: "A couple of years ago, a notation program came out that allowed you to enter data into your tablet using an electronic pen. Just like using pen and paper. "
I tried one that did this, I forget the name, a student brought it with him. Oh we wanted it to work soooo badly. The main issue was getting it to learn our gestures - we had to change too much about the way we wrote to get it to recognize what we did that it didn't really end up being faster - I do hope they continue with that, because something like that that actually works well would be a true game changer.
Printmusic is a piece of crap. Musescore is about a bajillion times better. The only Finale program worth getting is the full finale program. The rest are crap - and for what most people do, musescore works just fine.
robcat2075 wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:37 pm
ExZacLee wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:54 am
That looks poor - i'm sure someone versed in musescore could make it look better, but those results are not really what would be considered "acceptable".
Can you show that same passage entered into Finale? The default result with no manually adjusting the slur placement?
Here it is with no adjustments: let me know if you can't open that, i can send it to you via email if you like.
I've had issues with dropbox lately so...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mfh8pso8n59cz ... M.png?dl=0
Most engravers will tell you that assuming no adjustments whatsoever is a fools' errand, but don't take my word for it. Contact literally anyone working in the industry. With finale there are far fewer adjustments (for most things.) For those things that require adjustment, it isn't too difficult to create your own document style and drop it into the document styles folder. With a document style you can set up just about any default you want governing how a particular tool or function behaves... so if I don't like, say, how my chord symbols appear, I can create a new document style and set everything the way I want it - fonts (the handwritten fonts really are atrocious), default spacing above the staff (finale's is too high by default - Gould calls for two staff spaces above and I concur) and even the symbols themselves (some moron thought geometric symbols are a bad idea - they're not.) That's another of the many reasons why we use it. Again, I'm not telling you to not use musescore - if you like it, use it. Telling us we don't have a good reason to do so, however, is simply ill informed.
robcat2075 wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:46 pm
Inserting a bar of 5/4 into a chart is "standard" - there's really no other way around that.
I don't understand the problem here. Musescore does that. I even made him a video that showed how easy it was.
I know this. I was replying to the suggestion that that was a "non standard" concern - and that was aimed pretty much at anyone who thinks that somehow odd time signatures are a non standard engraving concern. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.
robcat2075 wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:04 pm
It wasn't readily apparent to my students who used the program a few years ago, and their parts looked all the worse for it.
This is a revealing comment.
I've never taken a class that used notation software, but I have taken classes where complicated software is used.
My observation is that 19 out of 20 college students are pretty helpless with software unless the teacher will hold their hand in class and show them exactly how to do something, button by button.
They don't read manuals, they can't do tutorials on their own, they can't look up answers.
If your appraisal of a program is based on what someone who doesn't know how to use it proficiently says about it... Is there any other field of musical endeavor in which we would say that's adequate?
You're right - it is revealing. If the whole reason one uses musescore is because it is more "user friendly" or "intuitive", my experience seeing it in use with my students is that it is not. It is free though - and like I stated before, patiently, more than once, I do suggest it for the cost factor. This is really the only reason why i do suggest it though, because in most other ways it is simply not the superior program yet.
"I've never taken a class that used notation software"
- that is also a revealing statement. You are really committed to lambasting Finale (and sibelius it seems) based on your assumption that Musescore is superior - yet you demonstrate no actual experience in those situations where finale or sibelius is commonly used (education, professional engraving and everything in between.)
"My observation is that 19 out of 20 college students are pretty helpless with software unless the teacher will hold their hand in class and show them exactly how to do something, button by button. "
My observation, as a teacher of three classes that use this software, is that half of them need pretty intense involvement from me, while the other half tend to pick it up pretty quickly (it's retaining it after the class that is the real bugger.) I base this on 9 semesters of teaching entry level Finale and Pro Tools, and 9 semesters of teaching more advanced arranging classes that focus on (amongst many things) preparing music for studio work and publication. Of course, I actually know how to use the software and more importantly I know how to teach
it - something I can't say of more than a few people I've taken or observed in classes with heavy software involvement. While I do assign tutorials, I don't rely on them to teach anything - I have to do that myself. If you'd ever like to have the veil lifted on finale come take my class - I'm sure you'd dig it.
"They don't read manuals, they can't do tutorials on their own, they can't look up answers."
Again, I gotta call BS - heck, one of my students is my go-to for any questions involving protools, the workings of any of our Midas consoles, and the best uses for any of a number of mics we have in our main studio. Another student is my "figure it out" guy - if we can't figure out how to do something, he goes down the rabbit hole and comes back with an answer. Are some students just not interested enough to get it? Yes, there's more than a few, but they aren't in the majority.
"If your appraisal of a program is based on what someone who doesn't know how to use it proficiently says about it... Is there any other field of musical endeavor in which we would say that's adequate?"
I wanted to come back to this - your appraisal of Finale (and Sibelius) seems to be based on your lack of proficiency on it... need I say more?
You think we're calling you "contrary" because you posted some videos. That's exceedingly intellectually dishonest. You were being called contrary because, despite previous attempts to answer your question (can it be fairly summed up as "why would anyone use finale?") you, like the proverbial 6 year old with an axe to grind, replied "why" over and over again. You don't need to justify your preference for musescore to us - if you like it, fine. Hundreds of professional engravers and thousands of students, composers, arrangers and teachers do not have to justify their use of finale or sibelius to you. But since you asked, you got some answers, and yet they still didn't satisfy you. Why?
Those questions have been asked, and answered. Patiently.
I'm not trying to convince you to ditch musescore. Again, for the umpteenth time, use what you want. I, and many others in my field, use finale and we have our reasons, some of which have been stated very clearly in plain english for you here.
And now for this:
"You can only get professional results with _______!
Program X can't do _________!
All the Pros use _______!
And I have fallen for that multiple times.
I have gotten their program, learned it, and found out that it had no magic. "
No, no one ever claimed there was any magic.
"Found out that the thing they were sure only their program could do was just a feature under a different name. It's all they knew."
Can you give me an example?
"Or found out that it actually took more steps to get X done in their program than what I was using. They just accepted that as the normal."
This is normal of many complex programs. Something easy in one is difficult in another.
"Or found out that whatever extra their program had might just be 5% extra functionality around the edges. None of it a deal-killer for getting something done."
When that 5% worth of extra functionality saves you 20-75% of the time, or simple means no crashing, or offers another huge advantage that the pro community finds valuable, it is worth the extra money. Surely you understand this.
"Or found out that the only explanation they had for their program being the only choice was because someone had told them that."
Really? Do you really think this is the deal with Finale? Software doesn't become popular because someone told you to buy it. It becomes popular because it is useful. It's a pain in the ass to learn and it's expensive - do you really think we'd all be using it if there were an easier, cheaper alternative that did everything we need? Believe me, when musescore gets up to snuff I'll be the first one to get it.
"Or found out that if they didn't know I used the program i used, they didn't see any difference in the result."
That's not really the issue here. The issue is more along the lines of "how long did it take you to get the result" or "are the results satisfactory?"
"So here I am again today hearing people say this program that appears to work doesn't really work... I AM going to be skeptical. I AM going to ask follow up questions. I AM going to expect that the problem they say is a problem actually exists and that they can show it."
No one said the program doesn't work. They just said it's not better than Finale or Sibelius - and you've done nothing to prove otherwise.
"When someone says, "it's what the astronauts use," I will be skeptical."
Really? You want to go into space wearing an Apollo A7L, or "nah, this scuba suit and a roll of duct tape should be just fine!"