I Wish I Could Bring This with Me

One of the major themes I have experienced over the years I have used the 3 major music notation software options, Finale (over 25 years), Sibelius (over 17 years), and Dorico (3+ years), is that one notation choice or task has to be accomplished in very different ways in each software.  The underlying logic and construction of each program inevitably lead to these sorts of differences.  You can do just about anything in each program, but your path to get there will be very different.  The task or notation style you’ll need to use for a given project may determine which software you use, since if there is one task that is crucial to the project and used often, it could be best to use the software where that task is the most streamlined and efficient.
 
As an engraver/copyist, I found that what I ultimately want is a hybrid of all this different software, where my favorite feature or concept from each could be incorporated into one grand vision.  Well, I’m pretty sure that won’t happen, but I can dream.  This is a refrain I’ve heard from a lot of people lately, especially as more people leave Finale behind and adopt another program.
 
There are so many issues and inefficient workflows from Finale that I’m glad are no longer present in the more updated versions of Sibelius and Dorico, but there is one general concept/architecture in Finale that I still think is the best and most flexible.  Though much maligned, I think Finale’s expression category designer/menu setup offers the most robust and customizable experience for creating various text and other symbols that are placed in the music.  For shame, you say!  Not so, you say!  Well, let me explain.
 
As I mentioned in a previous blog, Finale can do anything you want it to do (what it does for you is another matter).  You can create and adjust just about anything you can think of having to do with the notation.  This is where the expression menu shines; you can create custom expression categories, set rules for each category, or you can take every single expression, no matter what the category, and create custom rules for placement, style, fonts, and behavior right in the individual settings for the expression that are then independent of the rest of the expressions in that category.  Options as to where the expression attaches, text alignment, and even specifying on which staves an expression will appear in the score and parts (which can also be independent) are far more powerful and customizable than anything Sibelius or Dorico has.
 
Case in point, I work with a publisher who has specified a text style where markings like “Verse” or “Chorus” appear on the top staff of the score (this is an orchestral score) and then on the top staff of the grand staff rhythm part.  However, in the parts, these markings should not appear at all except in the rhythm part.  The next wrinkle is that we often hide the top staff of the rhythm part when there are only slashes and chord changes.  In Finale, you can create a custom “Score list” to accomplish this, no problem.  In Sibelius, you can mimic it within the Font Style by selecting the various positions for the text to appear, but there are no independent controls for the score or parts, and the options are far more limited and inflexible than in Finale.  Dorico, between a combination of paragraph styles and layout options, can also do something similar, but it’s very cumbersome and again, does not offer nearly the number of options as Finale does.
 
Another example of how Finale’s expression designer’s independent options can be used is creating custom auto-sequencing expressions.  Using the kind of expressions from the last examples, let’s say you wanted to have each Verse or Chorus numbered, like Verse 1, Verse 2, Chorus 1, Chorus 2, etc.  Again, in Finale, this is no problem.  Just create separate expressions for each text, add the auto-sequencing style of choice, and you’re all set.  By creating separate expressions for each, you could have a situation where there is only 1 Verse marking, but there might be 4 or 5 Chorus markings that would all sequence independently of each other.  Also, if you wanted to remove or add a marking, the subsequent markings would all adjust accordingly, i.e., if you want to add a new Chorus marking in a new measure between the original Chorus 2 and 3 markings, the newly added Chorus marking will become Chorus 3 and the original Chorus 3 will automatically update to be Chorus 4. 
 
Sibelius and Dorico both have options to create auto-sequencing markings, but only one marking sequences at a time, and there is no way to create multiple markings that use multiple, independent sequences. 
 
This blog is not meant to say how good Finale was or how far behind Sibelius or Dorico are.  Finale is actually far behind both of those programs in so many ways, and as we all know, it’s not going to get any better.  My point in this was to explain how certain tasks or notation options are vastly different between the programs. 
 
I have created clones of each template I’ve created in each software to have options in the other programs.  Templates I’ve built in Finale now have clones in Dorico and Sibelius; templates I built in Sibelius also have Finale and Dorico equivalents, etc.  That way, no matter what program I use, the look and feel of the final product can be as close as possible to the original.  This process forces me to explore all the deep and overlooked functions and interplays of various settings in each program, and that’s often where I find the limitations of what can be done in each program (or at least done somewhat easily).
 
As you work in any of these programs, remember, there may be limitations you are not used to from another software or, even better, new options and techniques open to you that weren’t present in your previous program of choice.  Just be patient and keep exploring, but don’t forget to bring what you learned from the old notation software to your new one.  Got more questions, reach out and let’s explore these together!