"Advanced" Finale manual needed

[dtoub]

You don't think that after reading various threads about which editor is best, that Finale users aren't in a cult too?

Nah. That just qualifies some of us as nerds. And clearly this isn't a cult given how much a lot of folks here, myself included, complain about Finale from time to time, much as we love it...

[John Ruggero]

I never said that music teachers were not professionals. I've been a music teacher for 47 years and consider myself a professional. My father, my sister, my brother-in-law, my nephew's wife, an aunt and an uncle are or were music teachers. All professionals.

Also, I didn't write that quote about Dorico being a cult. Someone else did. So I hope that that will be corrected in the quotes in the previous post. Life is hard enough...

[Peter Thomsen]

A who-wrote-what correction:

… OMG. I know emacs very well from when I taught myself Unix for fun years ago. Although I preferred to use Vim for text editing over emacs, emacs is probably more capable. But the reason the Dorico person mentioned emacs is not as a compliment at all. It means Finale is to Dorico what a command-line text editor is to MS Word. That's absurd in my opinion. But I know that is exactly what many in that cult think of Finale. And yes it is a cult...

This is the correct quote.

As you can see, it was dtoub (not John Ruggero) who wrote:

“But I know that is exactly what many in that cult think of Finale. And yes it is a cult”

A mistake like this can easily happen when you quote a post containing a quote.

[ebiggs1]

"...John was not referring to teachers..."

Pretty clear I was talking teachers. I did not even mention students.

On Teacher Development days I have taught...

Look a lot of the time people gain more and learn more from actual one on one or group lectures over reading a manual. I suspect this is the big reason people Google for answers more than consult a manual.

[Zoots]

Years ago when I ran a computer support group and office automation was taking off, people would call with a "How do I" question. They often were told that it is in the manual under ABCD. Invariably, the response was, "That manual is so big, I don't want/have time to use it and it is easier for me to just ask you". Google is now the easy person to ask rather than read the manual.

[ebiggs1]

Bingo! Simple fact of life.

[dtoub]

This is the correct quote.

As you can see, it was dtoub (not John Ruggero) who wrote:

“But I know that is exactly what many in that cult think of Finale. And yes it is a cult”

A mistake like this can easily happen when you quote a post containing a quote.

Yup. You beat me to it, Peter. That was indeed me. And I do stand by my words.

[John Ruggero]

My sincerest apology, ebiggs1. You were clear, but somehow I misread your post and thought you were referring to students in your class googling.

What I should have said was that many of us, including me, have to google for Finale information because there is no central site that contains all the basic information that one needs to do professional level engraving. It is for that reason that an online "manual", or other centralized source of Finale information that ties together all the disparate parts that engravers use would be very helpful and bring more users to Finale, which has developed the reputation of being very hard to learn.

I don't read manuals either. Just when I need to. But sometimes finding important information by web searching takes way too much time. I would prefer something like what I just described. Or perhaps a well-organized index that takes one to the best source to answer any particular question.

And there are a lot of people who prefer a more systematic way of learning something. The people who do read manuals. Plenty of those people who will not gravitate to Finale because of the perceived lack of organization surrounding Finale.

[AnneMillington]

... Or perhaps a well-organized index that takes one to the best source to answer any particular question.

This is what I would love to see! Well-organized, in that there would be some 7-10 top level categories to take one through the process, starting with installation of software and plugins, then creating the first files, capabilities of menus, note entry, formatting, adjustments, playback, export, tutorials and samples. But instead of exhaustive paragraphs of how-to text in each section, I think it would be more useful to have a pro statement to introduce, then a collection of links, examples and cheat sheets to illuminate the subject.

It would be so helpful, because I spend so much time trying to figure out which Google content applies to my issue, and applies to my version, and is sufficiently authoritative that I should give it a try. I also would limit to really recent versions just to keep up with platform and ancillary upgrades.

A little kind guidance goes a long way.

[ebiggs1]

Hasn't Jason Loffredo already done that?
https://www.conqueringfinale.com/

[AnneMillington]

ebiggs1 I find his material tremendously valuable and well-organized, and rely on it heavily. Only problem for me is I forget where I found something of value, and have a hard time finding it again in the videos. That's why I started an extensive cheat sheet.

[Zoots]

And that's the problem with videos. There are lots of things they are the ideal medium and there are other times that I much prefer to have written steps and I try to avoid videos.
Problem with a lot of written instructions is they start by saying things like go to Gobblygook menu but don't give you a clue where you find that menu to get started. IIRC, this happens in the Finale help too.

[AnneMillington]

Zoots I think Finale is one of the worst at that. My cheat sheets more often than not consist of telling myself how I got to a particular menu. And there are version and platform name differences to the menu items as well, making recall or retracing impossible.

One thing I really admire about Jason's videos is that he anticipates what is going to screw up and confuse your thinking as you plod through a procedure. It is the mark of a good teacher. But as I said before, not much good when I forget the location of these nuggets. Maybe we just need someone to go through and do a time-stamp index of all the great videos out there.

[dtoub]

For me, a short video can be very useful vis a vis home repair, how to fold a sports coat without wrinkling it etc. For sure, Jason’s videos are definitely well done. But after awhile, longer videos like those require an investment in time, and they resemble more of a great online course than a quick “how to” video. And to use them to find a very specific solution to a problem is not always easy. There are many great things in his videos (the one I saw a while back on the JW Change plug-in was fantastic and pointed out some aspects I hadn’t known about). But that’s not how I go about finding some arcane solution to a Finale issue that crops up.

For starting out, I think a good manual and some videos like Jason’s can be helpful.

For experienced users, the current online Finale manual generally suffices but clearly could be so much better. That old boxed set of manuals from the early 90’s was a good, useful paradigm in my mind.

[ebiggs1]

The reason why you folks seem so overwhelmed with the videos is why we love Finale in the first place. Any program that is as complex as Finale is going to have a complex manual or video. The lesser complex notation softwares will have a less complex manual. It doesn't make any difference with any super complex software. I did beta testing for Adobe and I heard the exact same complaints about Photoshop. Photoshop like Finale is as complex or difficult to learn as you want it.

[John Ruggero]

The problem is not that Finale is complex in itself, because the present manual takes care of that. The problem is what is not in Finale and the manual and has to be found in a myriad of sources and brought into the mix from outside to make a complete engraving tool.

The whole unstated point of this thread is that on its own, Finale is losing the race with Dorico. Finale needs Perfect Layout and the various other add-ons to stay abreast of Dorico. But a Dorico user has a clear up-to-date manual that includes everything they need as well as the strongest support team one has ever encountered for a piece of software. On top of this Dorico holds the hand of the user and makes all the decisions necessary to make a decent-looking engraving without much effort.

For this reason, we need something at least as complete as the Dorico manual if Finale is going to attract new users.

And I agree with those who find videos cumbersome in trying to find specific information as needed.

[dtoub]

I agree %. And it may even be worse, since Finale with plug-in support is (barely) competing with Dorico at the high end and also with MuseScore at the low (free) end. My sense is that Finale’s established base are composers and others like me who have been using Finale for decades and we not about to switch to Dorico because the cost and time required is not attractive, and students who are required to learn it. The latter may not stick with Finale but gravitate to MuseScore (since it’s free and likely “good enough” for their needs) and/or Dorico.

If I were much younger or starting out I’d absolutely go with Dorico. It does make some decisions for users from everything I’ve heard. But for most folks that’s a feature not a bug.

I suspect that other than metatools and better support for cutaway scores (which I have only rarely used because it’s just so 1960’s), I’m not sure what Finale has that Dorico doesn’t. And as you correctly stated, John, Dorico is extremely responsive and even proactive with their user base. That’s rare and very much to be applauded.

MM needs to really step up their game and start innovating again. I’m not sure what is on the road map but file sharing isn’t likely a compelling innovation.

[AnneMillington]

One thing that differentiates me and my computer cohort (some of you qualify) from folks that grew up with computers is that the latter group expects to be up and running w/o reading any damn manual. A few pokes and tries, and bob's yer uncle. I expect that to work nowadays in anything I download, in a new phone, printer, ear buds, whatever, and rarely go to the manual first. I think MuseScore fits that model better. I have not tried Dorico. But I think you would have to be very lucky and very clever to get Finale to deliver a score you could use just by poking and prodding.

[motet]

You certainly can't sit down with Dorico and just start writing.It's more arcane than Finale in that regard.

[John Ruggero]

And, dtoub, I agree with you 100%.

As far as:

I suspect that other than metatools and better support for cutaway scores (which I have only rarely used because it’s just so 1960’s), I’m not sure what Finale has that Dorico doesn’t.

Actually, Dorico has a lot of issues for someone who "wants to do it their way" and that is why I haven't switched. Things that you would never expect are sometimes impossible or incredibly awkward to do in Dorico. For example, I use both hyphens and elisions as well as double and triple numbers (for two or three fingers playing the same key simultaneously) in piano fingering. Dorico's superior fingering tool can't do both elisions and hyphens at the same time or the double numbers and there is no workaround. Then there are weird angled octave signs. I won't on... So if I used Dorico I would always fear that there might be yet another showstopper lurking right around the corner to rear its head right in the middle of a big file.

Dorico has traded the kind of flexibility that we are accustomed to in Finale for AI, the great leveler that makes the machine the equal of humankind by limiting what humankind can do. So as AnneMillington so rightly points out, if you want to do more than just to poke around and let the machines take over your life, then you are a bit out of step these days.

[Zoots]

I thought about posting this a couple of times but didn't because I think I know how it might appear to some. Anyway, I decided the worst that can happen is that you think it is silly!
A question based on nothing more than curiosity. I know that many of you like to have your work "perfect" as a matter of personal pride and that is understandable and I know this will sound like, "lets just dumb everything down".
I am strictly an amateur and absolutely nowhere in the league of most, if not all, of you, particularly the ones who do their work on a professional basis for musical ensembles from orchestras to small groups and perhaps for publishing in music books.

My question is: What would really happen if you did the work in Dorico or Sibelius where Finale's "I can do anything" tweaking is not available? Would there be complaints, a loss of customer or would the customer really care or just a loss of personally desired perfection?
Thanks for humoring me.

[dtoub]

Not a bad question at all. Everyone here has different needs. I’m a composer but it is not my day job and performances of my music are few and far between. So I don’t need it “perfect” and I suspect my scores are not designed with most performers in mind. But I do want my music notated accurately and, very importantly, without a lot of angst on my part. Finale does give me angst from time to time but I usually can get past the issues and in the end have a score that’s accurate and plays back pretty decently (especially with either the full GPO5 or NotePerformer).

The big draw for Finale, at least to me, has always been its ability to notate pretty much anything. I used to write complex serial music. Finale handles that. Most of my music is minimalist with few markings but a lot of repetition. Finale does that very nicely. And when I have had performances, I never had any musicians kvetch to me that the score was not interpretable or was confusing.

I’m very aware from everything I’ve read in various places that Dorico is not trivial to learn. Neither was Finale. And I just don’t have time to spend figuring it out. Finale works well for me overall. I’d love for it to be better. I think we all would. But for me it fills the bill.

So could I simply get the same sort of scores (or at least good enough)with Dorico or Musescore? Probably. But I don’t think their workflows match mine. In the end, though, I suspect most notation programs are like oral contraceptives. They all work. But what works for one person may not be acceptable for another person in terms of side effects. All notation programs have their pros and cons.

[ebiggs1]

I use Finale because I like the way it works. I suspect all of us dyed in the wool Finale users feel that way. I have tried Sibelius and Musescore 4 and found I don't like the way they work. I see no good reason the try Dorico since it is almost like Sibelius.
The fact you need or at least you add plug-ins to get Finale to do what you want more efficiently is not anything odd. Both Sibelius and MuseScore 4 have plug-ins.
If you want to do a quick and simple score you can do it in any of these. And, almost without any manual but if you want to really get into the bowls of music composing a good manual or other resource would be most helpful.

[John Ruggero]

If one is publishing music, it is important to get everything right and looking good for the sake of credibility as well as esthetics. Experienced musicians instinctively know the difference between a professional and amateurish-looking score and judge what you are doing on that basis.

I had one more thought about Dorico. Dorico is actually very conservative and discourages innovation. It knows only what has been done, not what will be done, which means that users are encouraged only do what has been done, not what they really want to do. And it's actually worse than that, because Dorico doesn't always even do what has been done. It only does what it knows has been done. And its actually even worst that that. It only does what it thinks should be done.

So if one wants to do something a little different, one can make a request to Dorico. Then one has to prove that it is worthy of the expense of programming it. Then one has to wait...

With Finale, one can usually just go and do it. That is real empowerment.

[John Ruggero]

If one is publishing music, it is important to get everything right and looking good for the sake of credibility as well as esthetics. Experienced musicians instinctively know the difference between a professional and amateurish-looking score and judge what you are doing on that basis.

I had one more thought about Dorico. Dorico is actually very conservative and discourages innovation. It knows only what has been done, not what will be done, which means that users are encouraged only do what has been done, not what they really want to do. And it's actually worse than that, because Dorico doesn't always even do what has been done. It only does what it knows has been done. And its actually even worse that that. It only does what it thinks should be done.

So if one wants to do something a little different, one can make a request to Dorico. Then one has to prove that it is worthy of the expense of programming it. Then one has to wait...

With Finale, one can usually just go and do it. That is real empowerment.