|
|
| MakeMusic Forum > Public Forums > Finale - Macintosh - FORUM HAS MOVED! > The difference between F & S | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
serialisme
Registered Member
      
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 10/23/2003 10:54 AM (GMT -6) |   | As every mac user, I really appreciated Sibelius for the respect they have for Mac user, and I am really thinking about what is really this soft about realizing that both of theme achieve the same kind of result, here is my conclusion
Sibelius: "perhaps" the best music Notation software
Finale: The best Work-station software.
So in otherwords, if you compose a entire piece in your living room, or in your car, or "at the table", and that the writing part is only from the paper, or from your head (for those you got one), finale is not your tool. ( I'm not saying that this methode is not serious)
But, if, like me, your finale is open 10 to 18 hours a day, that you like to work the composition part, the orchestration on your computer, listen to each chords, and rewrite, and rewrite, and rewrite, and restart, and rewrite... and to work with
. scroll view
. scrub
. metatools
. tools
. speedy entry
. and many others
sibelius is not the tool
So, what do you think of that?
christian | | Back to Top | |
|
rpearl
Registered Member
 
Date Joined Sep 2000
Total Posts : 49
| Posted 10/23/2003 11:31 AM (GMT -6) | | I agree, they are very different programs. However, in the interest of fairness, there are a few things in your list that one can do in Sibelius:
. scroll view
. scrub - in a manner of speaking. And it is easy to isolate parts to hear , say, just the violas and the oboe.
. metatools YES
. tools - not sure what you mean
. speedy entry - it's quick once you learn it
. and many others - open ended, yes?
This is not so much a defense as a clarification. I use both, and I agree that one may be more suitable than the other. Bear in mind that what one comes to see as "easy" is often just what is familiar, and thus easy. Both programs allow one to work very fast - provided one has taken the time to learn!
This is not intended as an advertisement, no urging people to switch - least of all forum posters. The posters are one of the best things about the program - a vast, friendly, and helpful resource.
In some ways, we users benefit from the fact that there is real competition for the "notational" dollar. May they both continue to improve!
R. Pearl | | Back to Top | |
|
dbmite
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 10/23/2003 12:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Many people have jumped ship and switched to Sibelius. I'm happy for those who like it. However, I'm going to wait for Finale 2004.
Sibelius is a wonderful program, but I equate it with an instamatic camera, everything is preset all you have to do is shoot. Finale is like a 35mm camera, you have to set it all yourself.
In the end, all the preset photos look the same, while the 35mm photos simply look amazing. Here lies the problem with Sibelius...ALL THE SCORES LOOK THE SAME...HOMOGONIZED! Finale scores have a natural character and professionalism to them that Sibelius cannot touch.
Sibelius is as slow and clunky to use as writing a score out by hand. There is no reason to jump ship unless you're an absolute beginner.
Finale is for the professional. Sibelius is for the student. Period! | | Back to Top | |
|
Zuill
"The Troll"
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 29077
| Posted 10/23/2003 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | To R. Pearl
I'm a PC user, but respect my Mac user friends. I've been looking at the Sibelius 3 demo and, although you use the word "speedy" in the generic sense, they do not have a comparible tool to the Finale Speedy entry, which is the fast method of note entry possible if you're using a MIDI keyboerd (in my opinion). I know that speed is different for everyone, but for me, Simple entry in Finale 2004, which appears to have been changed to more closely match Sibelius, is simply an inferior tool to Speedy. Adding articulations on the fly and the like may be useful for some, but I rarely add them until I'm done, for many reasons. Often I'm working on a score where the composer or arranger was not careful about notating things and I have to do a lot of editing. It's much easier to enter all the notes first, then easily go back and add in articulations and slurs, etc. So for me, Simple entry ala Sibelius is useless.
If Sibelius ever developed a tool like Speedy entry, I'd take another look.
Zuill
"When all is said and done, more is said than done." | | Back to Top | |
|
serialisme
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 10/23/2003 1:25 PM (GMT -6) | | | To rpearl, I would like to know how do you set you page in scrool view in s. | | Back to Top | |
|
Matthew Hindson
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 1999
Total Posts : 406
| Posted 10/23/2003 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | To do scroll view in Sibelius, apparently you custom set your page width to be something tremendously wide. Because resizing of pages etc. is so quick in Sibelius, it's not such an issue to change it back when you want the proper layout. Unfortunately, there seems to be a limit on the page width, so it's not truely like scroll view at all.
(Resizing of parts and the automatic page-turn features in Sibelius 3 are also outstanding with their speed).
The Speedy entry system is great in Finale, that's for sure. Let's hope that in Finale 2005 they enable some of the new functionalities of enhanced 2004 Simple Tool into a better 2005 Speedy. Then it will be unbeatable.
As for all Sibelius scores looking the same, to be fair, Sibelius is very easily customisable through the excellent House Style features. Their simplicity and excellent design functionality are things that Finale would do well to copy, err, emulate. If people choose not make use of these, then that's up to them.
As for other Sibelius aspects, such as not being able to Undo plugins, well, that's another story...Post Edited (Matthew Hindson) : 10/24/2003 12:39:17 PM GMT | | Back to Top | |
|
ludwigtheman
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2001
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 10/23/2003 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | | | Currently so- but Sibelius is anxious to please and constantly improving. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. | | Back to Top | |
|
whrcomposer
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 10/24/2003 4:06 AM (GMT -6) | | dbmite said...
In the end, all the preset photos look the same, while the 35mm photos simply look amazing. Here lies the problem with Sibelius...ALL THE SCORES LOOK THE SAME...HOMOGONIZED! Finale scores have a natural character and professionalism to them that Sibelius cannot touch.
In the interest of balance but without wanting to upset the applecart (again, I use both Sibelius 2 and Fin2k3), I hear this a lot on this forum (Tim Rowland in particular espouses this view) and I just don't agree. It's true that Sibelius doesn't offer the same granularity of control over every single aspect of the score's appearance, but you can customize things to a very great degree. Want to change staff line thickness or stem length? Go ahead. Want to use a different font? Sure. Want to put rehearsal marks in a circle? Fine. Want to change the note spacings? Be my guest.
I can spot an edition engraved with Finale just as easily as I can spot an edition engraved with Sibelius. And let's not forget that Finale's "out of the box" defaults are still way uglier than Sibelius's. Sure, you can set up your own template (and if you follow Johannes Gebauer's defaults you can get a great-looking template very quickly) but you can do exactly the same thing in Sibelius if you want!
dbmite said...
Sibelius is as slow and clunky to use as writing a score out by hand. There is no reason to jump ship unless you're an absolute beginner.
I agree that it doesn't make much sense to switch if you've got Finale working and you're used to its quirks, unless you need to for professional reasons. But I disagree that Sibelius is as slow and clunky to use as writing a score out by hand. I quickly got very proficient with Sibelius's keyboard input, so I guess I'm going to like Fin2k4's new Simple Entry tool when I get to see it. And if Sibelius's input method is so slow and clunky, then why have Coda copied it in Fin2k4 lock, stock and barrel?
Don't get me wrong, I think there's plenty wrong with Sibelius, but I think there's plenty wrong with Finale too, and I think that until you've taken the time to actually use the program for a project or two (and are willing to work in a different way to the way you've learned to work in Finale, which I'll concede is definitely hard to do!) you can't really make the judgement, IMO.
dbmite said...
Finale is for the professional. Sibelius is for the student. Period!
If that's true, somebody had better tell all those publishers using Sibelius for all their new engraving! 
Best,
-WR | | Back to Top | |
|
Tim Rowland
...Rowland...Rowland, though the streams are...
Date Joined Dec 1998
Total Posts : 1250
| Posted 10/24/2003 7:55 AM (GMT -6) | |
whrcomposer said...
dbmite said...
In the end, all the preset photos look the same, while the 35mm photos simply look amazing. Here lies the problem with Sibelius...ALL THE SCORES LOOK THE SAME...HOMOGONIZED! Finale scores have a natural character and professionalism to them that Sibelius cannot touch. In the interest of balance but without wanting to upset the applecart (again, I use both Sibelius 2 and Fin2k3), I hear this a lot on this forum (Tim Rowland in particular espouses this view) and I just don't agree. It's true that Sibelius doesn't offer the same granularity of control over every single aspect of the score's appearance, but you can customize things to a very great degree. Want to change staff line thickness or stem length? Go ahead. Want to use a different font? Sure. Want to put rehearsal marks in a circle? Fine. Want to change the note spacings? Be my guest. Whrcomposer,
Correct (about me espousing that view) - I do...I'm from Sydney, Australia. Unfortunately, most music shops here now have been 'brainwashed' into automatically thinking S******* is superior because it's new, and developed by twins. There are many composers/arrangers (some very well known around the town - even throughout Australia) that now use S******** because the music shops said to, and of course, they all look the same (and some pretty shocking!) . I have never said S******** can't produce professional looking work - mostly it's this "publishers prefer the look of S******* over Finale" comment that gets me, because what publisher would seriously accept either 'out-of-the-box' look? If the settings are change, then it shouldn't have a S******** or Finale look should it?
If you have to dig deep to make S******** look sort of like professionally engraved music, then I see no reason not to use Finale. If you want straight out of the box type publishing, I've said it before, and I'll say it again - go with S********.
I read their forums regularly, and are aware of huge problems with their software that most users don't bat an eyelid at, but all hell would break lose if that happened in Finale. Mind you, they often DO respond to these problems, whether it be a fix, or a "that is on our long list of things to consider in a future upgrade" comment.
Generally though, most of my comments are related to where I live, and the general Finale/S******** attitude seen by many music shops/school music departments/composers-arrangers/etc here are unfairly and unjustifiably S******** biased. My issue initially started when Sydney's biggest sheet music shop stopped selling Finale and plugged S******** bigtime because they had an English guy working there. Finale didn't have a chance simply because he came from the same country as the 'twins', and this effectively killed off a HUGE amount of future Finale users (particularly in schools).
Anyhow...enough rambling. I appreciate your comments whrcomposer (if that is your real name  ), and will sit back and enjoy the rest of this thread on the other side of my monitor!
Cheers,
Tim
P.S. I would love for those users who use both/either programs to provide graphic images of portions of their work from both programs - to demonstrate their best 'professional' look. Anyone else like to see that? (I know that most professional Finale users never post *.MUS files to the showcase or forum because other users could pinch their settings 
P.P.S. MakeMusic - FIX those terrible looking default files!  | | Back to Top | |
|
rpearl
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2000
Total Posts : 49
| Posted 10/24/2003 9:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, to continue to belabor the point(s). I find Sibelius's Midi left hand, numeric keypad right very similar to Finale - I am about as fast on one as the other (that may just say I'm slow at both!). Sibelius is very "tweakable", and the scores can have a very different look.
A major factor here is" for whom are you scoring/writing. As many publishers prefer one program to the other, it makes sense to be dually fluent - or at least be able to transfer files from one to the other.
One last point. The Sibelius demo only scratches the surface of its possibilities - there is no user manual, for obvious reasons. I was unimpressed with the demo, and only tried it after I spoke at length with a composer who assured me that I could do what I wanted with the program. So I took the plunge, and it works very well. So does Finale. If this seems like a defense of Sibelius, I suppose it is. I like both, I use both. Remember, we are musicians first, software users second. The product we use depends on our needs. I for one am eager to see 2004 for OSX - as long as a good product gets better, and more responsive, we all benefit.
R. Pearl | | Back to Top | |
|
JeanB
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 10/28/2003 2:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, I investigated the Sibelius site and wanted to try out Scorch (The Sibelius Notepad equivalent) to see how it played, but it requires a G4 to use the software and I only have a G3 so I couldn't switch even if I wanted to. The Sibelius site says that it can open Finale files. Does anyone know if that is true? And does Finale 2004 open Sibelius files?
I have Finale 2003a and I am waiting for 04 in December. It would cost me a lot more money to switch to a different program than it will for the simple Finale upgrade, not to mention being able to get the extra 2004 windows version to put on my computer at work for only 50 bucks.
I too would like to see the difference between the two programs in regard to playback quality and sheet notation quality. But I would like to see that demonstrated by a neutral party. I would like to know if there is a dramatic difference or if it is going to be an ongoing bickering like the Mac/Windows thing that's always going on. | | Back to Top | |
|
Tim Rowland
...Rowland...Rowland, though the streams are...
Date Joined Dec 1998
Total Posts : 1250
| Posted 10/31/2003 7:19 AM (GMT -6) | |
fingerhut said...
Just curious--are these Gebauer defaults available and if so where?
Thank you
LF Fingerhut,
I can send you a copy if you wish...(his website no longer works).
The accompanied Readme file states that as long as I don't sell it to you, or not accompany the readme file with it (or distribute it on commercial software), that I can give it to you.
Let me know if you want me to email it to you.
Cheers,
Tim
P.S. It's in Stuffit format, but since you're on the mac side, you probably don't mind!
Post Edited (Tim Rowland) : 10/31/2003 12:20:12 PM GMT | | Back to Top | |
|
Michael Good
MusicXML Maven
Date Joined May 2000
Total Posts : 1299
| Posted 10/31/2003 1:39 PM (GMT -6) | | I believe that European Style in Finale 2003's General Templates is very close to those default settings.
Michael Good
Recordare LLC
www.recordare.com | | Back to Top | |
|
Mark Clifton-Gaultier
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 11/1/2003 4:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Request to Tim Rowland,
if you're still following this thread, I too would appreciate a copy of the Gebauer
settings. I have browsed his site previously but neglected to save and, as you say,
that particular page no longer works.
Many thanks if you are able to help.
MG | | Back to Top | |
|
fingerhut
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2001
Total Posts : 6
| Posted 11/1/2003 4:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Tim Rowland said...fingerhut said...
Just curious--are these Gebauer defaults available and if so where?
Thank you
LF Fingerhut, I can send you a copy if you wish...(his website no longer works). The accompanied Readme file states that as long as I don't sell it to you, or not accompany the readme file with it (or distribute it on commercial software), that I can give it to you. Let me know if you want me to email it to you. Cheers, Yes, Thank you--I'd be very interested in getting this. I can be reached at lfin@mindspring.com Cheers back, Larrance fingerhut Tim P.S. It's in Stuffit format, but since you're on the mac side, you probably don't mind! | | Back to Top | |
|
DANTHEMAN
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 11/19/2003 3:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi
I am a newbie to this fantastic site. I would love a copy of the Gebauer defaults also.
I am using Finale 2003 on a G4 933.
Thanks
Dan Villa | | Back to Top | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Tuesday, December 19, 2023 7:24 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 403,820 posts in 58,165 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2023 |
|
|