Sibelius vs. Finale: How To Choose?
I am constantly asked for guidance in choosing which of the two preeminent music prep software packages to adopt. There are other programs available, of course, but I would be leery of adopting upstarts, no matter how sexy the features, when there are veterans available. The race does not always go to the swift, since few users with careers built on software will want to master more every few years; neither do they want to abandon a body of work done in one format because it didn’t go the distance. Plus, unless one is musical hermit, one must deal with colleagues, and thus it pays to use what others use. So, from these tests alone, it boils down to Finale or Sibelius. Would that it were as simple a matter to distill it further. Space does not remotely permit an in-depth comparison at the moment, so let’s confine ourselves to the big picture.
This weekend one of my alma maters (San Diego State) played Notre Dame, a contest which, historically, would have seemed such a mismatch as to be impossible to schedule. However, the state university which has struggled throughout its history to become a big fish in successively bigger ponds going up against one of the great white sharks of college football history is a perfect allegory for Sibelius’s struggle to encroach on Finale’s turf. While the Aztecs ultimately lost, it wasn’t a blowout. Sibelius and Finale are like that. The latter has the longer history and hence the larger user base, but the former has the position of upstart and the mantle of innovator. So how does one choose?
One clue is that the documentation for Finale dwarfs that of Sibelius. All that extra verbiage exists to explain something, and is evidence of how Finale has survived on its “jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of-some” depth of features. It has always tried to be all things to all people, offering mixed blessings of power and flexibility purchased by a steep learning curve. Beyond its fledgling years, I have never worried about finishing a gig because Finale couldn’t do something. Plus, as I was a copyist before the first mouse came along, the good news was that Finale let me put symbols, as by hand, wherever I wanted. The bad news was it made me put the symbols, as by hand, wherever I wanted.
When Sibelius made its American debut at a NAMM (National Association of Music Merchants) show some 10 years ago, and despite its unavailability for the Mac, I saw its potential and grilled its “people” for hours, Its approach was to do more of the thinking for the composer/copyist while limiting some of his options, while using a radically different code structure which sped up processing considerably. This gave it a reduced and simpler learning environment, making it attractive to newbies.
On the broadest levels, the struggle ever since has been each one pushing away from its comfortable extreme by incorporating features and approaches from the other in an attempt to grab market share, This has proven to be a net gain for all of us, as competition does wonders for the pace of development. If it weren’t for Sibelius, Finale wouldn’t have interactive score and part views within one file and, without Finale pointing the way, Sibelius wouldn’t have a scroll view giving more practical access to just the material desired.
If you insist on specifics, Sibelius’ strengths include a slightly more authentic and traditional look to its output, but you might have to remind yourself to notice. Its playback algorithms sound a bit more realistic. And its structure holds somewhat greater potential for my personal holy grail of a completely touch-typed score, a boon for both the visually-impaired as well as anyone who truly thirsts for speed and efficiency. However, the company’s history does not make me confident that it has the vision to pull it off anytime soon. Part of its power comes from placing graphic symbols by hanging them on notes (not just by absolute spacing within the bar,) which often requires the use of the old invisible “dummy note” routine.
Finale’s strengths are a much deeper set of features and, consequently, more ways to get things done. If you’re willing to do the requisite homework with FinaleScript, third-party macro programs (to automate tasks and manage details,) and Finale’s seemingly bottomless pit of skills, you can get it to do most of Sibelius’s tricks, and a lot more.
Ultimately, any solutions to the “Less Filling!/Tastes Great!” software debate really hinge on defining what kind of user you want to be. If you relate to your software as simply a toolbox to accomplish a finite set of gigs, you will probably want one that is smaller, less complicated, and requiring less time and learning to accomplish those so you can get on with life’s other pursuits. If so, Sibelius might be your cup of tea. On the other hand, if you look to your software as a source of personal and musical power, then you must decide whether you are the sort who would rather take the time and effort to become Superman rather than Batman (superheroes both, but hardly interchangeable.) If so, Finale may satisfy your craving for power.
Either way, you’re in for an adventure. Make your choice and dig in!
Comments
By Amanuel on September 24th, 2008 at 11:45
love it!
Sibelius fan here! you just hit the spot with this short and sweet note!
By JKL on September 26th, 2008 at 07:27
Thanks for the insightful article. Ron.
Although I’m a long time Finale user I’ve discovered that, as a copyist, it pays (literally) to be fluent in both Sibelius and Finale. I suspect that it’s easier for composers and orchestrators to get away with using only one program, but as soon as you’re in the copying gig you’re going to get both Sibelius and Finale files coming at you, and you have to know how to deal with both of them, fast!
And I’ve found that the operating modes of the two programs are sufficiently different that I’m not getting too confused when I flip from program to program, which is a relief.
Anyway, that’s my 2 cents. Thanks again, Ron.
By Rachel on October 4th, 2008 at 14:53
I’m a sophomore music student, and this really helps me alot. My university music department has both. But is small enough that we only have 3-4 computers in our music resource center. Plus, students are only able to tell me which is better based on the fact that “this is the one I had in high school, I haven’t used the other one”. I’m not a composition student, but a voice/instrumental student. But I still enjoy composing for school. It sounds like Sibelius is the way to go for me seeing as I’m not a hardcore composer. Thanks for the comparison!
By Andrea Amici on October 13th, 2008 at 09:15
I hope that one day Finale and Sibelius will merge into one superb notation software that includes the best features of the two solutions, like Adobe and Macromedia. Untill that day I think Sibelius is the best solution for composition directly on computer. But many features of Finale are really amazing!
By Erik on November 22nd, 2008 at 09:08
I was a user of Finale 2006. I stopped using it because the system bugs were undoing my hard work in the most unsavory of ways. I was curious to know if more recent software updates have addressed these issues, thus making it a more stable program?
Thanks.
By Ron Hess on November 22nd, 2008 at 09:30
Erik: With the unbelievably complex numbers of interactions between system and software, diagnosing and making pronouncements about your particular difficulties would be a bit presumptuous on my part. Have you discussed your particular symptoms with Finale’s “people?” In my own experience, ranging from the days when it would crash while doing the most ordinary things, it’s a remarkably stable program. I can’t remember the last time it crashed and lost me work, and then it was probably because I wasn’t scrupulous about backing up. I’ve heard individual stability complaints about every version of Finale that has come out, but have observed no real pattern to them in recent years. The transition to linked score/parts has been a fundamental one, and seems to have gone more smoothly than other similar shifts in other software packages. So the choice of which to use still seems to fall on features and consistency of user interface over “will it work for me?” considerations.
By Phil Kelly on February 4th, 2009 at 10:47
I was a professional pencil and paper composer for media for close to forty years. I didn’t get into Finale until I’d retired and began wrriting music for myself as a hobby.
I didn’t find the learning curve so steep . In fact, I was able to finish an entire jazz CD on Finale within one year of use! I quickly learned to work in my normal mode by creating a six or eight line sketch at the top of the score where I did all my “heavy lifting”. Once I had the prep work done, the ability to explode and drag lines down to the actual score sped up my output enormously!
I’m now working on my third CD and have done several other arranging projects for others as well.
( I will own up to not yet being as facile with the printing functions as I need to be -and my only real beef with Finale is the inability to create “simple” drum parts )
None of this is to denigrate Sibelius in any way. I downloaded a trial version of the program ,and I found the experiece similar to learning to drive in Britian from the right hand seat on the left side of the road!
Phil Kelly
By James on February 27th, 2009 at 04:43
Great comparison: you don’t succumb to criticizing either program based on subjective opinion, but rather to contrast them based on the strengths and weaknesses of both. I would like to add herethat I never have been frustrated by a program’s lack of simplicity, but I have frequently been frustrated by a program’s lack of ability. Therefore I prefer Finale.
By Michael D on March 17th, 2009 at 08:47
I started exploring the comparisons between the programs because I am frustrated by all the playback and other glitches that keep popping up in Finale. The problems are not too bad when I am composing with the current version, and in fact fact the most recent one, 2009, is better than ever. But updating and tweaking older scores from earlier versions is a nightmare. BTW, this is on an Intel Mac running Leopard. Examples: Transposing instruments like clarinets that miss key changes, notes that refuse to sound — usually notes that were fine until I changed something on a different staff, sometimes even a different measure. You can’t separate parts and get consistent playback. When you try to put together the audio files, they are out of time. Ambience reverb is all over the map and best left turned off. These are but a few. So I looked at the trial demo of Sibelius 5 to see what it has to offer. Since it does not open Finale files or enable Garritan Sounds like the full version, I’m not sure. (BTW, does anybody know if Sibelius will play the Finale version of Garritan Orchestra? It appears that it will.) The bottom line is I am not sure if at the end of the day I would get any better results from Sibelius. I’d love some feedback.
By Ryan Janus on March 30th, 2009 at 00:41
Question for Ron – I use both Finale and SIbelius, though I prefer Sibelius when I do my own original compositions. I can’t claim to be a virtuoso power-user with either, but I’ve done some avant-garde-type notations and so far haven’t run into anything that either program can’t do. You said the following:
“Finale’s strengths are a much deeper set of features and, consequently, more ways to get things done. If you’re willing to do the requisite homework with FinaleScript, third-party macro programs (to automate tasks and manage details,) and Finale’s seemingly bottomless pit of skills, you can get it to do most of Sibelius’s tricks, and a lot more.”
I’ve heard many people say that Finale is more powerful than Sibelius. Can you give me specific examples? Because my experience has shown me so far that Sibelius gives you more control over page layout, lots of avant-garde notation features, its own scripting language, and lots of 3rd-party plugins. I’m definitely looking for powerful, and I thought I found it in Sibelius, but maybe I abandoned Finale too soon.
By Ryan Janus on March 30th, 2009 at 00:49
I also have a similar question to Michael D’s, for anyone on this forum who could answer it. Until a few weeks ago, I only used playback to hear things for myself and had no need to make them sound “pretty.” Now I’m working with a company where that’s an issue, and it will affect my decision of whether to go with Sibelius or Finale. What are your opinions on who has the better playback, especially for marching band sounds? It seems that Finale has the better “out of the box” playback, but that you can purchase all the same sounds for Sibelius. For me, this extra money isn’t an issue, because the company will most likely buy it for me. One neat trick I found (accidentally) in Sibelius is that for percussionists or woodwind doublers, simply typing in “chimes” or “piccolo” above the staff changes the sound to that particular patch. I don’t even know how to change instrument sounds in Finale within the same staff. I’m sort of a novice with the Playback features. What do you all recommend for playback? I don’t care about the learning curve – I’m sort of a computer geek anyway. I’m looking for power. *grunt*
By Brian the Violist on April 1st, 2009 at 00:24
I have only used Finale, but was back in 2001, so has been many years…
Friend suggested Sibelius…
Sounds like Finale is for the notation nerds that want to geek out on their copyist gigs. AND has more bugs… Or just has more bugs when editing saved files from previous versions?? (That is what I am conjecturing thus far…)
I googled “sibelius vs finale” and read much, and ended on this thread. I think Sibelius will be what I try 1st.
By genes on May 18th, 2009 at 02:02
sibelius is the best all you need is to copy, paste, cut, keyboard shortcuts etc. makes everything easy.
By Bill Holland on May 27th, 2009 at 03:48
Great comparison. I’ve been using Finale since it’s VERY early days ( I think since about 1990). It is like a word processor for me and just as easy to use. The wonderful thing is that with the latest version(s)I’ve never come across any scoring problem that I couldn’t solve. Anything from a jazz trio to a full symphony orchestra arrangement (all of which I do)earns my bread and butter. I’ve tried Sibelius many times over the years and I am reasonably familiar with it but it lacks the in-depth bells and whistles AND the intuitive approach of Finale. It has taken CODA / MAKE MUSIC many years to earn their spot as number one but I know it is far better than Sibelius. I spend many hours every day on the program and I often comment about how good the product is and how many new things I discover!!! Finale is the ONLY choice for me!
By Kevin Kern on June 13th, 2009 at 22:19
In Ron’s initial article, he references the advantages that music notation software provides for the visually impaired. His experience in this area comes from his interactions with me, a legally blind pianist/composer and long time friend. Ron was kind enough to help discover the first of my notation solutions, Jim Miller’s Personal Composer,” in 1984 or so. I subsequently migrated to Finale 98 at his suggestion and worked with it and its successors for some years.
In 2003, I and a group of other blind musicians began testing an innovative adaptation of Sibelius 3 for the blind. I have remained a loyal Sibelius user ever since. In recent years, I’ve produced two books of piano arrangements of my original pieces as well as expanding a small ensemble touring book which Ron helped me to begin some years ago.
Ron, I hope you will revisit this vital product comparison when Sibelius 6 is in greater circulation. I’m hoping that you will give us the benefit of your insights, particularly as they relate to Sibelius’s newest innovation, “Magnetic Layout,” a feature which apparently addresses the age old problem of collision avoidance.
I’ve heard great things about it from other Sibelius users and feel that it might be the answer to a prayer.
On another note, with respect to the gentleman who wondered which of the two notation programs creates better, I assume he means “more realistic” playback, I suggest that you not utilize your notation program for this critical application. While Notion uses wonderful soundsets, I wouldn’t choose a notation program strictly because of the playback it provides. I think you’re best to approach the art of “mockups” as its own separate discipline requiring its own specific effort.
Kevin Kern
By seayhorse on June 21st, 2009 at 22:42
i see that there are many great questions here. I also see that the author of this very good article has yet to reply.
I am a 2001 Finale user, and very frustrated with its chord library- most of my apps are jazz head etc. and i find 2001’s library too limited.
I have colleagues who recommend Sibelius for the simple chart, yet i am quite adept in Finale. I find the PDF help files especially easy to navigate and utilize.
However, at this point, I need to upgrade simply because my old finale program crashes quite often. I am not opposed to learning Sibelius 6.
any advice on which to choose? the cost for an upgrade from finale (even 2001, thank heavens!) is comparable. please let me know any opinions. I am planning to write for rather large ensembles soon, BTW.
hit me at:
seayhorse@gmail.com
thanks all
By Robin Hodson on June 24th, 2009 at 05:45
Hi folks,
I confess to being biased; I just left Sibelius after working for them for 12 and a half years, so my vote is naturally with Sibelius – and particularly Sibelius 6: the one thing that used to bore us to death at Sibelius is the constant opinion that Finale is generally more powerful. I think that was true maybe 6 years ago, but for some reason that opinion still pops up. Do an honest comparison of Finale 2010 v Sibelius 6, and put yourself in the mindset of someone who does not know either program. Sibelius is way more innovative as a piece of software and Finale plays catch up. Sibelius is incontestably easier to use becuase it isn’t tool based. Scanning, dynamic parts, auotmatic layout and updating generally, virtual sounds, the mixer and many many aspects of the notation workflow were things Sibelius invented in 1998. Even the first iteration of Sibelius (called, bizarrely, Sibelius 7) on an Acorn computer in 1995 had panoramic (scroll) view.
Just my two cents, but I’ll probably be shot down for saying it, since I’m one of the big evangelists for Sibelius in the US.
By Kevin Kern on June 26th, 2009 at 11:02
Robin,
Great to hear from you. As to Seayhorse, even though I haven’t yet upgraded to Sib 6, as a former jazz musician, I’m sure that the new jazz sybmols template and the magnetic layout feature will definitely make you happier. I think now is the best time possible for you to move from Finale to Sibelius. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to write to me at kevin@kevinkern.com.
Best,
Kevin
By Jiangxen on June 29th, 2009 at 01:02
I have both Finale 2009b and Sibelius 5 (having used prvious versions). Of the two I definitely prefer Sib., and that’s before even trying out the enhancements promised in Sibelius 6. I find Finale too unstable, and it is the only programme that I have on my new laptop (dual processor etc) that crashes regularly. That says something – and so far Finale to my knowledge is “still working on it”.
I am a serious (albeit part-time) classical composer and arranger, and can’t afford to waste time sorting out the imperfections of a system, when I should be doing my writing. The ONLY reason why I bought Finale (earlier this year) was because of the Garritan Personal Orchestra. Now I would be in my Seventh Heaven if somebody could show me how (if it is possible, that is) I could get Sibelius 5 to play the Garritan for Finale sounds. It should be possible as both use VST technology. Can anybody help please?
By Kevin Kern on July 1st, 2009 at 10:19
I believe Sibelius uses sounds from GPO. Go to Sibelius.com and read up on it. I think that’s the case, however.
Kevin
By composer13 on July 25th, 2009 at 09:57
As a high school student doing much composing and arranging, I have been debating on whether to purchase Sibelius 6 or Finale 2010 recently. I haven’t had any prior experience with notation software but am frustrated with the amount of time required to write out things by hand, especially with limited space between staves when writing out for multiple instruments. I think that I would get plenty of use out of such a program and that I could work more productively. From what I have read online, Sibelius seems to be a lot easier to use. Is this so? What is the better program to purchase and are there any definite advantages in choosing one over the another? Also, how do the sounds on Sibelius compare to Finale, as I would need to use midi for recordings. Which scores look more professional? I would really appreciate some feedback and any more suggestions and benefits regarding each; Thanks!
By Kimdale Mackellar on August 28th, 2009 at 07:40
In our annual Carnival in Antigua and Barbuda where I reside, churning out scores for a thirteen piece brass combo needs to be done flawlessly and quickly. (sometimes instantly) Ever since I switched from Finale to Sibelius I have NEVER missed a deadline and the scores were always clean and professional looking. My counterparts who still use Finale sometimes have to bring in a temporary score and then have to go back to bring a cleaned up one after. The musicians have remarked about how much easier it is to perform the scores I have churned out in Sibelius. With the advent of version 6.0 with its magnetic layout feature I am now able to produce professional looking scores even faster than I was able to before. I also teach high school music and don’t even want to get started on the demands that that entails when it comes to getting scores ready Sibelius has never let me down. Unfortunately Finale has on more than one occasion. I am also pursuing a degree in music education and once again when my classmate who use Finale are asking for extension my work is always ready. I have no affiliation with the company that makes Sibelius and I am no slouch when it come to using Finale. What I related are truthful real life real world experiences in using both programs. I don’t know how people measure “power” when it comes to software but it seems meaningless to have all that power and it slows you up. Time is money and Sibelius plainly allows users to make more efficient use of their time.
By The_Great_G on September 7th, 2009 at 18:50
I’m a Finale user myself, haven’t tried much Sibelius, although I have a friend who swears by it, but that’s another discussion altogether. My two ¢ are that if you have lots of time, try LilyPond. It’s scores look amazing without much tweaking; however, the learning curve is quite steep for those used to graphical score editors. I’ve heard of some third-party Lily graphical editors, but I haven’t tried them yet.
By Daniel Spreadbury on September 10th, 2009 at 04:52
I see my longtime friend and colleague Robin Hodson has already chimed in on this thread, but I thought it might be worth me sticking my oar in, since this excellent post seems to get a lot of traffic even a year after Ron first posted it.
My name is Daniel Spreadbury and I’m Sibelius’s Senior Product Manager. I maintain a blog about Sibelius at http://www.sibeliusblog.com and wrote a post back in February 2009 about why — in my very biased opinion — people should choose Sibelius over Finale:
http://www.sibeliusblog.com/opinion/why-choose-sibelius-over-finale/
As I say, I’m definitely biased, but the facts in that post were checked against Finale’s own documentation and expert Finale users.
To answer some of the questions posed by commenters on this post:
@Michael D: The current version of Sibelius doesn’t open Finale files natively, but you’ll get better results anyway if you open a MusicXML file created in Finale; all versions of Finale since Finale 2006 have included MusicXML export built-in, so it’s easy to export your score to try opening it in Sibelius. You can also use your existing Garritan sounds with the Sibelius demo if you want to.
@Ryan Janus: There are a couple of things that Finale can do that are more time-consuming in Sibelius, but these days they are very few in number, and most things are faster in Sibelius. A couple of examples of where Finale is still ahead would be easily being able to change the sizes of staves on a page midway through a score, and slightly better text handling in Finale.
@seayhorse: You should definitely check out the new chord symbols features in Sibelius 6. They’re very sophisticated, but also very easy to use.
@Jiangxen: You can use your Finale-compatible version of GPO with Sibelius 5 or later; you can even use the Garritan Instruments for Finale 2009 or 2010 with Sibelius if you want to, simply by creating a playback configuration that contains the appropriate ARIA player.
By Shon on September 15th, 2009 at 23:33
Another answer to Michael D, and this could be outdated…but if you save your finale files as an “enigma” file, available in the drop down menu within the “save as” option, you should be able to open THAT file within Sibelius. I don’t have 6 though so I might be wrong.
Anyone using notation software for lead sheets will DEFINITELY want Sibelius. I used Finale for about 8 years and have moved on to Sibelius. I own my page. Period. I put what where I want it. I’d also have to say I think Finale has borrowed a whole lot more from Sibelius than just interactive score and part views…I’ve watched Finale develop over the years. A lot of the changes I find in much earlier versions of Sibelius. Just stating the facts. I too ran into playback issues, cut and paste issues, chord nomenclature and more with Finale. All bye bye when I switched to Sibelius!
By Donald Sosin on September 20th, 2009 at 02:14
I have used Finale since the beginning, the days when the manual was absolutely indecipherable till David Pogue came along and rewrote it in English. But when extracting and tweaking parts for a new orchestra piece I just finished were keeping me up way too long at night, I decided to let last week’s deadline pass for the discount on the upgrade from 2009. Problem areas: pickup bars that suddenly develop a full bar of rests, systems that refuse to move to the previous page or next page despite unlocking system and reformatting, endless scrolling down into menus (I used to have Quickeys and admit that I have not upgraded it along with other software, so I’m sure that would have sped things up considerably). Percussion sounds vs. what it looks like on the page, undoing things and getting to a point where you cannot undo them (Digital Performer is fantastic about giving you complete access to every step of your process). I never have understood its transcription tool despite many hours of trying to get it to function correctly. And on and on. Anyway, now I’m at the juncture where I have to make a choice about whether to buy Sibelius; friends have been telling me for years that I’m going to love it, but I go from project to project without a whole lot of downtime to consider getting up to the same speed I have with Finale; this project, however, went about a week past the desired deadline, and I would love to know if people have experience with actual time comparisons to do things like full symphonic scores and generate all the parts. I’m about to start work on digitizing a one-act chamber opera, inputting everything from a 30-year old manuscript plus expanding from piano to 12 players, and would like to get a sense of whether I can expect to be proficient after more than a few days of concentrated study with Sibelius 6, which is about all I can afford. Otherwise it’s back to the grind with Finale, and I wouldn’t have said that a few years ago, but it has really become a headache.
Thanks to anyone who has some comments on this subject.
By David W. Kent on September 20th, 2009 at 04:53
I just purchased “finale 2010” and have been very excited about it. However, I must admit, I experienced a few problems such as; computer system performance problems( even though I had met the recommended system requirements), On-line tutorial issues (bad links, menus not listed in the index, clarity of procedural steps, missing page markers, tools lost when you tile windows, etc.) So, why am I so excited? It gave me a reason to replace my computer with a powerful mean processing machine. I have a reputation of buying the best, going for the power, and being fussed over when I have a problem. When I do have a problem I what it solved fast and I want to understand how it was solved! Finale’s support team does just that. I have been around long enough to see good software with the power to do more things than I will ever use. Sure, finale may have issues but what software doesn’t? I wasn’t looking for gaming software I was looking for professional business like software to make it look like I can produce professional compositions. The more powerful the software you try to master one has to expect minor issues on that path to greater knowledge. What is important is how the support team handles my issues/inquires. I figure that most inquires are simply the lack of my patience. The support team is very fast to solve my problems no matter the source and is willing to forward my suggestions to the development team on those rare occasions when I have a good suggestion. When that happens, you feel like you’re part of a team. You feel ownership and results driven. I look for details and if I can find a slip here or there I jump on it. Finale is going to make me much better than if I was without it and I figure finale is going to be a better product having a customer/user. So, I can safely say to new users, stick with the “powerhouse” learning finale 2010 is exciting and there are so many ways to get something done. Follow the crowd; they must have very good reasons to be brand loyal. Each day I feel more comfortable about my choice and see good times ahead. Now, jump into my over horse powered machine and lay a couple black marks down and call them notes! Isn’t this fun? Onward Gents!
By Greg Nicolett on September 22nd, 2009 at 02:35
Since I am apparently one of the few composers that has jumped onto Pro Tools as a sequencer (it’s been usable as a writing tool since Pro Tools 7.1 came out, and has only gotten better) I am probably the only one on this board that has switched to Sibelius because of the integration with Pro Tools. Not that the integration is perfect mind you; there are several workflow issues that make it very difficult to be efficient, even with the direct integration. Nevertheless, for pumping out quick scores when the budget for a copyist isn’t there, Sibelius / Pro Tools 8 works well.
That said, I regretted composing a concert work in Sibelius and believe that, especially for more complex engraving, Finale is the stronger program.
By DMF on September 25th, 2009 at 07:56
I’ve recently written about 8 songs for a play, and as a gospel musician that usually plays cover tunes, I’ve spent most of my years playing by ear, and writing lead sheets by hand. This is the first time I’ve ever needed to creat real scores, and most of my music is r&b style; piano/keys, bass, guitar, drums, vocals (if it’s choir stuff, or choral style with background, add SAT). I’m not planning to write orchestral scores, and I’m not the best at writing out rhythms, so I’m thinking PrintMusic will do, especially since I’d like to play what I want and have it notated. Any suggestions?
By Ollie Purkiss on September 29th, 2009 at 12:09
I’ve no idea if people are still reading this thread, but I found it maybe some people are! I’m a budding composer and am wanting some software to play around with. There doesn’t seem to be easy answer to the Sibelius or Finale question (much like mac or pc, max or maya and all the other technology dilemmas). One thing that strikes me as a rank amateur though is that I can buy versions of Finale starting at £10 and going up in nice steps to £500, and more importantly if I want to upgrade my £50 version to the next version up then I get almost the whole £50 off the price. In the position I am in this makes my decision for me, as even if I wanted to go for Sibelius, I can’t justify the expense of going in at the top level straight away. I’ve no idea how much money there is in the amateur market, but Sibelius seem to be missing a trick by ignoring the casual user who might in the future become a more serious user.
By Natalie Kehr on October 3rd, 2009 at 10:11
I was attracted by the low cost of starting off with Finale but then I remembered that a friend had compatibility problems. He upgraded but the other members of his choir did not. They could no longer read any of the scores he wanted to produce for them. Can one save Sibelius files in a format which can be read by people with previous versions?
By David Van Deusen on October 12th, 2009 at 17:51
I was a Finale user back in the early days but have not upgraded to new versions of the software in years. I used the free music writing software most recently for simple choral arrangements but found it insufficient. I have no experience with Sibelius.
I am now really getting back into composition and scoring for both instrumental and choral music. That said, what I am most interested in is the quality of the output from the two products, as I am trying to create soundtracks that could be used for recording purposes and/or live performances.
I am very impressed with the GPO which Finale includes on their website. These appear to be INCLUDED with the software. I am not as impressed with the output on the Sibelius website, yet there seems to be some hinting that some of these are Garritan sounds?
Are these the exact same sounds in both products?
Mr. Spreadbury indicates that you can use your Finale GPO in Sibelius with some type of plug in. What if you don’t already own Finale with these sounds? Then do you have to somehow try to purchase them separately?
I am going to download a trial version of Sibelius and Finale so that I can attempt to compare them equally. That noted, if anyone has any more clarification and/or insights about the quality of the output, I would love to know what you think.
Thanks!!!
By Steve Grabe on October 14th, 2009 at 01:57
I was a music manuscript copyist in college till my main client went to Finale on his Mac in the late 80’s and began printing his own parts and scores. I bought Finale 3 when Finale began offering full versions to and teachers. I was told this was a long term plan to make Finale the market leader in spite of its steep learning curve (it is obvious the plan worked). Still, the application was buggy and very frustrating so I gave up on it and picked my pen set and vellum music paper when even I needed anything written out.
A composer friend and I saw Sebelius 7 at NAMM and as soon as it can to the US he began using it. He enjoyed it more than the Finale he had used of mine.
I gave Finale another try in 2007 when processors speeds jumped and came down in price. This version started to realize what I hoped for all those years ago but it taxed my computer too much and had all these artifact errors which inhibited its usefulness.
Finale 2009c on my Macbook Pro has been fantastic. So many processes have been improved and the playback sounds are amazing. Still, “Human Playback” is no substitute for live performance and/or a sequencing program.
Finale is so comprehensive that one of my problems has been searching for what Finale calls the marking you want to use in the tons of documentation. Fortunately, if I am stumped and it is still business hours in Minnesota, their Helpdesk staff WILL have the answer and politely help you.
Though vastly improved Page Layout and production of the finished score are still too time consuming and often take me into the wee hours of the morning.
By Nom on November 23rd, 2009 at 10:15
G’day Folks,
Nice discussion. Egocentricity, here. I’m in first year of learning classical guitar with moderate exposure to music (8 years trumpet through high school, and
was told by guit player that one can play guitar into computer mic and , voila..see the score in notation on the screen for printing..WOW! Doesn’t seem to exist even with Finale or Sibelius, however. I called Finale oct ‘09 and was told they could NOT do it with guitar…only single note instrument, trumpet, sax etc.
Now, my trumpet playing was err, 40 years ago, and I Ain’t Gitt’n my “lip” back.
He said the guitar sounds were too complicated with too many nuances (well, yeah, that’s part of why she’s so beautiful), and tech is
not good enough yet.
Here is what I want: Vertical notation of all chords, with symbol perhaps, oblique arpeggios, single scale run and notation. HELP.
My muses:
1 Play keyboard direct to mic OR midi=above desires?
2 How about (SIBELIUS/FINALE.GOODGEEK ANYBODY WIT A BRAIN) like, voice command: “Fret 7,9,12,barre F#, D, COMMINUTED MINOR 5, 7TH or somesuch Real chord.
3 “Position.. One, three, five etc C,Am, Em, with or sans “Barre”. The voice command tells program what you want “fret”, “position” then makes appropriate notation….Oh, what the hell. with R and L hand fingering too.
Now, is that toooo much to ask from youse guys?? I ask ya. Yeah, with my 65IQ I came up wit dat stuff.
Anybody out there hier IQ who can make this stuff? C’mon, now.
By Dave on January 16th, 2010 at 02:01
As a long-time user of Finale (nine years) I can say with some authority that this program is the buggiest, most unreliable program I have ever owned. I literally hold my breath while doing tasks due to the fear of watching my time-consuming work go up in smoke when I hit a key. Chords disappear even though their selection handles are visible. And they don’t print. Measures on previous staves slam up against one another when I create multi-bar rests, creating a cluster of bars at the right side of a stave. I have to zoom way in the find each individual bar’s selection handle so I can manually move each bar back to where they are supposed to be. The Staff Tool will not put the chord cursor on the proper stave, even though I click & click & click & click on the stave’s first bar. Just writing out a simple lead sheet for guitar can turn into a hair-pulling, high blood pressure experience. I’d gladly pay twice as much for a user-friendly, reliable program whose files do not get corrupted after an hour or two of work. All of my friends in the business say the same thing. Time for a change for me.
By Christian (Pianist) on January 19th, 2010 at 01:51
After Years of struggle with finale I finally switched to Sibelius and definitely do not regret it! With Sibelius I can finally concentrate on the music.
By Hagop Nalbandian on January 20th, 2010 at 13:06
Dear Ron and other readers, if I may put my two cents: 20 decades or so ago I started using as my first notation program (then Passport’s and now Gvox’) Encore.
It is surprisingly underrated program. It’s strongest point is the ease of use, the absolutely lowest lowest learning curve (in my experience with many, many a software), and overall intuitiveness. Although it’s editing capabilities have slightly wavered in terms of intuitiveness and efficiency, this software, if your intention is to get work done quickly for a gig, is absolutely unbeatable.
Mr. Alexander at Gvox has made it a point to bring the software up to the times in terms of interoperability with soft-synths, other sequencers, standard Musicx XML cabable programs and etc., a handicap which had plagued Encore since the begenning, but for which there is now some hope.
In any case, Finale is my program of choice, as has been mine in the past, for more demanding engraving projects for such projects as complex piano music, but the composition choice has been always Encore, which literally is “write as you play.”
Encore is by no means an upstart in terms of seniority: It has been there right along Finale, having secured a (very, very) loyal following of a few thousand composers globally, who stuck with it despite its creator company’s demise in the late 1990s.
In the end, I learned how to use Sibelius in addition to Finale and Encore, mainly – as you emphasize in your article – for collaboration purposes, but, admittedly, also for the ability to use the “leaders” Finale and Sibelius to audition scores in a more realistic “modeled” sample playback setting. Really, aside from some flimsiness in its treatment of symbols and note placement (et al, thus my reason for using Finale for engraving purposes), that is the only big handicap with Encore for the time being, which, however, now is dabbling in a new engine called the “Encore VST player” that lets you load any VST capable virtual instrument.
The moral of the story is not to count out us loyal users of Encore yet—:)
By Hagop Nalbandian on January 20th, 2010 at 13:07
AHA, sorry about the typo – “2 decades ago,” —-> Got a little “Bibblical” there–;)
Trackbacks