MuseScore 4

[ebiggs1]

I just got the latest version of MuseScore 4. I must say I am impressed with it. If MuseScore 5 is as much of an improvement over version 4 is over version 3, Make Music, Sibelius, Dorico and whomever better look in the rear-view mirror today. Somebody is closing quickly!

I’m still a dyed in the wool Finale user and believe that Finale 27.3 is the best Finale ever so there is little chance of me switching.

Some big misses in MuseScore 4 are such limited control over how the score looks. There is no “Fit Measures”.
No Speedy Entry. Editing of chords is more like using Simple Entry in Finale, one note at a time.

Of course, no JW Change or JW Polyphony. No Perfect Layout plug-in and I am not up enough to know if Note Performer 3 works with MuseScore 4 or not. MuseScore 4 has better sound than version 3 but not in the same class as Finale 27.3 and Note performer 3.

It took my about two hours to get up to the point I could enter music and maker a score. That’s impressive. However, I find myself wanting to do certain things and MuseScore 4 can’t or doesn’t let me. You can mess with measure width and page margins but that’s about all you can do to affect how your score looks. When I finished I had an orphan measure on the last page all by itself. You can't simply move it to the previous page. I am not a MuseScore 4 expert at all so I am sure there are better ways of doing what I have done using it.

That is one issue I have with Sibelius and Dorico because they all try to do what the software thinks is the best look. Finale lets you do whatever you think is the best look. Seems to me a lot of the plug-ins for Sibelius are to undo what the software does.

How MuseScore 4 handles text is another issue I have with MuseScore 4.

MuseScore 4 makes mp3, PDf and a whole bunch of other stuff.  Finale should too, jeez.  I say there is no Speedy Entry, but MuseScore 4 does have a similar way to enter notes just not quite “speedy”. Particularly true if you want an octave up or down.

How you can move quickly through the score is really nice.

The real deal about MuseScore 4 is, it is basically free! Finale has smashed the two big competitors with the new price reduction to $300 bucks and IMHO is worth it even over free. MuseScore 4 is still not ready for prime time, again IMHO, as always.

[boldest06]

Ok... yes. MakeMusic Finale, Steinberg Dorico, Avid Sibelius, Presonus Notion, (Muse Group StaffPad?)...... are software for professionals in the sector.
Muse Group MuseScore is released as free and open-source software! (that doesn't mean it isn't a powerful tool) therefore it has very different users (LilyPond!)

[motet]

That is one issue I have with Sibelius and Dorico because they all try to do what the software thinks is the best look.

That's Finale's biggest asset, I think, but not one all users care about. I have Sibelius and Dorico and have barely used them, but the other day I was looking into John Ruggero's dotted quarter rest issue and as struck by how comparitively few settings (such as distance from note to dot) Sibelius and Dorico have when compared with Finale.

[ebiggs1]

I used to always d/l any updated software form Sibelius. I did try Dorico a long while ago but I have not tried any new Sibelius version form probably version 6(? I guess?) I guess they both still offer demos? I always came to the same conclusion, they just aren't Finale. Always came back to Finale. Finale 27.3 even with all it faults is still the best notation product available. I always deleted Sibelius but I am going to keep MuseScore 4. I am going to learn it and I don't really know why. Perhaps because it's free. Maybe because some of the kids st school are using it. But if it just sits on the hard drive I don't care.

[BuonTempi]

That is one issue I have with Sibelius and Dorico because they all try to do what the software thinks is the best look. Finale lets you do whatever you think is the best look.

Dorico does exactly what you tell it. There are literally several hundred options to configure notation and layout in ways that you would have to do manually in Finale, or with JW Change in each document. Dorico does impose the rules (that you have set) on what you do, but it's easy enough to override them for exceptions. By contrast, Finale makes you do it all by yourself, every time, with little help, even for the most tedious tasks.

No Perfect Layout plug-in.

Perfect Layout is a sticking plaster over all the things that Finale ought to do, out of the box, automatically, as you enter the music, at no extra cost.

The real deal about MuseScore 4 is, it is basically free! Finale has smashed the two big competitors with the new price reduction to $300 bucks and IMHO is worth it even over free.

I suspect that Finale lowered its price directly because of the competition that MuseScore (and others) represents, particularly in the education sector. It was also likely done to draw existing users onto the latest version. I'm not sure what evidence there is that the move has 'smashed' other apps.

The improvements to Linked Parts in 27.3 represent possibly the largest productivity gain in Finale for a decade. But even that is the completion of a feature introduced 17 years ago. The Slur/artic collision was also significant; but the list of features in a Finale release, compared to the breadth and depth of changes in its competitors, is paltry.

MuseScore 4 is very impressive, particularly in the leap it has made from the previous version. The Engraving improvements are significant, though I would agree there's still much more that needs doing. But the Tortoise keeps coming while the Hare sleeps.

Commercial software needs to justify its pricetag in the face of what MuseScore is doing. If MS sets the bar for the minimum standard, then Finale can't afford to do less. Vertical Justification? Collision avoidance? Nested accidentals? These are all the minimum standard for notation apps now. There may be plenty that Finale can do that other apps don't do; but there is also plenty that Finale doesn't do, that the other apps do.

[ebiggs1]

I agree almost totally with you on everything. I can't comment on Dorico directly since I only tried it once a while back and didn't like it at all. I deleted it almost as as fast as I d/l it. I personally like to have to tell Finale, "every time" I do a composition or arrange a score. That is a plus in my book. I do have my templates and that is plural because they have different requirements.

It seems there is s big divide on the usefulness of Perfect Layout. Lovers and haters! Perhaps that is my fault perhaps not. You find haters in every situation. Agree, Finale should do what PL does but MM does not see fit to make it so or correct it. They could simply strike a deal with PL just like they did with TG Tools, JW and Patterson. When you use PL you do not need to tell Finale anything about almost anything. Just enter your music and continue, run PL at the end or nearly there, in a few moments you have a "perfectly" created or 99% so score. The latest version even does a nice (not perfect yet but close) job at getting parts ready for print.

Personally I have written more music and composed more music in the last couple years than any couple years of the several decades before. And, it is largely do to Perfect Layout. Yeah COVID did give me a lot of free time I didn't have before but PL makes it so simple. Click and done!

My big piece for 2022 Christmas https://youtu.be/tgxPlrAWG0Q Just Finale 27.3 and PL and NP3 as they come right out of the box.

[BuonTempi]

It seems there is s big divide on the usefulness of Perfect Layout. Click and done!

I don't dismiss its utility, nor 'hate' it -- but everything it does is what every other app does automatically. "Click and done" -- without the click -- or the extra payment!

Many people will also be attracted to MS4 by the audio output, as much as the engraving. Some have suggested on these very boards that Finale should have no playback features at all, so that MM could focus on the notation. But targeting a subset of the music market is not going to win you market share. Finale needs to improve its playback features as much as its notation. (The MIDI Tool was outdated by the late 90s, at least; and there's still no VST3 support on Windows. Plus the whole 'MP3 sometimes' thing. And Garritan seems almost abandoned.)

NotePerformer 4 is promised for Q1 next year, and claimed to be 'disruptive' in its technology. It may be as essential a plug-in for Finale as PL. Let's hope it's compatible...

[AnneMillington]

My big piece for 2022 Christmas https://youtu.be/tgxPlrAWG0Q Just Finale 27.3 and PL and NP3 as they come right out of the box.

I use these also, and really appreciate them. I say I appreciate Finale, but I make no pretense to being able to use or even understand all of its options. However, the fact that almost everything can be customized, and that the process is not dumbed down just to ease the path to a generically acceptable document is a huge positive to me. I reiterate, though, I am still in the early discovery phase of using this software.

I enjoyed listening to your big 2022 Christmas piece; that alternate Away In a Manger you used is one of my favorite little jewels, and makes a wonderful brass chorale.

[motet]

Dorico does exactly what you tell it. There are literally several hundred options to configure notation and layout in ways that you would have to do manually in Finale, or with JW Change in each document. Dorico does impose the rules (that you have set) on what you do, but it's easy enough to override them for exceptions. By contrast, Finale makes you do it all by yourself, every time, with little help, even for the most tedious tasks.

I was barely able to enter a dotted rest into Dorico (I need to take the tutorials) so it may well be that I missed all the settings you can do. I did find various setting pages, but nothing that controls the distance of the augmentation dot from the note.

I have been able to minimize hand tweaking in Finale by refining the various settings and making a template. After entering everything, I spend most of my time adjusting vertical spacing between systems and making good page turns, and have fairly few collisions to deal with, so I think Perfect Layout is not for me. Still, I wish there was less hand editing to do, which is why I bought Dorico. It seems pretty daunting to learn, but I guess I should just jump in. But I'd much rather spend my time dealing with the music rather than the software, which is why I'm reluctant even to upgrade Finale (since there are always new bugs and issues and the law of diminishing returns seems to have set in on new features).

[ebiggs1]

Again almost totally agree! However..........

"Click and done" -- without the click -- or the extra payment!

You will 'click' somewhere so might as well be on PL? As I say some will love it and some will perhaps not hate it but won't use it. Like me for instance on TG Tools. I never use them but I don't hate'em.

As to the "extra payment" or cost factor associated with PL, MM did not raise the price of Finale when they started offering TG Tools Lite, They did not raise the price when they started offering Patterson and they did not raise the price when they reengineered JW. In fact they cut the price in half! I see little reason why PL could not be offered as a plug-in in Finale right from the box. Folks that wanted to make use of it could and folks like me that don't use TG Tools don't have to.

[ebiggs1]

Thank you so much Anne.
It means a lot when folks like your stuff. That piece was generally liked by all, very humbling for sure. We did another piece "Night of Silence" for the Christmas Eve mass service which is also a play on Silent Night and is gorgeous, too. It is not mine so I can't share it.

[BuonTempi]

I was barely able to enter a dotted rest into Dorico (I need to take the tutorials) so it may well be that I missed all the settings you can do. I did find various setting pages, but nothing that controls the distance of the augmentation dot from the note.

It's in Engraving Options > Notes > Rhythm Dots.

As to the "extra payment" or cost factor associated with PL, MM did not raise the price of Finale when they started offering TG Tools Lite, They did not raise the price when they started offering Patterson and they did not raise the price when they reengineered JW. In fact they cut the price in half! I see little reason why PL could not be offered as a plug-in in Finale right from the box. Folks that wanted to make use of it could and folks like me that don't use TG Tools don't have to.

I'm not sure what your point is. Plug-ins are not the solution. PL costs extra, to draw Finale level with all other notation apps. Finale should be positioning beams correctly without Patterson beams plug-in. It should be doing that automatically, without having to press a button.
Any student using MuseScore will now expect a level of functionality that Finale doesn't provide, and they will ask why they should pay for it.

[ebiggs1]

I'm not sure what your point is.

The point is or the basic condition of Finale is it can do anything ever needed in music. We all agree. You have to start somewhere. It has to have a default. BuonTempi may not like it. If you don't like something you can change it. It may not be what I want either but you can still have it your way while I have it my way. In fact the best way to use PL is to just let Finale put stuff where it will by default. Just make sure it is attached or associated to the correct item.

If you want to run a plug-in like Paterson beams you can if you don't want to you don't have to. The default beams will still make a nice looking score. Some folks will want to move the augmentation dot and some won't.

Plug-ins are not the solution.

Ah, but here you are wrong. It seems all music software uses plug-ins. They must be some sort of solution. Further even a lot of software not music related use plug-ins or "actions" or "presets' to do work. Not to be disrespectful but the BuonTempi way or the Ernie Biggs way isn't the only way or even the preferred way. That is the strength of Finale.

[BuonTempi]

I'm not saying everyone should do things my way. I'm questioning whether Finale's abilities and interface are sufficient to attract new users, given the superior functionality of competing apps.

If you want to run a plug-in like Paterson beams you can if you don't want to you don't have to.

My point is: I shouldn't have to run it, even if I want it! It should be part of the Beaming options in Document Options, and Finale should beam the document automatically, according to those options.
Any plug-in that's been in the app for 20 years should have been folded in to the core functionality. (5 years, I would argue.) As it is, there's a whole load of essential functionality that's just in the "Extra buttons you need to press" menu.

Yes, "you can do anything in Finale". This is why it has lasted so long. The problem is the amount of work that the user has to do, compared to all other products, and the "user-hostility" of the interface. With Finale, I can either spend an hour or two manually moving stuff around; or I can pay extra for PL. With every other product, I don't have to do either of those things.

The UI designer of MuseScore is governed by a philosophy to make it as intuitive and obvious as possible. Kids who grow up with iPhones and modern computing interfaces will respond to that. Will they feel the same way about Finale? I doubt it. Veteran users who've got 30 years of muscle memory may be comfortable with it, but unless there's large, radical change in the product, it's not going to attract new users.

[ebiggs1]

Man we are both on the same page on most of that. Those plug-ins should have been incorporated in Finale a long time ago. Just as PL should be now. The GUI needs updated too.

My point is: I shouldn't have to run it, even if I want it! ... I can either spend an hour or two manually moving stuff around ...

Here is where we disagree. I don't know about the hour or two that's just proficiency with the software. But I want that capability. I don't want it to do that stuff automatically. And that in a nutshell is what I see wrong with the others. I have a very good friend who is a full time composer. He makes his living writing and composing music. Not like me where it is just a "hobby". He is a Sibelius super user. Knows it forward and backwards. I have sit with him for hours writing music and I hear just about similar complaints about Sibelius. Just because you, or he, want something done a certain way does not mean everybody wants it that way. BTW, his two publisher are always pushing him to submit work in Finale!

[Anders Hedelin]

What if Finale et al offered a choice between 'general mode' (meaning average user's mode) and 'special mode' (or 'pro mode')? I'm nothing like a programmer, but I wouldn't think this is unfeasible if you want to reach both customer categories.

[BuonTempi]

I don't want it to do that stuff automatically. And that in a nutshell is what I see wrong with the others. I have a very good friend who is a full time composer. He makes his living writing and composing music. Not like me where it is just a "hobby".

You want to spend time moving lyric lines away from low-hanging notes? You want to spend time moving colliding notes in different voices apart? Moving artics away from slurs? I'm not sure what fraction of notation users that would represent.

You seem in awe of the features of Perfect Layout -- but doesn't it do all this work for you? Why then do you let it do that work for you automatically?

For most professional users, time is money. They'll use the software that gets them the result they want, in the quickest time. Having no pressures on time is a luxury not many can afford.

What if Finale et al offered a choice between 'general mode' (meaning average user's mode) and 'special mode' (or 'pro mode')? I'm nothing like a programmer, but I wouldn't think this is unfeasible if you want to reach both customer categories.

What would the difference be? Pros and amateurs should both want (nay expect) vertical justification and collision avoidance and a consistent, coherent user interface.

[Anders Hedelin]

What if Finale et al offered a choice between 'general mode' (meaning average user's mode) and 'special mode' (or 'pro mode')? I'm nothing like a programmer, but I wouldn't think this is unfeasible if you want to reach both customer categories.

What would the difference be? Pros and amateurs should both want (nay expect) vertical justification and collision avoidance and a consistent, coherent user interface.

I can't see why this should be so difficult. MM, or its predecessors had different versions of the notation program, more or less advanced. Why not have it in the same program? In Finale there's already the choice between Simple Entry and Speedy Entry for example.

And your comment about vertical adjustment etc. is rather off the mark - which program, in any mode, would allow that not to work?

[ebiggs1]

BuonTempi,

his two publisher are always pushing him to submit work in Finale!

, has to be a reason, my friend.

You want to spend time moving lyric lines away from low-hanging notes? You want to spend time moving colliding notes in different voices apart? Moving artics away from slurs? ... You seem in awe of the features of Perfect Layout -- but doesn't it do all this work for you?

Yes to the first part and yes it (PL) does to the second. That is why I posted the example above.

https://youtu.be/tgxPlrAWG0Q

[elbsound]

I spend most of my time adjusting vertical spacing between systems and making good page turns, and have fairly few collisions to deal with, so I think Perfect Layout is not for me.

Jan from Perfect Layout here.
Perfect Layout already adjusts the vertical spacing and makes good page turns. Try the current (beta) version 3.x.
https://elbsound.studio/perfect-layout/version3.0.php

[BuonTempi]

So if you want to do the tedious work, why do you use Perfect Layout to avoid it?

Look! I've drawn a graph.

This is all I'm saying. Finale's competitors are adding more features, more quickly than Finale. Finale already lacks many of the capabilities found in other notation products. The more features they add, the more expectations rise. (When Sibelius introduced Magnetic Layout, Finale forum users regularly called for Finale to have similar.)
If the free product provides users with the minimum expectation of what notation apps can do, then Finale cannot afford to fall behind that.

You can say that you don't want to have automatic functions, but I'd argue you're in the tiniest minority. The history of software development (of any app in any field) is one of the computer doing more and more for us.

And your comment about vertical adjustment etc. is rather off the mark - which program, in any mode, would allow that not to work?

Currently, only Finale has no Automatic Vertical Justification. And I don't see how your solution addresses that shortcoming.

his two publisher are always pushing him to submit work in Finale! There has to be a reason, my friend.

Familiarity? Inertia? A decent engraver should be able to produce a high-quality result in any software. And a novice can produce a terrible job in Finale. There's nothing magic about it. Plenty of publishers use Sibelius. And I'm getting work for Wise Music Group using Dorico.

[ebiggs1]

... if you want to do the tedious work, why do you use Perfect Layout to avoid it?

I don't do the "tedious" work. I let PL do that. You know most of your arguments prove my case. Finale is so successful because it lets the individual do it his way. We all have different needs, requirements, situations and/or reasons. I found it difficult to tell MuseScore 4 to do what I wanted instead of what it wanted. That's all of it in a nutshell. Although you can leave PL set on it defaults there are literally dozens of adjustments a person can make with it.

The question becomes why do you still use Finale if you deem it so lacking and underperforming to your standards and particular requirements? Exactly why I don't use or like Sibelius and Dorico. I have what works for me in Finale, PL, NP3 and a couple JW plug-ins.

[David Ward]

... if you want to do the tedious work, why do you use Perfect Layout to avoid it?

… … …The question becomes why do you still use Finale if you deem it so lacking and underperforming to your standards and particular requirements? Exactly why I don't use or like Sibelius and Dorico. I have what works for me in Finale, PL, NP3 and a couple JW plug-ins.

I probably shouldn't attempt to answer for BuonTempi; but my guess is that he no longer uses Finale when starting a project from scratch, his preference then being to use Dorico, but that he has a very substantial existing catalogue of scores in Finale and that he will continue to use it when working with those.

FWIW if I were younger (I'm due to be 82 in February) I might give Dorico a go, but as things are I'll probably stay with what I know.

[David Ward]

... if you want to do the tedious work, why do you use Perfect Layout to avoid it?

… … …The question becomes why do you still use Finale if you deem it so lacking and underperforming to your standards and particular requirements? Exactly why I don't use or like Sibelius and Dorico. I have what works for me in Finale, PL, NP3 and a couple JW plug-ins.

I probably shouldn't attempt to answer for BuonTempi; but my guess is that he no longer uses Finale when starting a project from scratch, his preference then being to use Dorico, but that he has a very substantial existing catalogue of scores in Finale and that he will continue to use it when working with those.

FWIW if I were younger (I'm due to be 82 in February) I might give Dorico a go, but as things are I'll probably stay with what I think I know.

[ebiggs1]

... my guess is that he no longer uses Finale ...

David I suspect you are right. The big problem is a lot of people can't get over the big hump that all of us are individuals and have different ideas and ways we do things. Not right or wrong just different. Writhing music is no different either. Finale answers that question, IMHO, better than the others. I think this is one area where MM has the answer. Perhaps lacking in some other areas but they seem determined to keep Finale completely customizable. On that same thought, JW Change and JW Polyphony and, yes, Perfect Layout have the same ability.

I intend to keep MuseScore 4 on my computer and mess around with it from time to time even write a tune or two with it.

Oh and BTW, happy 82 to you for an early birthday wish.