Finale 2012 is out. $120 upgrade

[MIDI Life Crisis]

My general feeling is that if I like the product (Finale, DP, etc) I'll do the upgrade to support the company and keep them in business. OS Lion is an exception but I've got so much Mac stuff that I don't feel any need to jump on a Lion at the moment - especially since I still got my hands full with a Snow Leopard.

All I can add is that i like the "feel" of F2012 and in the grand scheme of things, $150 ain't that much and the product is instantly downloadable.

[mhschmieder]

Ha, you guys are killing me -- I just noticed that all of my most respected composers on this site seem to be using Finale vs. Sibelius. That tells me a lot right there.

I haven't had time to download the latest demos yet to evaluate, but my understanding is that there is no rush as the cross-grade pricing doesn't seem to be time-sensitive for this release.

[wrathy]

Frodo/FMig:
Thought I would chime in on your Finale/DP discussion.
One importing trick I figured out on my last orchestral score was "retranscribe."
Comes in handy when you have different durations to deal with. Just select the section that's incorrect, change the duration in "quantize" and then select retranscribe, and bam that section is correct. I used to make different copies of tue score based on duration, but this is so much easier!

FMig: what are your quick scribe problems? I find that having sections grouped together, and use the zoom function at the bottom of the QS window, I can see what a need. Yes it's really rudimentary and needs tweaking options wise, but its usable. I too need to see real notation, but this does the trick.
Best.

[Frodo]

Frodo/FMig:
Thought I would chime in on your Finale/DP discussion.
One importing trick I figured out on my last orchestral score was "retranscribe."
Comes in handy when you have different durations to deal with. Just select the section that's incorrect, change the duration in "quantize" and then select retranscribe, and bam that section is correct. I used to make different copies of tue score based on duration, but this is so much easier!

It really works for some purposes. But there are times when it does nothing at all.

In other cases, there is a tendency for certain tuplets to get misinterpreted even on import, no matter how you set the import quantize. If one single quarter note = 3 eighth notes for a triplet, it follows that 9 sixteenths would constitute a proper nonet. But because there are more than 8 notes within one beat, Finale sees the notes as 32nds when imported from an SMF and the notation for that beat has to be done manually.

Maybe it's better in v.2012?

It's not that I don't use "retranscribe". It's just that I generally don't need it because everything else lays itself out pretty tidily with the right import prefs. But of those times when I need the extra help "retranscribe" might offer, the conundrum is so unique and specialized that it just has to be moused in.

When "retranscribe" works, it works incredibly well. I'm just not quite sure what criteria is used. It would be nice if there were "retranscribe preferences".

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I think that's technically called 'No No Nonet.'

[Frodo]

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Frodo at 5:54 PM. LOL!

[FMiguelez]

FMig: what are your quick scribe problems? I find that having sections grouped together, and use the zoom function at the bottom of the QS window, I can see what a need.

Ha!
Where should I start??

- There's no way to control how rhythmic patterns group. If I want a 7/8 measure of 3+2+2 or 3+3+1, it's not possible.

- Divisi lines are not possible either (you'd need 2 or 3 independent voices per staff).

- You can't switch clefs.

- There are no slurs, so if you have a phrasing in mind then you can't really see it.

- No basic articulation symbols.

Those are the points I can think of right now. I really wish we could do any of those
I'm still waiting for my Finale 2012 copy. I'm really looking forward to experiment doing all the wonderful things members have talked about in this thread.

I obviously need to separate the process of score writing and sequencing. For instance, now that I'm actually editing in DP to make VI Pro stuff sound good, I messed up my score (by having 32 note rests - caused by editing durations to make some articulations sound good, etc.).

So my idea is to try composing in Finale and make the score look great. Then, just sequence away in DP (with the Finale score as a guide) and concentrate on the performance side of things. I really think this will be the answer for me.

[wrathy]

Frodo: on 2011 I have had great luck with retranscribe, especially when I use PPQ Res values rather then rely on Finale's. IE Quarter note triplet's = 320, Eighth note triplets = 160.

FMiguelez: (sorry about not typing your full name before but I was typing on my iPhone).
Rhythmic Groupings: you are at DP's mercy.
There is a Dynamics Palette you can use (I never have/will)
Slurs, Articulations: No slurs, if you wanted articulations you can enter them as text blocks, which I have done for some super quickie jingle/session stuff to hand to a player where importing to Finale and cleaning up for 32 bars of music that just was not worth the effort.
Clef's: you can change in the track options menu, but changing in the middle of a part is not possible (ie Violas in high register). I just set them to their usual clef's in my template. I also have all the transpositions ready to switch on/off in the track options menu for when I want to "see" their actual part.
Contrapuntal writing in a section (divisi violins) is problematic. I just make another track for that section, Vlns_1_V2. On import to Finale, I move that stuff to V2 and merge the staves, or I move to Layer 2 and Implode Music.

There is NO DOUBT that its not ideal for what you want to see on a score, but all things considered its been ok for me to get an idea of texture and density of a score (the two most important things for me when looking at written music.) Phrasing and dynamics are "built in" to the performances of each part, so the score for me is more about seeing balance, harmony, voicings, orchestration and the like.

My general workflow if a written score is going to be used with a mock-up is:
Pencil and Paper, short score.
Mock-Up in DP.
Edit.
Import to Finale for Score creation.
(Then lots of cursing, teeth-gnashing, and perhaps a `phone call to MakeMusic. I don't know your relationship with Finale, but mine is tepid at best. There is an over-reliance on very small numbers that I find difficult.).

NO VIBE here at all, just thought I'd chime in. If QS is not working for you, its not working for you. I just find that I can get by with it.

Oh, one other trick. I get as much real-estate as possible by changing the Page Setup to 11x17, at either 80% or 100% resolution. That way I can see most of the parts/sections all at once. And I got an old HP laser printer that prints 11x17 so I often will print bits out that I want to take a closer look at....

BEST.

[FMiguelez]

Hey, Wrathy.
I hear you.
There are ways to make QS work "better" (such as your suggested usage of text blocks for some articulations). But is it really worth it? I mean, while totally possible, I'm sure you'd agree it's a work-around at best, clumsy and extremely time-consuming.

What I usually do (if I need to print parts for musicians) is to simply print the score with only notes and nicely pencil in articulations, dynamics, etc.

Doing all that in Finale takes only a few seconds. Now I know we can't expect DP to be a notation-app too, but I'm sure most of you guys would agree that MOTU can make QS a little better by adding at least some of the features I mentioned in my previous post. Especially knowing that they do have experience with notation apps!
Those features aren't particularly advanced, but it would make QS much more useful without always needing to go to a more specialized app like Finale.

I was glad when they added the lyrics tool. It actually works, and it saves me from writing them into parts with my ugly hand writing. The Chords tool was a nice addition too, I must say.
But basically, QS is nice for doing lead sheets and pretty elementary stuff. I just wish MOTU would kick it up a couple of notches

[wrathy]

But basically, QS is nice for doing lead sheets and pretty elementary stuff. I just wish MOTU would kick it up a couple of notches

Absolutely, that would be great.
I know it must be quite difficult to do so.
I never had any experience with Mosaic.

I have often wondered what it would be like if you could "graft" Finale onto DP. To do everything in one program would be amazing.....

best

[Frodo]

I have often wondered what it would be like if you could "graft" Finale onto DP. To do everything in one program would be amazing.....

best

You know, DP demands so much from our machines that I've often wondered about such features as Work Quanta, Max Work Percent, and Prime Seconds. All of those features "steal" CPU power for the sake of beefing up audio performance at the expense of graphics.

That said, Finale has a way of gumming up the works over time as well. All of those little dots, flags, and other graphics can get pretty intense. Finale still has the prompt to refresh the screen when the graphics card gets overwhelmed and can't redraw everything on the screen on its own, particularly for larger scores.

While I would love to see something closer to Finale-quality in QS, it does make me wonder just how daunting it would be to make it work. Running movies, handling automation and MIDI data of all kinds, X-number of audio tracks and effects--- it raises a few questions:

1. Would having a more graphics-intensive QS be too much for DP to handle?

2. Would such a feature update be something better suited after DP is available in 64-bit mode where memory access becomes less of an issue?

3. Would the stock Mac graphics cards handle the display without compromising audio, video, and MIDI performance?

Like FMiguelez, I do believe that there are some additional overlooked basics that "don't seem" they'd be too much to ask of QS. I was actually pleasantly surprised to see the Lyrics feature added and wondered for a long time why they were avoided for so long. It's nice to see.

Beam editing and slurs have indeed limited the usefulness of QS as a genuine notation extension rather than a staff-based visual reference editor.

I dare say, not everyone reads notation-- and not everyone needs to. But for those who do, QS can feel like a car without a radio or climate control, in a manner of speaking.

Windshield wipers, anyone? It's not an issue until it rains.

[wrathy]

Frodo,

I would love to see these few enhancements to QS to make it even stronger. I use it all the time when I am writing, and its so important to the way I work; if it got better, that would be fantastic!

As for combining the power of a notation program like Finale, and DP, I can dream right?


Its a huge daunting task that is probably not possible without thousands of hours of programming.

best.

[Frodo]

Frodo,

I would love to see these few enhancements to QS to make it even stronger. I use it all the time when I am writing, and its so important to the way I work; if it got better, that would be fantastic!

As for combining the power of a notation program like Finale, and DP, I can dream right?


Its a huge daunting task that is probably not possible without thousands of hours of programming.

best.

I completely agree with everything you said. Even if QS wasn't Finale in disguise and just an updated version of itself with some (all?) of the extra basics we've talked about, it would be great.

I'm working now on a series of scores almost around the clock these days. I keep QS, Tracks Window, and Graphic Editor open all the time and have found that I spend almost equal time in each window. Copying from QS into the Tracks Window is a lot of fun if your target measure is on a different QS page.

[mjmoody]

I'm not nearly as fast at Finale note entry as am with DP. I'll start with pencil and paper, then play the whole score into DP if it's for a large orchestra. For a small ensemble or for a piano/vocal, I'll just work directly in Finale. A large orchestral score (about 5-6 minutes long) would take me the better part of a day to do directly in Finale. If I play the score into DP and then import it into Finale, I can get it done in about an hour.... not counting slurs, dynamics, or articulations.

You'll want to do some experimentation once you get Finale to see which method works best for which purpose. Setting and resetting Finale's import settings will take a little trial and error just to get a sense of how Finale will best read the SMFs. Once you get familiar with those settings it becomes a no-brainer.

So, you play everything in to DP? How do you deal with human playback issues? I'm a pretty good pianist, but I make little timing errors that are real hard to fix with quantization. The more tracks I add, the more "slightly off" things get, however, unless I quantize.

I am pretty quick at entering things in Finale - and, I enter things the way I want, so I don't have to mess with quantization. However, now that I'm getting better at DP, I am interested in trying other work-flow methods.

For one thing, I am a little confused between "humanize" and "wrong." When is something played "like a human" vs. when is it played with "bad time?" Maybe I need to just let things fall more where they fall, but, I'm still curious about ideas and practices. When do you quantize? If you do quantize, what settings generally work? If you play a track and quantize, is the result still a recording of you, or is it something else??

John