Finale alone can achieve.

So far, the only things I've come across that Finale can do that, for example Dorico cannot do, are things that will soon be implemented into Dorico's basic functionality. Sans plugin. Sans spending half of what Dorico cost to buy yet another plugin.

So go ahead ebiggs, pleas do enlighten us. I'm not being facetious, I WANT to know what these things are that you insist Finale alone can do. And they have to be things that YOU yourself use. Functionality that you would require and that you would lose were you to make the switch to Dorico, for example.

[dankreider]

It’s a short list. Cutaway scores. Staff style changes. Some funky shape manipulation.

There may be some valid reasons, if something like this is at the center of what you do. I had that with hymnals. Then version 3 came along…

[Michel R E]

yes, cutaway scores is one thing Dorico doesn't do... yet. It's coming, it's been asked for many times by many Dorico users. And the devs have heard the calls, and responded.

what type of staff style changes?

as for the "funky" shape manipulations, I did ask to see a list that would directly affect ebiggs, since he's the one defending Finale and categorically stating that Finale can do so many things that no other program can do.

[dankreider]

what type of staff style changes?

Well, any of them. You can’t change a staff style, short of faking it with an instrument change. I personally don’t usually need this, but it’s one of the more common limitations.

Also, Finale allows much greater local control of font styles and changes in lyrics. Dorico’s are all global.

Cutaway scores are coming, but not in 4.0.

This is all devil’s advocate. You probably know my opinions about the two programs. Just trying to think of functions that give Finale the advantage.

[motet]

It's certainly true that by hook or by crook you can usually accomplish whatever you want in Finale.

[ebiggs1]

It's certainly true that by hook or by crook you can usually accomplish whatever you want in Finale.

You are correct, sir, and there needs to be a distinction between actually accomplishing something and easily accomplishing something.
Unless someone has an overriding reason not to switch when they consistently find fault with Finale is not logical. I know I would.
In Motet's case there is an overriding reason and perhaps others have one too.

So go ahead ebiggs, pleas do enlighten us. I'm not being facetious, I WANT to know what these things are that you insist Finale alone can do.

It is not my intent to enlighten anyone. The fact you all still use Finale is proof enough.

[ebiggs1]

I don't see how JW Change would work any differently than it does now. ...They could put in in the Edit menu,

It is not adding the exact plug-in as it is adding the almost limitless filter available that J W Change has. The MM folks just did not complete their job when they did the anemic Utilities>Change filter. As pointed out these things need to be inherit to the software. Not add-on plug-ins. They are things that Finale should do but doesn't right out of the box.

The resistance to improvements by MM is what frustrates me.

[motet]

In Motet's case there is an overriding reason and perhaps others have one too.

My reason is that MakeMusic may be in financial trouble and in any case appears to be unable to support the product and I fear the day when they go out of business. I hope I'm wrong, but that should be everybody's reason.

[Michel R E]

It is not my intent to enlighten anyone. The fact you all still use Finale is proof enough.

so you're just going to make all-encompassing sweeping statements about Finale's capabilities and then not justify them at all?

the fact that we all use Finale isn't proof of anything. it's simply demonstrates that we do still use it.
what is important is "how much" do we use Finale now that the competition is capable of doing so many things better and with far less hassle?

So again, justify your statement that Finale can do so many things that no other notation software can. Justify it with things that you yourself use on a regular or semi-regular basis.

And I'll take your refusal to do so as proof that you're just blustering and making unsustainable statements out some orifice about things you know nothing about.

[John Ruggero]

Michel wrote: "I'd also like to hear all of those wonderful things that Finale alone can achieve."

Along with what was mentioned,

Dorico can't change beam thickness on a local basis. This is the biggest deal-breaker for me since there is no work-around.

It doesn't do multiple fingerings for single notes. This is the other deal-breaker, since the work-around is too awkward.

It doesn't do centered beams for intervals less than a fourth, which is absurd and annoys me every time I think about it, but there is a somewhat cumbersome work-around.

There are no libraries. I rely on those a lot.

One can't customize the work space the way one can in Finale. No floating tool palettes etc. I often have many windows open on two monitors. Hard to do in Dorico.

Page layout is a nightmare. I rely on easy moving of a measure from one line to another to compare layouts.

[Michel R E]

I don't know what is nightmarish about the last one you list.
Once you understand how the feature for moving notes/bars from one system to the next works, it's actually quite simple.

[Michel R E]

Michel wrote: "I'd also like to hear all of those wonderful things that Finale alone can achieve."

Along with what was mentioned...snip...

I think if you presented your wants/needs to the Dorico devs, along with justification for doing it (when it's ultra rare and outside of normal engraving rules it's another case), you would probably have news within a day about a timeline for adding the feature(s) you need, or an explanation about why it might be delayed, or why the devs might not want to include that type of change.

now, ask the MakeMusic devs about easy divisis, easy ossia measures, lengthy free musical input without barlines, etc... let's see how quickly they respond with a timeline as to when this functionality might be added to Finale.


I was curious about ebigg's statement about all of the things that ONLY Finale can do. I wanted to hear what exactly he needs that he can't get out of any other software package. I also wanted to understand how he justifies his statement.

So far, I've found two things that have a direct inpact on my own published output: a staff names issue (which will be added into Dorico as new functionality with Dorico 4), and cut-away staves, which will most likely be added in an upcoming X.? upgrade/patch.

The Dorico devs have been pretty good about following standard engraving rules. And they have been quick to respond about adding new things as the need pops up.

[John Ruggero]

I've mentioned my issues several times at the Dorico site over several years to the point where I would hesitate to do it again. Changing beam thickness, centered beaming for small intervals and multiple fingerings is hardly unusual in engraving, nor is a flexible work space uncommon in graphics programs. I have received only slight recognition of the validity of these requests, much less a time line.