Sibelius vs Finale

I have Sibelius 4. I must say, that I prefer how most Finale scores look. I got Sibelius because that's what my school used, and I found that it was much easier to use than Finale. I find it really easy to use for conventional notation.

That said, if I want to use other kinds of notation, I generally hand-write scores. To be honest, I find hand-writing things way more satisfying than using a computer program. Sibelius certainly asks me to jump through hoops to do some reasonably simple, though modern, composing techniques.

Anyway, it's really a personal preference thing.

I gae Finale Notepad another go recently just for some basic MIDI stuff...ad I couldn't work it! I'm just too used to Sibelius now. It's hard enough trying to learn Cubase 4 as well, seeing as am COMPLETELY new to sequencing and mixing!

So Sib all the way for me. I just can't get used to anything else.

I gave Finale Notepad another go recently just for some basic MIDI stuff...and I couldn't work it! I'm just too used to Sibelius now. It's hard enough trying to learn Cubase 4 as well, seeing as am COMPLETELY new to sequencing and mixing!

So Sib all the way for me. I just can't get used to anything else.

well, to be perfectly fair, you cannot compare Notepad with the full version of Finale.

Notepad does not allow MIDI keyboard entry, for example. It also has an extremely limited set of features.

I have used both and I personally prefer Sibelius, but they both seem to be wonderful programs.

I have tried both. I ended up with Sibelius 3 and now upgraded to v.5.

Part of what I particularly like about Sibelius is the tech support / forums. At least a few years ago, Sibelius had the upper hand in that area. I dont know how it is now though. It used to be that you only used Finale for band type things though its obviously changed in more recent versions to become more friendly to a wide variety of genres.

Part of what I particularly like about Sibelius is the tech support / forums. At least a few years ago, Sibelius had the upper hand in that area. I dont know how it is now though. It used to be that you only used Finale for band type things though its obviously changed in more recent versions to become more friendly to a wide variety of genres.

oooookay.

I have tried both. I ended up with Sibelius 3 and now upgraded to v.5.

Part of what I particularly like about Sibelius is the tech support / forums. At least a few years ago, Sibelius had the upper hand in that area. I dont know how it is now though. It used to be that you only used Finale for band type things though its obviously changed in more recent versions to become more friendly to a wide variety of genres.

I second Flint's "awha?"

Finale has always been aimed at classical music, and not specifically at "band" music.

As a matter of fact, most band arrangers/composers have been pestering MakeMusic to incorporate MORE band-friendly notation conventions as part of the default.

MakeMusic has had a forum for a number of years, a quite helpful one at that, as well as an online tech-support application and telephone tech support.

I really don't know where you get the "changed in more recent versions to become more friendly to a wide variety of genres" comment from. Finale has, if anything, always been ahead of other notation prgrammes in that department.

I second Flint's "awha?"

Finale has always been aimed at classical music, and not specifically at "band" music.

As a matter of fact, most band arrangers/composers have been pestering MakeMusic to incorporate MORE band-friendly notation conventions as part of the default.

MakeMusic has had a forum for a number of years, a quite helpful one at that, as well as an online tech-support application and telephone tech support.

I really don't know where you get the "changed in more recent versions to become more friendly to a wide variety of genres" comment from. Finale has, if anything, always been ahead of other notation prgrammes in that department.

Ah... You guys acts as if you have stock in Finale or something. I feel that in the past, Finale was less friendly for things such as dance music, rock, pop, etc etc and Sibelius was more friendly. Now, they are about the same for everything. That's what I meant.

In case you missed it the first time - this is my OPINION. I am not saying that THIS IS THE WAY IT IS. Im saying THIS IS HOW IT SEEMS TO ME. There is no way to prove friendliness of software (as far as I am aware). So, saying "No, you're wrong," is pretty pointless.

Ah... but not as wide as Sibelius. You guys acts as if you have stock in Finale or something. In the past, Finale was less friendly for things such as dance music, rock, pop, etc etc and Sibelius was more friendly. Now, they are about the same for everything. That's what I meant.

How was it ever less friendly? It's a notation program - one of the most powerful available. If it need to be written down, Finale can do it...whether it's jazz or rock or pop or the most avant-garde classical there's not a lot Finale can't do.

Can you give example of genre-specific things that were impossible or difficult in Finale?

Can you give example of genre-specific things that were impossible or difficult in Finale?

Oh geese ... Can't just take a man at his word? :)

One of things that I can think of right now is the issue of using meters in which the denominator is not a power of 2. Used to be impossible in Finale, probably still is (or at least very difficult now). For example, a 17/24 meter which is a measure the length of 17 triplet 16th-notes used to be impossible. Even if it can now display it properly, I doubt if it can play it.

Also, in the realm of jazz - where

Oh geese ... Can't just take a man at his word? :)

One of things that I can think of right now is the issue of using meters in which the denominator is not a power of 2. Used to be impossible in Finale, probably still is (or at least very difficult now). For example, a 17/24 meter which is a measure the length of 17 triplet 16th-notes used to be impossible. Even if it can now display it properly, I doubt if it can play it.

Also, in the realm of jazz - where

I'd argue any notation program is unfriendly towards pop. rock, and jazz. Music like that ain't supposed to be played via midi, and most of it has a weak written tradition.

I'd argue any notation program is unfriendly towards pop. rock, and jazz. Music like that ain't supposed to be played via midi, and most of it has a weak written tradition.

True enough....but that's not Finale's fault.

As a matter of fact, most of the things you mention were actually impossible in Sibelius until fairly recently, while NOT impossible in Finale.

I specifically cite your comment regarding playback. Finale has had, until very recently, better playback support than Sibelius. This is on top of its greater control over graphical elements of notation.

And no, we don't have shares in Finale. We just don't like whe people make unsupported comments about software. Had you made the same sort of unsupported comment regarding Sibelius, we would probably have jumped in as well.

For example ... say you have five quintuplet 8th-notes and three triplet quarter-notes in a 4/4 bar. If I wanted to have two of the quintuplet 8th-notes, then one of the triplet quarter-notes, then another quintuplet 8th-note, and so on - it was (and probably still is) impossible in Finale.

If you gave that to most real musicians to play, you'd probably get a mixture of confusion, hatred, amusement, and derision. And probably a lot of times it just wouldn't work.

OK, so I'm sure a lot of musicians could work it out and learn to play it, but I'd say most people would make a hash of it the first few times. Why should a notation programme support something that musicians wouldn't?

Anyway, Finale probably can do it, and it's probably as awkward to do as it is to play.

Well, I only implied "popularish" I guess, because I didn't mean it - I guess the popularish ones were just the first to come to my head.

As soon as I find a rock band that plays in 17/24 I'll let you know :)

As a matter of fact, most of the things you mention were actually impossible in Sibelius until fairly recently, while NOT impossible in Finale.

I specifically cite your comment regarding playback. Finale has had, until very recently, better playback support than Sibelius. This is on top of its greater control over graphical elements of notation.

And no, we don't have shares in Finale. We just don't like whe people make unsupported comments about software. Had you made the same sort of unsupported comment regarding Sibelius, we would probably have jumped in as well.

Not unsupported budy ... See my previous post - If they were possible in Finale, as you claim...send me a Finale 97 file with my examples scored. I'll be waiting for that. Finale may "have had better playback than Sibelius" ---- However .... I didnt way that it did not. I cited a specific example that Finale could not play. That's all I said.

Why don't you quit trying to bicker and start really reading what I am saying. I like Finale - I have used it quite a bit. I also like Sibelius. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Nothing I have said is unsupported.

Not unsupported budy ... See my previous post - If they were possible in Finale, as you claim...send me a Finale 97 file with my examples scored. I'll be waiting for that. Finale may "have had better playback than Sibelius" ---- However .... I didnt way that it did not. I cited a specific example that Finale could not play. That's all I said.

Why don't you quit trying to bicker and start really reading what I am saying. I like Finale - I have used it quite a bit. I also like Sibelius. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Nothing I have said is unsupported.

well, considering I've used Finale since version 3.0, and have SEEN people create irrational time signatures as far back as that version, yes, I'd say that your comments were unsupported.

And Finale has had "nested tuplets" as far back as I can remember.

Just because you never learned how to get a particular result from Finale, doesn't mean it was never possible.

And as far as playback is concerned, if you can demonstrate to me that Sibelius, in 1996, was capable of playing irrational time signatures and complex nested tuplets, then your point will be ceded.

Until then, I stand by what I said.

Finale, UNTIL RECENTLY, has had the upper hand over Sibelius in regards to any sort of complex notation. That gap has gradually narrowed, and both programmes are now practically equivalent in the area of complex notation.

I have tried both. I ended up with Sibelius 3 and now upgraded to v.5.

Part of what I particularly like about Sibelius is the tech support / forums. At least a few years ago, Sibelius had the upper hand in that area. I dont know how it is now though. It used to be that you only used Finale for band type things though its obviously changed in more recent versions to become more friendly to a wide variety of genres.

Just so that no one forgets what comments were made:

You stated that Finale was only good for "band type things" until recently.

When asked to decribe what you meant by that rather mind boggling comment, you proceded to describe rather complex notational issues that are generally seen only in advanced contemporary classical music (nested and fractional tuplets and irrational time signatures).

The capability to create exactly this sort of notation is exactly what placed Finale light years ahead of all of its notation competition, until very recently.

Do not confuse this notational ability with playback now. I can assure you that Sibelius has not had the capability to play back irrational time signatures and complex nested tuplets since before Finale.

Finale has had an online forum for tech support and inter-user assistance for as long as Sibelius has existed. Which makes hash of another assertion you make in your initial post.

Now, "budy", please refrain from getting snooty when people take you up on your erroneous assumptions.

I dont care about playback - I didnt even bring it up except to say that Finale proabably couldn't play the complex rhythms back in the day. Which is probably true - but not even part of what I was trying to say. So, for all your points on "playback" I say -- "meh..." :)

As far as notation, etc - neither one of us can prove one way or another because we don't even have access to previous versions of the software. So, we are both going off of our own memories. So I say "meh" once again.

With your comments on "recent" activity - once again, not part of what I was saying. Im talking about the by-gone days of yore.

"Just because you never learned how to get a particular result from Finale, doesn't mean it was never possible."

Insightful -- thanks.

It used to be that you only used Finale for band type things though its obviously changed in more recent versions to become more friendly to a wide variety of genres.

I feel that in the past, Finale was less friendly for things such as dance music, rock, pop, etc etc and Sibelius was more friendly.

Sorry, couldn't help but repost this..

So you only used Finale for band type things...

but

Finale was less friendly for things such as dance music, rock, pop, etc... (band type things, by any definition)

Please make up your mind. Which is it?

You skipped about half my posts - you cant take things out of context.

Im not talking about quantity of tech support but rather quality. All I was saying is that a couple of years ago I was more impressed with the quality of Sibelius' interactive, online help.

I don't understand why you keep blowing everything up out of proportion and making mountains out of mole hills. I'm not here to fight. Everything you have said so far is along the lines of:

Bryan - "I like the color blue. When I color, I prefer to use blue over red because it shows up better on the kind of paper I'm using."

QCcowboy - "prove it. you dont know what you're talking about. Ive seen red that was better than blue. I've been painting with red since before you were born so I know its better than blue. When you say blue, sometimes you mis-speak so you are discredited as a human being. When I sit my butt down in a bucket of red paint it sounds bettter than when I do the same in blue... Red obviously wins and you suck."

It's all semantics and nitpicking.

I was merely making a comment. Robin asked for an example - I gave 2 that you have yet to disprove other than saying "You're wrong because I'm right." I've got more important things to do than to continue on with this useless debate. Catch you in the other threads...

I meant band as in concert band - classical, orchestral stuff. Not rock, pop, crap, types of "bands" - i dont even usually consider those music.

let me correct your analogy:

Bryan: I like blue because blue is better than red

Me: why exactly do you think blue is better than red

Bryan: because I think red is better because it can do things blue can't

Me: Aru? :blink:

You contradicted yourself.

THAT is the main reason people are confused by your comments.

You've stated some things that you say Finale cannot do, or could not do in the past.

I, as a long-time user of Finale, corrected your erroneous impressions of Finale's functionality.

You're starting out on rather shaky footing on this forum.

Anyway, Finale probably can do it, and it's probably as awkward to do as it is to play.

Why should a notation programme support something that musicians wouldn't?

Well, I don't think the question of "what is easily performable by musicians" should be the concern of notation software programmers (unless it's very basic things like a clear layout etc.). Those programmers are often less well equipped at judging what notations might make sense in some situations than composers, and if musicians still won't play it - well, that's the problem of the composer. So I don't think "we won't support things that we don't think performers will understand" is a good policy, even though it's obviously unavoidable to sometimes say "we won't support things that almost nobody ever wanted to write down, to our knowledge". Even though the goal of a program like Finale, that tries to be a professional standard at what it does, should be to enable even the most unlikely forms of notation in some form, wherever possible and adequate. (With "adequate" I mean using Finale as a program for purely graphical scores consisting of lines and dots and blobs and waves, without any notes, staff lines, etc. is simply not very reasonable, as there are other programs, say graphics programs, that would be much more suitable for this.)

However, that whole thing isn't much of an issue, since you can do this stuff in Finale. Not as easily as it should be, in my opinion, but it's possible.