If you’ve spent any time in the notation world lately, you know we are in the middle of a massive sea change. With the sunsetting of Finale, many of us are looking at Dorico or Sibelius and feeling a bit like we’ve moved to a country where we know the language, but the syntax has completely shifted.

The learning curve usually boils down to one fundamental concept: How do you actually put an element, whether note, text, or articulation, etc., on the page?

It sounds simple, but the "logic" behind your software determines your entire workflow. Let’s break down the two main philosophies.

1. The Finale Way: The "Tool-First" Mentality
For decades, Finale users have been trained to think in "tools." You want an articulation? You open the Articulation Tool. You want a note? You open the Speedy Entry Tool. You want an expression? You open the Expression Tool.

• The Logic: You choose the action first, then you find the location.
• The Pro: It offers a clear, surgical separation of tasks. If you are in "Expression Tool mode," you aren't going to accidentally move a note or change a pitch.
• The Con: It can feel like you’re constantly swapping out screwdrivers just to build one shelf. It’s a highly controlled and constrained workflow, but it generally creates additional steps in each workflow because you have to constantly switch tools.

2. The Dorico & Sibelius Way: The "Selection-First" Philosophy
Dorico and Sibelius flipped the script. Instead of picking a tool and hunting for a note, you select the note or passage of music and then tell the software what to do with it.

• The Logic: You select the location (the object) first, then you apply the action.
• The Pro: It’s contextual. The software "knows" what you’ve selected and waits till you tell it what to do with that selection.  It could apply an articulation as easily as it could change the pitches or rhythms.  There are far more choices of action when you do not have to select a specific tool first to perform a given range of options.
• The Con: For long-time Finale power users, it feels "backward." It requires a deliberate shift from doing to selecting.  Also, there’s a greater danger of accidentally doing a task unintentionally, as hitting the wrong key may cause a totally different function to occur than you intended.

But wait, you say, does it really change the final product?
Maybe not the look of the page, but it absolutely changes the speed of your delivery. If you’re a composer who likes to edit as you go, the selection-first workflow of Dorico might feel like a breath of fresh air. If you’re an engraver who prefers to "batch" your work—doing all notes, then all dynamics, then all slurs—Finale’s tool-based logic feels like a professional assembly line.

At the end of the day, your software shouldn't be a hurdle. Understanding whether you prefer a Tool-First or Selection-First workflow is the first step in choosing a program that supports your creativity rather than hindering it.
​
Are you making the switch from Finale and feeling the "selection-first" growing pains? You aren't alone. Transitioning your workflow is about more than just learning new keyboard shortcuts; it’s about mastering a new logic.
Need help? Let’s chat.

One of the first things I do when starting to engrave a new piece is to decide which page size for the score and parts I will use. Sounds simple enough, right? Well, there are quite a few options and standards depending on the type of piece you are writing and the final use of the music, whether for publication through a publisher (who may have their own particular standards) or for a concert or other live performance or recording session.

The first thing I want to address is that it’s ok/fine/acceptable to use standard letter size paper in the US or A4 size elsewhere for scores and parts.  Here’s my logic: if you have only a few instruments in the score and the staff size is large enough to be readable, then a standard page size will work.  Do you see this page size in more professional settings, especially for conductors? No, not often, that’s true. However, if you are just using a score to produce a small group recording or to follow along with at a rehearsal for a string quartet or something like that, it will work perfectly well.  To me, what makes a score or part work best is a readable staff size, regardless of the page size it’s on.  Yes, having a larger page size will allow you to use a larger staff size in general, but if you can get the music on the page in a way that works for you and those who will ultimately use it, then all is well.

Now, with that out of the way, here are my recommendations for both scores and parts:

• For Scores = (letter as needed) 9x12, 10x13, 11x14 and 11x17 (and very rare occasions 12x18).  All of these sizes are acceptable any will work great depending on the size of the group or other considerations in the notation.  Most often, I see 10x13 and 11x17 (predominantly) for orchestral scores, with 9x12 being used for pieces with small groups, like a string quartet, etc.  11x14 is also an option, but I tend not to see or use this size as often.  

 

• For Parts = (letter as needed) 9x12, 10x13.  I would say about 80% or more of orchestral music I format and print is 9x12 these days, with 10x13 a distant 2nd.  The 9x12 page is great because it can be used for saddle stitch booklet printing (using a 12x18 page that’s folded and stapled) far more easily than a 10x13 page, which would require a 20x13 page and finding a printer that can handle that size is even more expense than the larger printers that are need for a 11x17 or 12x18 page size.  (For more details on a good desktop printer option, see my previous post here).

Scores and parts are also formatted in portrait orientation.  The only places I see any use of a landscape orientation in in big band scores, which traditionally use a landscape format, or sometimes new/avant-garde music where the notation style is (by and large) non-traditional and the formatting is best served with a landscape orientation.

Now that you have your page size for the score and parts set, here are the binding methods that work best:

• For Scores = printed double-sided and spiral-bound is generally best.  Another option, which is standard in recording sessions, is to print the score single-sided and then tape the score in an accordion style, so that page turns during the recording are as quiet as possible.  Both methods can be used for any of the page sizes I mentioned before.

 

• For Parts = there are a few more options here, with saddle stitch staple booklets being used most often for live performances/symphonic works, printing the parts single-sided and taped in an accordion style for recording sessions (and occasionally for live performance) and then printed double-sided and spiral boud, which is best for longer works with higher page counts for each part.  Another method for live performance is to print double-sided and then use a cloth tape to bind the left-hand edge to create a booklet.  All methods can be used for the the various page sizes, however, if you are using a 10x13 page size, it’s unlikely that can be bound in a saddle stitch staple booklet due the difficulty in being able to print the 20x13 page size and booklet finishers usually cannot bind anything larger than a 9x12 page size. 

If you need help in choosing the right page size for your project, please contact me, and I can walk you through all the different considerations.  Also, Engraver’s Mark Music has custom templates in Sibelius, Dorico, and Finale, all set and ready to go for many different page size combinations of scores and parts, so your music can be engraved and formatted from the very beginning with the end use in mind, with precision and efficiency throughout.  

If you are looking for even more details, here’s a link to a Scoring Notes post from several years ago.