Musescore the answer?

[ebiggs1]

Continuing my "Last Breath" thread, what to do if Finale goes away. First, in my case, I am too old to worry too much because I think Finale will out last me. However, on the off chance it doesn't I have pain stakingly gone through most of my scores from the beginning of time and updated them to 27.3. I have made a PDF of each. I have made an XML of each one which brings me to this thread. I tried to use Musescore 4.1, some think is the savior of music notation, to open the XML. It is an utter mess and if anyone knows anything about Musescore, it isn't the most friendly softwire to try and move things around or correct issues. It is one of those programs that try to make things complete as you compose instead of doing it afterwards which is why I think Perfect Layout is so successful. It would be easier to start over form the PDF than to try and fix/edit the XML in Musescore 4.

Perhaps Sibelius or Dorico would fair better but I really doubt it.

[miker]

I tried MS from the other direction. Since most of my work is choral, and the majority of that is barbershop, I tried setting up a score for the BHS notation manual. Right away, I ran into problems with text inserts and instrument sounds. I’d give it a fail for that. Note entry is pretty much the same as Finale, except that the duration-pitch-alteration pattern is changed to duration-alteration-pitch. I didn’t get as far as lyrics in different verses, and assigned to specific notes, but from the instructions, it didn’t look promising.

I’m certainly willing to accept that I didn’t really take the time to learn the program, but for now, I won’t recommend it to my BHS/SAI students.

[motet]

MuseScore is free and open-source, and relatively new. I wouldn't expect it to do professional-level work at this point. But more power too them.

Were the Finale-going-away scenario to come to pass, I would probably switch to Dorico.

[miker]

If I had my druthers, I’d love to see Dorico and/or Musescore do a copy of Finale, but with the bugs fixed and their own advancements added.

We’d probably all jump ship.

[ebiggs1]

I tried setting up a score for the BHS notation manual.

Try editing an XML file. Its a nightmare.

[ebiggs1]

I would probably switch to Dorico.

Frankly I don't understand why you don't switch now. With all the issues you seem to have with Finale. I know if I saw that I would certainly switch, if for nothing less than your new work. Trying Musescore 4.1 has told me, I can't switch although I most likely never would anyway. I used to try the demo Sibelius every new version but I gave that up too several versions ago as not a reasonable option either.
Finale 27.3 will most likely last me out as is.

[AnneMillington]

These are very valuable musings, if I may say. I was thinking of Musescore as my go-to if Finale goes away, but now I think I will have a look at Dorico. I appreciate these evaluations.

[motet]

I would probably switch to Dorico.

Frankly I don't understand why you don't switch now.

The answer, of course, is the learning curve required. It took me maybe a year to become really proficient in Finale, and I'm still learning 20 years later. I work on very large projects--I'm currently making an arrangement of a 4,000-measure opera--and have spent a lot of time customizing Finale so that I can enter music quickly. I've spent untold hours here and on the old MakeMusic forum learning the ins and outs of doing this and that. Switching to Dorico, no matter how good it is, will mean throwing all that away and starting over. I'm sure it would at least double the time required for that first piece. An opera arrangement takes me several months, so that's a major issue. I'm doing this professionally, so that translates to money was well as time.

I've also heard that Dorico still lacks a few features, but that will change. So am putting off switching for now until there's no other choice.

[gogreen]

So am putting off switching for now until there's no other choice.

That sums it up for me.

[miker]

So it seems the answer for the professional user (now, at least) would be Dorico, not Musescore. But not until it becomes absolutely necessary to replace our Finale, troubled though it is.

[David Ward]

So it seems the answer for the professional user (now, at least) would be Dorico, not Musescore. But not until it becomes absolutely necessary to replace our Finale, troubled though it is.

That's probably where I am now, while hoping it doesn't become ‘absolutely necessary’.

[ebiggs1]

But not until it becomes absolutely necessary to replace our Finale, ...

I submit, it may be better to do the switch when it is on your terms instead of doing it when forced to.

[ebiggs1]

I think I will have a look at Dorico.

I have not tried the XML export/import into Dorico but if it is anything like going to Musescore 4.1 It is a nightmare to the point, you may as well start form scratch.

[AnneMillington]

I have not tried the XML export/import into Dorico but if it is anything like going to Musescore 4.1 It is a nightmare to the point, you may as well start form scratch.

One of the many things that will be good to investigate before it's an emergency...

[John Ruggero]

Actually, Dorico imports XML files made in Finale very well. It even imports the fingering correctly and ports it into the correct tool in Dorico. I rely heavily on scanning and have been impressed by that aspect while doing a current trial of Dorico 5.

I think that users without special requirements would do well to switch Dorico. It does require a shift in thinking but has many capabilities missing in Finale and produces a more consistent result. I have my issues with Dorico because I do have special requirements. However, I think that I could work around that if Finale went under.

So I am less anxious about the notational future. One could keep a legacy computer for one's Finale files and then move on with Dorico.

[ebiggs1]

In my case the dapple in Musescore 4.1 was a learning experiment that was free and only cost a little time. I really have no interest in actually switching at all since I am sure Finale will see me out. Although it seems to irritate some folks on the forum, Finale works great for my work. I really have no complaints that I can't overcome.

[motet]

One could keep a legacy computer for one's Finale files and then move on with Dorico.

That's assuming the software license still works if MakeMusic goes under. There's likely to be plenty of notice, though.

MuseScore is volunteer amateur hour, so if it doesn't import MusicXML well, the fault may not be in the design of MusicXML itself or what Finale exports.

[engelbach]

I've been a Finale user since version 1, with its incoherent manual and slow response time.

I can't see switching to something else. But, just in case, I've been trying to follow a Sibelius tutorial, which I find not at all friendly.

I suppose I should take a look at MuseScore and Dorico as well.

Just in case.

[AnneMillington]

I have installed the free version of Dorico, just to see how I like the UI, and I definitely do. No, I am not jumping ship, because I have taken to heart a lot of the discussion on this forum re various contenders. I appreciate having the huge slate of options for formatting and content that Finale affords.

But what I do like about Dorico is the sense that development is occurring, and that keeping current is a goal.

[ebiggs1]

Try a Finale XML export to Dorico import XML.

[AnneMillington]

Try a Finale XML export to Dorico import XML.

I did this on a recent not-terribly-complicated duet I just completed, and it is acceptable, really. I could move forward with it if that were all I had. Might be a good idea to systematically create music XML files along with the final MUSXs, PDFs and sound files I make.

[John Ruggero]

Try a Finale XML export to Dorico import XML.

I did this on a recent not-terribly-complicated duet I just completed, and it is acceptable, really. I could move forward with it if that were all I had. Might be a good idea to systematically create music XML files along with the final MUSXs, PDFs and sound files I make.

That's my plan too. And I am going to buy Dorico and get up to speed with it.

[AnneMillington]

That's my plan too. And I am going to buy Dorico and get up to speed with it.

I see there is a discount for Finale owners, which helps with the big ticket.

[John Ruggero]

And they have had a yearly sale on top of that. I may wait until then.

[BuonTempi]

I have pain stakingly gone through most of my scores from the beginning of time and updated them to 27.3. I have made a PDF of each. I have made an XML of each one which brings me to this thread.

I have always kept a PDF of every completed score in Finale. There have been a variety of issues over the years of things shaking loose when opened in newer versions, or printing problems. Having XML on hand is a good idea now, too.

That's assuming the software license still works if MakeMusic goes under.

Finale only contacts the MM servers when you authorise an installation. Colorado could be destroyed tomorrow, and everyone's Finale would keep working. You just couldn't register a new one.

MuseScore is volunteer amateur hour...

MuseScore employs (pays) a team of in-house developers and project leaders -- a larger team than either Finale or Dorico have. They make their money from the subscriptions on their download site, where you can get scores created by other users. MuseGroup has bought StaffPad (handwriting recognition and playback technologies) and Audacity, the sound editor. This is not "community amateurs". But the code is still open-source, so you could create your own app based on MuseScore today.

I fully expect that in 10 years, MuseScore and Dorico will have the lion's share of the market: MuseScore for general use, and Dorico for 'pro' use.

Finale (or what remains of it) will be a niche educational tool. I did try MM's online, web-based note editor. The interface was cleaner and marginally better, but simpler and limited in capability. Perhaps that is where the development will be.

Sibelius is still adding new features, but the UI is still terrible, and it suffers from some of the similar problems as Finale -- decisions made decades ago are now limiting progress; and it can't change things radically without annoying the userbase.

Software does have a lifespan. Computers now are tens of thousands of times more powerful than in the 80s, and software designed then is never going to be able to compete with software designed now. Expectations for what the machines should be doing for us are greater than ever.

But in fairness: the number of apps from 1988 that are still going is very few -- Photoshop, Quark XPress, Office. The list of products that have come and gone between then and now is enormous. There is a strength in Finale's flexibility and almost 'infinite purpose'. Without that, it would have gone the way of all flesh much sooner.