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. 

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.