This is an interesting question I get asked a lot:

“Given that there are so many good digital music reader options and iPads and other tablets, why are we still printing music?”

It’s a fair question.  This is the digital age after all; software is easy to purchase and use, and these once expensive devices are now ubiquitous and, relatively speaking, cheap.  So again, why are we still printing music?  It seems like such a waste of resources, and surely it's easier for everyone to just read off one of these newer options than a piece of paper.

The answer to this question is that despite what it may seem, there are very few true digital music stands out there, and depending on the circumstance in which the sheet music is being used, digital isn’t always easier.  Let’s dive into some use cases and see why paper may still be the best option for your music.

1) Book publication – Let’s say you wrote a piano method book for your students with scales, fingering exercises, etc.  It would be easy to just give your students (or have them purchase) a PDF from you and then use a tablet to view.  Simple, straightforward, and makes sense.  However, printing and binding copies for your students may make just as much sense.  The printed copies can be written on during lessons to make notes for students, and students may not always have easy access to yet another screen at home or for lessons, so a printed copy is much easier to use.  In this case, I think physical or digital copies both have equal advantages and disadvantages, so it comes down to what makes the most sense for your application.
 
2) Publisher works – This is like the discussion on book publication, except on a larger scale.  When you are printing 100 or 1,000 copies of a book, different market forces come into play.  Printing physical books is a more expensive method of distribution and then adding on the cost of shipping makes it even more costly.  Digital distribution can be more cost-effective, but it’s not free; there are costs to host and maintain websites and e-commerce charges, etc.  Again, this is a case where either option can make sense; it just depends on the goals for the presentation of your music.  Also, you’re relying on your customer to have a good digital method to view the music. 
 
 
3) Live performance and studio sessions – This is where Engraver’s Mark Music does most of our printing.  We print, on average, 150,000+ pages a year of music that goes to the concert stage or the recording studio.  So, you say, the advantages of digital would get multiplied as you use them for these larger groups, correct?  Well, not exactly.  This is where the economics of using digital screens or physical printing get interesting.
 
Let’s use an example of a recording of a 30-piece string group, with 10 1st Violins, 8 2nd Violins, 6 Violas, 4 Cellos and 2 Basses.  This comes out to 16 stands of music, with the Violins, Violas and Cellos sharing stands and each bass having its own stand.  To use a digital music stand, we would have to have 16 screens, all of which would need to be the same, either with power cords for all of them or have them all fully charged before a session, and then a method to connect them all to a central location to load all the files for that day and then set up each stand with only the music for that instrument.  Then, you would need a dedicated network to connect all the screens to a host computer in case there were edits or changes or additional music to add to the stand.  And then you need to have 16 foot pedals for the musicians to use to turn pages and some sort of stylus for each stand to mark changes on the sheet music.
 
All this technology is available, but only as separate pieces that would have to be coordinated by the copyist and librarian.  You could not rely on the musicians to purchase everything on this list and then bring them in addition to their instruments to each session.  Knowing that, someone must purchase all this equipment, maintain it, and set it up before each session and break it down.  This is expensive and very time-consuming.  All the advantages of digital distribution go out the window.  A recording studio is unlikely to want to spend the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to purchase and maintain a system like this and then they would also likely have to hire a person just to run this system, since they could have different projects each day and assuming that someone outside of their studio would be able to learn and adapt to the software and set up instantly would be foolish.  Beyond that, the simple question of who must pay for something when it breaks or gets lost is another expense a studio is unlikely to want to add.
 
Printed music is much easier to manage in this case.  Beyond the music, our team brings our own printer and supplies to each session, which is simple to set up and train our team members to use.  Setting out the music is easy, and changes can be quickly made and then printed to hand out to the players.  If a piece of music falls off the stand, no harm done, unlike a screen, which would likely be permanently damaged if it fell. 
 
Also, consider the size of most tablets; at best, you’re getting about a 9in x 12in screen, and you can only view one page at a time.  I can tell you, as a copyist, it’s impossible to have a clean page turn on every single page for a part.  When using printed parts, musicians can set up 2 or 3 pages on the stand to make playing longer passages easier. 
 
Similar limitations and hurdles for using digital screens for live performance exist as well.  An orchestra would have to purchase all the equipment and maintain it along with all the challenges of running the orchestra.
 
From an environmental perspective, it seems like printing music is much less eco-friendly than a screen, but that’s not always true either.  All the screens and accessories use more power, their lifespan isn’t always very long, and e-waste is a huge problem.  Printing music certainly uses additional resources to make the paper and print it, and that must be accounted for.  At least for Engraver’s Mark Music, we collect, shred, and recycle all the music we print for sessions locally and do our best to use products made from recycled materials whenever possible. 

In the end, it really depends on how you are using the sheet music that will dictate which method is best to use.  If you have a small recording session for a single player or two, then a digital screen might work just fine.  A larger session or even a book you’ve completed might be better served as a physical copy.  Not sure which option is best for your project? Contact us and let’s see what may be best for you!

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.