The Notation Software Thread! (Finale, Sibelius, Cakewalk, etc)

[andrea 0]

hi

I have a problem with "Finale 2006"

What is the procedure for add and delete instruments after you have set up these in wizard window?

[pi 0]

You have to use the staff tool. Then you can do ADD or hit the delete button to delete. Select a staff by hitting the box by the cleff.

[Docteur Qui 1,573]

I'm finally getting myself accustomed to Sibelius after years of stubbornness and I'm enjoying it a lot. I recently got Sibelius 5 and it's great to use, and so to get myself used to the program and for my own education I'm currently recreating some of my favourite orchestral pieces as Sibelius files. I've started with Fawkes the Phoenix but I can't for the life of me work out how harp glissandi work in the program. I know about creating lines etc, but it doesn't really work with the harp.

As we know JW's mad for harp glissandi and Fawkes in particular is rife with them. Was wondering if anyone can help out. Is there a standard cheezy-harp glissando technique in the program (i.e. overlapping hands going up the scale, think dream sequences)? Or any kind of preset techniques? I also have no idea how to notate pedalling for harp either.

[Hitch 59]

I was waiting for a question on the Finnish composer. Ah well.

[Docteur Qui 1,573]

Heh, I was waiting for someone to make that comment.

But just for you, I'll ask a question about him. What year was the second symphony completed?

[bruckhorn 111]

C'mon, ask a tuffy-- whatever happened to Sibby's Eighth Symphony?

Oh, 1902.

As to the Glis. -- I use Finale, so I'm just guessing, but I think your going to have to write out the glis. Check Sibelius' website, there should be a forum there for technical questions-- there is on Finale's; that's how I figured out how to do some things that I was having trouble with.

Good luck, Jim.

[muzicunderfire 0]

Glisses are a little complicated when it comes to doing big harp glisses in Sibelius. Glisses in Sibelius only play back if they are in the same staff, so you have to get around the program to make it play back correctly (it is, after all, a notation program, not a sequencing program). So let's say you want to create a gliss beginning on C3 (middle of the bass staff) to C5 (first ledger line of the treble staff). Here's what you do:

-Put the first note in (C in the middle of the bass staff).

-Next, put the ending note in, but keep it in the same staff (So another C in the same octave if you wish).

-Now, hold CTRL (it might be CTRL+ALT or CTRL+SHIFT or something, I'm not around my computer with the program on it to test it) and press the UP ARROW. This will make the note jump a staff and appear in the treble staff when it is actually linked to the bass staff. From here, hold CTRL and press the up arrow until you reach the desired octave.

-Now, create the GLISS LINE and connect it.

-To make this look pretty, you will have to delete or hide the MEASURE REST in the middle of the treble staff.

-Now when you play it back, you should hear the gliss!

-Btw, For grand staff dynamics, putting one dynamic between the staves doesn't work; you need to put a dynamic for the treble staff and another for the bass staff (I usually hide the one for the bass and leave only the treble dynamic, allowing for conventional notation and still achieving the desired playback)

Also, you can't do any of those fun glisses that are all over the JW Sig scores; for it to playback, the gliss line must connect from one note to another, so you can't put the starting note, draw many lines up and down, put the ending note and have it playback according to what was drawn. If you want to hear the effect, you have to draw a note at the beginning and end of each line.

As for harp pedaling, I figured I would deal with that when I actually write for a harp player, but there should be a PEDAL PLUGIN somewhere where you just highlight some bars, click the button and it draws it out for you. I don't know much about the harp, so I'm not sure how accurate it is.

For overlapping hands, you will have to create glissandi in SEPARATE VOICES (a gliss in voice 1, then another starting halfway through in voice 2). It will get messy, so hiding a voice would be the best solution.

Hope this helped =)

[Quintus 5,454]

Another lurker bites the dust!

Great intro nonetheless, oh and welcome to the board

[Docteur Qui 1,573]

Fantastic! Thank you so much, that was what I needed! What a first post! Haha.

And welcome to the board.

[Williamsfan301 12]

I need to pick the brain of anyone here who uses Finale. I'm trying to save a bunch of music I wrote in Finale as MIDI files so I can work with them in GarageBand. Problem is, they're not saving. I keep getting an error message that says "Could Not save file (the file may be in use by another program), but I'm not using any other program.

Can anyone tell me what the HELL is going on!!!!!? And how can I make this work?

I hate that damned program.

[Joe Brausam 221]

I've only ever saved as MP3 or WMA, sorry I can't help with the midi!

[Williamsfan301 12]

That's ok, I figured out what was wrong. But, now I need someone who's knowledgeable in GarageBand

[Koray Savas 2,254]

Blume might be able to help you there.

[Maglorfin 206]

I hate that damned program.

Have you already tried Sibelius?

[Williamsfan301 12]

I hate that damned program.

Have you already tried Sibelius?

Oh, yeah and I like Sibelius A LOT better. But, my wife is also a musician and she's a Finale person, and Finale is what we use at work. But, if it was up to me, I'd be using Sibelius

[Maglorfin 206]

Oh, I see, so it's kind of like in Pulp Fiction: "My girlfriend's a vegetarian which pretty much makes me a vegetarian."

[BLUMENKOHL 1,081]

Are you doing:

File > Save as special > Save as audio file > (Set Format to MIDI)?

If you don't need to manipulate it in GarageBand much you can always export it as an MP3 and drag it into GarageBand.

[Williamsfan301 12]

Oh, I see, so it's kind of like in Pulp Fiction: "My girlfriend's a vegetarian which pretty much makes me a vegetarian."

One could put it that way, yes.

Are you doing:

File > Save as special > Save as audio file > (Set Format to MIDI)?

If you don't need to manipulate it in GarageBand much you can always export it as an MP3 and drag it into GarageBand.

The "File > Save as audio file, etc" I got. The problem I have now is that the snare drum part, when I saved it to MIDI and put it in GarageBand now sounds like a maraca and I need to fix that. I can't seem to manipulate the MIDI sound, though.

[Marian Schedenig 9,105]

From what I know, only a subset of the MIDI sound banks is actually specified. What programs do with the rest is completely up to them, I believe.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,081]

The "File > Save as audio file, etc" I got. The problem I have now is that the snare drum part, when I saved it to MIDI and put it in GarageBand now sounds like a maraca and I need to fix that. I can't seem to manipulate the MIDI sound, though.

You should be able to pick the instrument by selecting the track and pressing the (i) "i in a circle" and then selecting an instrument.

Try shifting the notes for the drum (I'm assuming it's atonal so it's all on one line) and see if you get a different sound. The drum kits have different percussion instruments assigned to different notes.

[pixie_twinkle 60]

I hate that damned program.

Have you already tried Sibelius?

Oh, yeah and I like Sibelius A LOT better. But, my wife is also a musician and she's a Finale person, and Finale is what we use at work. But, if it was up to me, I'd be using Sibelius

Finale users are like Mac users. They will defend their choice to the death, in spite of all the evidence that Sibelius (and PCs!) is easier to use.

[Marian Schedenig 9,105]

I'm not a Mac fan, but I've never heard (or seen evidence) that "PCs" are easier to use.

[pixie_twinkle 60]

I find Macs a nightmare to navigate around. Windows has sooo many bugs, but it's certainly more user-friendly IMO.

[Koray Savas 2,254]

I find Macs more straightforward and easier to use.

[Williamsfan301 12]

I hate that damned program.

Have you already tried Sibelius?

Oh, yeah and I like Sibelius A LOT better. But, my wife is also a musician and she's a Finale person, and Finale is what we use at work. But, if it was up to me, I'd be using Sibelius

Finale users are like Mac users. They will defend their choice to the death, in spite of all the evidence that Sibelius (and PCs!) is easier to use.

Actually, I'd say the exact opposite is true. Finale users are like PC users - they enjoy 8 million steps to do one damned bloody thing that probably won't work the way you want it to anyways. Sibelius users are like Mac users - logical in set up and use.

[Henry B 51]

Could it be that each program has some strengths and weaknesses? No, no, this has to be a black and white issue. Sibelius is right, Finale is wrong!

[Williamsfan301 12]

Could it be that each program has some strengths and weaknesses? No, no, this has to be a black and white issue. Sibelius is right, Finale is wrong!

Actually, it is.

Finale was developed by computer guys who were amateur musicians, so it operates like a computer person would want it to.

Sibelius was developed by musicians with the help of computer programmers, so it thinks more like a musician thinks.

And besides, no one asked you. The next time I want your view on something, I'll give it to you.

[pixie_twinkle 60]

Tiptoes quietly out of the room...

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Could it be that each program has some strengths and weaknesses? No, no, this has to be a black and white issue. Sibelius is right, Finale is wrong!

Actually, it is.

Finale was developed by computer guys who were amateur musicians, so it operates like a computer person would want it to.

Sibelius was developed by musicians with the help of computer programmers, so it thinks more like a musician thinks.

And besides, no one asked you. The next time I want your view on something, I'll give it to you.

Actually, I asked him.

[Henry B 51]

Could it be that each program has some strengths and weaknesses? No, no, this has to be a black and white issue. Sibelius is right, Finale is wrong!

Actually, it is.

Finale was developed by computer guys who were amateur musicians, so it operates like a computer person would want it to.

Sibelius was developed by musicians with the help of computer programmers, so it thinks more like a musician thinks.

And besides, no one asked you. The next time I want your view on something, I'll give it to you.

The assumption that Finale, in all its twenty years of existence, has at every point been empirically inferior to Sibelius in every way just because its original development team was less musically inclined than the development team of Sibelius is about as convincing as "My opinions about film scores are correct because of theories put forth by Pythagoras two thousand years ago." I'd better stop talking, though. I'm afraid you'll beat me up and steal my lunch money.

[bruckhorn 111]

Speaking as one who has used Finale since the ol' Finale 2.0 days, I can attest that it is a helluva lot easier to use now than it used to be. Could it be better? Yes. Have I tried Sibelius? No. Am I willing to convert? With how many scores that would need converting, I doubt it.

As for the argument of Finale vs. Sibelius, or Mac vs. PC: some people like Coke and some people like Pepsi-- me, I drink Dr. Pepper.

[Williamsfan301 12]

Speaking as one who has used Finale since the ol' Finale 2.0 days, I can attest that it is a helluva lot easier to use now than it used to be. Could it be better? Yes. Have I tried Sibelius? No. Am I willing to convert? With how many scores that would need converting, I doubt it.

As for the argument of Finale vs. Sibelius, or Mac vs. PC: some people like Coke and some people like Pepsi-- me, I drink Dr. Pepper.

Oh, yeah, Finale is definitely more user friendly than it originally was, but I still think Sibelius beats it by a mile.

Could it be that each program has some strengths and weaknesses? No, no, this has to be a black and white issue. Sibelius is right, Finale is wrong!

Actually, it is.

Finale was developed by computer guys who were amateur musicians, so it operates like a computer person would want it to.

Sibelius was developed by musicians with the help of computer programmers, so it thinks more like a musician thinks.

And besides, no one asked you. The next time I want your view on something, I'll give it to you.

The assumption that Finale, in all its twenty years of existence, has at every point been empirically inferior to Sibelius in every way just because its original development team was less musically inclined than the development team of Sibelius is about as convincing as "My opinions about film scores are correct because of theories put forth by Pythagoras two thousand years ago." I'd better stop talking, though. I'm afraid you'll beat me up and steal my lunch money.

Oh, don't worry, I make enough money that I don't need to be bothered with your lunch money.

And, by the way, it Socrates, not Pythagoras you dumbass. But, I guess that's o.k. in the world of gray you live in.

[Henry B 51]

Gotcha. Sibelius is the superior program because... you were referring to Socrates. Well debated, sir. You win.

[Williamsfan301 12]

Gotcha. Sibelius is the superior program because... you were referring to Socrates. Well debated, sir. You win.

About time you figured that out...

[Henry B 51]

Incidentally, Finale 2010 has just been announced. Included are improvements in percussion notation, measure numbers, chords and (this is really handy) automated rehearsal marks. VST/AU support is also now universal, meaning I can finally plug in an older (but very good) sample library Finale wouldn't recognize before. Cool.

[Joe Brausam 221]

I'm excited about the new percussion notation system, but I'll have to wait till 2011. I only upgrade every 2 years.

[MSM 126]

I started using Finale 2010 + Garritan Personal Orchestra for MacBook. Both the soft- and the hardware are new to me so it's a lot of figuring and trying out... I haven't experieced yet why people are so enthousiastic about McBook... Anyone who is acquainted with the same setup, and who has some practical advice? Some problems (of many) I've encountered till now:

- I have problems assigning the samples to the proper tracks;

- I used to work with Cakewalk ProAudio, when I open MIDI files that were made in that program in Finale 2010, a lot of note durations are displayed differently, especially long notes that run under notes with shorter duration. Is there any systematic approach in opening Cakewalk file formats into Finale 2010?

[Williamsfan301 12]

I haven't worked with either yet, but I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say too.

I didn't know Finale 2010 was available yet. Hell, at my old job we had just upgraded to '08.

[Joe Brausam 221]

2010 just launched, but I keep myself on a 2 year plan for upgrades, so my next one won't be till the 2011 edition.

[Nick Parker 3,047]

Well, for those not interested in Finale, Sibelius 6 launched recently....

[Williamsfan301 12]

How is it, Nick?

[Henry B 51]

2010 is much like 2009. There's now universal VST support, which is nice.

[Nick Parker 3,047]

I only tried the demo for one day, so I cannot comment on all of the details, but I did try the majority of the new features.

I was pretty excited to try the "Live Tempo" feature, and it seemed to work pretty well until it completely screwed up. I was "conducting" a preliminary version of my piano transcription of "Swing, Swing, Swing", and after about 30 seconds or so it would not let me "conduct" anymore, and the music started playing at terminal velocity until it was finished. Disgruntled, I decided to try a slower piece, a preliminary version of my piano transcription of "A Prayer of Peace", and the same thing happened. I am not sure if it is just my computer, but I was severely disappointed.

However, the Keyboard and Fretboard features seem to work just fine, and their built-in library of sounds is improving. The new stem and slur options work as intended, from what I could tell. I cannot remember what other new features they offered.

Honestly, I would wait until Sibelius 7 to upgrade, but I think you should still try Sibelius 6.

[MSM 126]

2010 is much like 2009. There's now universal VST support, which is nice.

Is there a comprehensive tutorial online, for what you know?

[Henry B 51]

For "what you know"? There's a description of all the new features on the web site, if that's what you mean. The digital manual is only included with the program itself. But you own the program, so it's at your disposal.

[MSM 126]

For "what you know"? There's a description of all the new features on the web site, if that's what you mean. The digital manual is only included with the program itself. But you own the program, so it's at your disposal.

Ah, thanks. Didn't know it included a digital manual.

[Swordfish392 3]

Does anyone know which notation software the hollywood composers are using? (what's flashy is that the measure times are realy BIG in most scores, which software does that? Sibelius?)

[Joe Brausam 221]

I'm pretty sure that Finale is the preferred engraving software.

[Datameister 2,282]

Depends on who you ask. Both Finale and Sibelius have certainly been used by plenty of major engravers, in the film industry and beyond. I happen to be very partial to Finale - I think it produces more professional results, and although many disagree with me, I find it to be easier to learn and use than Sibelius. It's an extremely flexible program that can certainly handle customization such as large time signature symbols. There are certainly people who have great success with Sibelius, though...difficult as that is for me to understand.

[ChuckM 1]

I have not used either extensively (I use Notation Composer myself), but for the little bit that I have experimented with Finale and Sibelius, I found Sibelius to have a much more intuitive easy to use interface. Everything is where I would expect it to be, as opposed to Finale where I have to hunt to find anything.