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. 

It’s a New Year and many of us are learning new things, like exercise routines, cooking techniques, or obscure hobbies like extreme ironing (yes, it does exist and thanks to the internet, we now all know about it).  Even in our little corner of the music industry, music engravers are trying out new techniques, technologies and practices. This year, I’m certain there are more people doing this than usual, given the announcement last year of the sunsetting of Finale. 
(read more on my take on that here and what you should do).
 
A question I’ve been receiving a lot from friends and clients alike is how do I go about learning one of these programs?  Should I just dive right in on a project already in progress, or watch endless tutorial videos or even just experiment in the program till I learn something?  All these approaches may yield some results, helpful or otherwise.  However, having learned 3 notations programs (Finale, Sibelius and Dorico), I’d like to offer a roadmap of sorts to navigate your way through the beginning frustrations to the calm peaceful pastures of total mastery (well, ok, at least to having a vague idea of what’s going on in the program).
 
First, and this is a more philosophical mindsight, you need to treat these programs like musical instruments.  This sounds a bit strange or over the top but let me explain.  Much like practicing and playing an instrument, there various ways to approach any given technique or skill that you want to master.  Yes, there are basic skills that are used repetitively, but the application of these skills in each given playing situation may be slightly different.  Learning and practicing scales is a great example of this; you can play a scale in many different fingerings, tempos, rhythms, or styles based on the music you are playing, but you are still just playing a scale. 
 
A notation program, especially ones as powerful as Finale, Sibelius and Dorico (and Musescore to an extent) have various ways that you can achieve the same look on the page, but use different tools, techniques or processes to make it happen.  This ability to use the program in various ways is/was especially pronounced in Finale, where there could be 4 or 5 ways to achieve the same result and choosing which one of the methods to use took experience and practice to learn.  This flexibility and vast quantity of possible uses is great for someone like me, a professional engraver and, understandably, frustrating for a novice or those just learning the program.  Sibelius and Dorico both have elements of this, Dorico perhaps a shade more than Sibelius, but again, all have the flexibility to be used, modified and adapted to all sorts of uses.
 
Another way in which learning these programs should be approached like instruments is that it will take time to learn them.  If you imagine that you will be completely proficient at an instrument in a matter of a few lessons and rehearsals, that would be absurd.  Of course you wouldn’t be! As I’ve mentioned in the last paragraph, how could you possibly have the experience on an instrument/program to choose between various methods to achieve a goal with such limited experience?  You can’t and to expect to be is folly.  Take your time, try doing the same thing in different ways, ask others with grater mastery; these are all practices we would expect to employ when learning a music instrument, and therefore we should use them when learning a notation program.  There is so much to learn and try so take your time.
 
Ok, now some practical steps.  Here’s the method I have employed to learn and grow in mastery of each of these programs.
 
1) Read at least some of the manuals.  Yes, I know, they are tedious and boring, but there are tons of information in there and if you can gleam enough about the underlying philosophy of how the program was built, it will save you hours of frustration trying to get the program to think like you do.  Especially in the beginning, you need to learn how the program thinks and then use that method.  Once you have learned enough about the program, then you can slowly adapt it to your preferred workflow. 
 
2) Almost of all the manuals have practice projects that introduce escalating concepts and tools.  Use these!  I know, it can seem crazy if you already know another program to start at the very beginning with simple tasks, but you must learn how the program works, not how you THINK IT SHOULD WORK.  Again, you can’t change or modify something, especially for the better, until you know how it works and then you can find places to improve it and your use of whatever tools it offers. 
 
3) Engrave simple pieces.  Start at Mary Had a Little Lamb; yes, I’m serious.  Start there, remember what tools to use when, and what order to use them.  Then add new elements to simple pieces, like chord symbols, more dynamics or articulations, change key, and new instruments, etc.   Start small; don’t let your first project be a 10min full orchestra piece.
 
4) Progress to engraving more complex pieces, especially for instruments you do not play or are not as familiar with.  My go-to repertoire for pieces like this is classical guitar music.  There are so many layers, techniques, and elements in that notation that you will certainty get a great notation-focused workout just trying to recreate a one-page piece.  Try choral music if you are mostly an instrumentalist.  Try engraving a harp part (always tricky).  There are so many elements and standards in various kinds of instrumental notation that you can explore and learn from and that makes learning all the corners of a notation program much more enjoyable and practical.
 
5) Try taking an old project you completed and like the look of and recreate it in the new program.  This step helps to train you brain to adjust a previous workflow to the new environment while having something you are familiar with.  Engraving new pieces from scratch is great, but reworking an old project that you are familiar with helps you to see how comfortable you are using the new program and what areas between the programs are different for better or worse. 
 
6) Lastly, take another project where you were asked to update an old file or someone else’s file and go through all the same processes in the new program.  This simulates more how I would typically work on a project (as a copyist, not a composer/arranger) so this may not be as useful to all of you.  However, the benefit is that you learn to take someone else’s work and then have the goal of turning it into something else, which can help you explore different areas of the program and then learn best practices to undo and redo problematic uses of the notation software.
 
As you get into the weeds on a new program, whether transitioning from Finale to Dorico or Sibelius (I’ll have more thoughts on that for you in another post later) or trying to learn new things about the program you already use, (don’t abandon Finale yet) try out some of methods.  I confident they will help.  And remember, take your time, mastery (whatever your definition of that is) takes time, and the underlying logic of one program or another may feel more natural to you and that’s ok too.  As always, contact me if you have questions, need some more advice or a helping hand on a project. 

There has been a rather seismic shift in recent weeks in the world of music notation.  As you may have heard, Finale music notation software is being sunset (what a pleasant term) by its parent company MakeMusic.  This has caused a large outcry, lament and shift in this corner of the music industry.  Finale was/is a beloved, at times thoroughly frustrating and long-standing piece of software with thousands of users over the last 35 years.  It’s quite an achievement to have a software platform last this long, go through so many various updates in computing in general and the music industry at large.  Finale, along with Sibelius and other programs during the 80s and 90s, really brought the music engraving world into the digital age and fundamentally changed the job of a music engraver and copyist, just as much as it changed the creative workflow of composers, arrangers, and orchestrators.
 
The surprise timing of this announcement was met with shock, sadness, resignation, and I think, some excitement. 
I have heard from dozens of my clients who work in Finale, wondering what to do now and what to do going forward in the near-term and the long-term.
 
First, let’s go over the facts and dispel some of the panicked concerns I’ve heard from many:
 

1. MakeMusic has discontinued all new development of Finale. That means Finale will not receive updates, not just feature updates, but any updates in regard to compatibility with future OS changes, etc. 
2. You can no longer purchase Finale, or an upgrade from a previous UNLESS you purchase the Dorico Pro crossgrade.  More on this later.
3. Initially, MakeMusic was going to restrict the ability to activate new installations of Finale on any system starting on August 26th, 2025.  They have now changed that policy and will allow activations of Finale (if you have already purchased it) for “the foreseeable future”.

 
What all the above DOES NOT MEAN:
 

1. 1.That the next time you load Finale it will no longer function.
   - If your system was compatible with Finale before this announcement, it will be today and for some time to come.  I had many clients call me panicking that they would not have access to their files after this.  That is not the case.
   
   
2. Finale will no longer function for daily use. 
   - This sunsetting schedule does not take away functions or capabilities of the program.  All features in the program today will function just as they always have.
   
   
3. I need to convert all my files into a new notation software today. 
   - No, you do not need to do this, especially in a rush.  Finale is not going away tomorrow and all the work you have in this program is not inaccessible.

 
 
Knowing all this, the next question is, now what?  MakeMusic has partnered with Steinberg to offer a crossgrade to Dorico, and Avid, the parent company of Sibelius, has now matched this offer.  MakeMusic is making the case that Dorico is the logical successor to Finale, in terms of capability, functionality, and user customization of the program.  Personally, this remains to be seen, but my initial work in Dorico is promising.  I’ll post further updates on my progress in Dorico another time.
 
My advice to my clients has been to, first, take a deep breath and slow down any decision making.  As I mentioned above, Finale is not going away and if you keep your current set up the same, it will work, in theory, for as long as you want it to.  Musicians in this area tend to not be on the bleeding edge of all tech advances and I’m sure many are not running the latest OS on either Mac or PC, so there’s no immediate danger of waking up and all your Finale files being inaccessible.
 
Whatever may be in store for you and your future workflow or notation program of choice, begin by assessing what you actually need, not only out of your current set up, but how to deal with any sort of archive you have.  Many of my clients have asked whether they should completely convert their older Finale files into Dorico files.  I would not rush to do this.  First, make sure you have good backups of all your files, finale or PDFs (this is really important).  Next, if you have not accessed a file in 5 years or more, are you really worried about needing in the future so desperately that it needs to be completely re-engraved today? Probably not.  What may be a good idea is to export a xml file of the score to have that to go along with your finale file and PDFs.  That way, you have access to the notation in whatever form you need, whenever you need it.  However, converting files via xml to another notation software does not mean it will load in perfectly without having to edit anything.  Also, any formatting in linked parts, etc., will not copy over.  So, you will essentially be starting over again on each piece. 
 
 
Next, and this is a highly personal decision, decide if it’s worth learning a new software.  I often compare learning a notation software to learning an instrument.  You can learn basics fairly quickly, but mastery can take years depending on how much you use it.  If you are a composer largely working on your own self-published pieces, then you may be fine working in Finale for the next 3-5 years or longer.  Again, there is nothing about Finale today that will completely stop working in the future (depending on your OS, etc.).  No one knows for sure if some random security update will interfere with Finale, but it seems like if you keep things as they are, you can just keep using the software.  Even publishers and other larger companies shouldn’t feel the need to rush out and change everything today; there’s no advantage.
 
Another question I have gotten frequently from my clients since this announcement is if Dorico is the best option to replace Finale.  It may be, but it may not be the best fit for you and your workflow.  Dorico does have more of a menu-based workflow and settings structure like Finale, but that doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s the best option for you.  If you are writing mostly small ensemble or single instrument pieces, chord charts and rhythm parts, etc., Finale had way too many features and functions that you would never use.  The same would be the case of either Dorico (specifically Dorico Pro) or Sibelius Ultimate.  Both Dorico and Sibelius have less expensive versions and even free versions of the software that may do all you need.  The learning curve on these versions will be much less as there are not as many features and functions in these versions as there will be in the top-tier versions.  Also, there are several iPad-based options, like StaffPad, that can give you great features and ease of use without the high initial expense in time and money of these other programs. 
 
So, what is the plan for Engraver’s Mark Music and how best can we serve our clients in this new reality?  First, we are continuing to use Finale, the latest version 27.4.1, today and will continue to do so for as long as the program remains viable.  We maintain an archive, both onsite and off-site, of all files associated with everything project we work on so you can feel secure knowing whatever work we have done together in the past is still available to you.  We will continue to share our Finale files with our clients at the end of the project, for no additional fees.  Many music preparation companies do not do this or charge extra fees for source files.  We do not; never have, never will.
 
Our team is currently putting Dorico through its paces and learning the new workflows and processes we need to ensure our clients have the best experience in the program and the best final product from the software.   We currently offer engraving, editing, copying in Finale and Sibelius, and will bring Dorico online within the coming months.  Our clients who wish to learn or work in Dorico for future projects with us can be assured that we will be ready and able to accommodate that and bring our full knowledge and experience to each and every project.
 
If you have any questions about steps forward for you and your music in this new era, please reach out to use here and let’s start a conversation. 
 
If you are looking for a great writeup on this, check out this  Scoring Notes article.  It gives some good insight into the history of Finale and how it got to this decision.
 

​“Behind the Score”
 
For the 3rd installment of my series on template design, let’s look at some more “behind the scenes” functions that can give your template new functions and possibilities.  If you haven’t read the previous two posts on this topic, I highly recommend you start by reading those first, as they cover more general topics and philosophies behind the design and ultimate implementation of your template.
 
Blog #1 – Template Design
 
Blog #2 – Use the Right Tool for the Job
 
 
I often encounter files where whoever created and uses the template spent a great deal of time making sure that everything looks great on the main score.  All the elements are perfectly placed, font choices are consistent and clear and a whole host of other features are in evidence.  So, the job is done, correct?  Well…. Not quite.  Having an amazing looking score is great foundation, but if the further functionality of the file in terms of how the parts are formatted is ignored or overlooked, then the job is only half finished.
 
As we discussed before, when you place an expression on the score in Finale or Sibelius, you need to use the right tool for the job.  You can have an element on a score like a tempo marking that looks perfect on the score, but if that marking was placed using the wrong tool or category, then it ultimately will not function properly for the parts.  Just think, on a large orchestral score, there could be 30 individual parts that will need to be accounted for and if an element that is supposed to show on all 30 of those parts does not, that is going to cause you a lot of headaches and unnecessary work.  Even on a smaller score, having to reinput different elements for only a few parts is tedious in the extreme. 
 
The next consideration is how many parts there will be.  Sounds easy, right?  It’s the same number of parts are there are staves in the score.  Or is it?  Look at the screenshot from a large orchestral score.   

As you can see, right below the Flute 1, 2 staff are two separate Flute 1 and Flute 2 staves.  These staves are hidden in the main score and only used for parts.  You can hide staves in Finale by using the Staff tool, double clicking the staff you want to hide and selecting “Force Hide staff” and select “In Score view”.  Now, you can add additional staves to your template without changing the formatting or orchestration of your score.  In Sibelius, you can achieve a similar function by us the “Focus on Staves” feature in the layout tab.  That dropdown menu will show you all the different staves in a file and you can choose which ones to have visible on the score.
 
Once these additional staves are in place, you can copy the original part into both of those and separate out the notes for each part.  There are multiple methods for this and which one to use greatly depends on several factors, including the complexity of the music, how you want to handle cues in the different voices, etc.  For Sibelius, you can highlight the source staff, go to Note Input/Explode, and then select the staves you want the music to go into.  Bam!  Done! In Finale, you can use Utilities/Explode, but I prefer to use JW Staff Polyphony to help split the voices or to copy the source music into the new staves, and then use TG Tools/Process Extracted Parts and select the appropriate voice for the staff I’m working on.
 
The benefits from using this hidden staves method will pay dividends repeatedly down the road for you.  Now, you have the original source music intact and can refer to it while making any number of changes to the individual parts.  Later, once you have formatted your part for the top line notes, in this case Flute 1, often you can use the copy part layout function in both programs as the 2nd voice, Flute 2, will need the same formatting as the 1st voice.  That means you only must format one part and then you can reuse that formatting again without having to go through all steps twice, a huge time-saver. 
 
One method that you SHOULD NOT USE is to extract the original part into a separate file and then format.  This method was the only one available before Sibelius (with dynamic parts) and Finale (with Linked Parts) added this functionality well over ten years ago.  Using this method will create dozens of extra steps and redundancies that waste time and are terribly inefficient.  There are a few very special circumstances where it may be necessary to extract a part as an entirely separate file, but those are very few and rare.  If you are using a part extraction method, I urge you in the strongest terms to not use this method any longer.  You are wasting your time, creating additional opportunities for errors to creep into your music and missing out on tons of benefits from having your parts linked to the original score. 
 
Just like building a house, a good template is built on a strong foundation and a lot of the most important features are where you can’t see them.  The more time and consideration you give to every step in the process from initial note input to final editing will yield benefits that multiply over the time you are working on the specific piece of music and over the months and years you use your template.  As always, if you have questions, need advice, want to schedule a time for a custom template consultation or need a template designed for you next project, please contact us here are Engraver’s Mark Music. We have the tools and experience to help with any project, big or small. ​