John Morton
Member
Accidental: here's the link: https://musescore.org/en/node/88591#comment-390991 you may have to log into the forum, cheers, John Morton.
New version of MuseScore
- Thread starter Cornet Nev.
- Start date
John Morton
Member
John Morton
Member
Re-reading your earlier reply, we appear to be a cross-purposes. Yes, you can select it from the list - I've done this many times - but importing an A4 file requires the short procedure I mentioned indeed, paper control in general is more complicated. Incidentally, I spent a long period of time working on Finale to acquire the necessary skills. I'm not attempting to denigrate the program but where a product, any product, fails to live up to its claims I believe people have a right to know.
John Morton
Member
FINALE VERSUS MUSESCORE PLAYBACK
I have posted many of my arrangements on SoundCloud, which may be of interest. Please go to John Morton 12 (With the obvious exception of I Saw Three Ships and Laura they are all my own compositions, too.)
I Saw Three Ships is a MuseScore XML file imported into Finale.
Slow Drift was done in Apple's Garage Band for a bit of fun. It's on iTunes.
Los Jardines De Espana is a pure Finale file, inputting and playback.(There's a glitch at one point - my fault!)
Emblazon is a MuseScore job.
The Saracen is a Pure Finale file.
Alba, Into The City, Incey Wincey Spider, Lady Of The Lake, Doobie Doo, Brasshouse Alley, Eye Of Newt and Aftermath are all MuseScore files (three of these are edited because of jazz solos).
The remaining files were all recorded LIVE at Wombourne Civic Centre in 1997 by the Staffordshire Band (Staffordshire Building Society Band in those days!) conductor: Andy Culshaw. These scores and band parts were produced in Encore, my first notation experience.
I believe the comparison in playback quality of the computer files is not as clear-cut as I, personally, expected. I did do a Finale version of Emblazon but I like the MuseScore sound better.
Hope someone finds all this useful!
Cheers, John Morton.
I have posted many of my arrangements on SoundCloud, which may be of interest. Please go to John Morton 12 (With the obvious exception of I Saw Three Ships and Laura they are all my own compositions, too.)
I Saw Three Ships is a MuseScore XML file imported into Finale.
Slow Drift was done in Apple's Garage Band for a bit of fun. It's on iTunes.
Los Jardines De Espana is a pure Finale file, inputting and playback.(There's a glitch at one point - my fault!)
Emblazon is a MuseScore job.
The Saracen is a Pure Finale file.
Alba, Into The City, Incey Wincey Spider, Lady Of The Lake, Doobie Doo, Brasshouse Alley, Eye Of Newt and Aftermath are all MuseScore files (three of these are edited because of jazz solos).
The remaining files were all recorded LIVE at Wombourne Civic Centre in 1997 by the Staffordshire Band (Staffordshire Building Society Band in those days!) conductor: Andy Culshaw. These scores and band parts were produced in Encore, my first notation experience.
I believe the comparison in playback quality of the computer files is not as clear-cut as I, personally, expected. I did do a Finale version of Emblazon but I like the MuseScore sound better.
Hope someone finds all this useful!
Cheers, John Morton.
Last edited:
GJG
Well-Known Member
Well, granted if your post had said "when importing A4 files into Finale, there is a short procedure ... (etc.)" then I wouldn't have challenged it. For one thing I almost never have a need to import non-Finale files, and I certainly have little or no experience of the issues involved. The only files I have ever imported have been MIDI files, where page setup/layout isn't really an issue. I don't know, and I'm guessing (possibly wrongly) that you're talking about XML files, about which I know very little. If XML files do actually contain information concerning page layout, then I agree that Finale should take account of that when importing and if the original file was set up in A4 then the resultant Finale file should reflect that. If on the other hand, XML files do not contain page setup data, then Finale has to default to something, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a product developed in the US, with a predominantly US user base should default to US letter sizes.
If you're not talking about XML files, then please ignore all of the foregoing ...
John Morton
Member
I would expect page settings attributes to be imported with the file which is the case, I feel sure, but Finale can't recognise them. Re: US letter sizes, this is part of a bigger grouse I have about America's extraordinary isolation which is probably off-topic here. I import XML files because of my dislike of inputting into Finale although, where I want quality sound (because imported XML's lose quality) I use pure Finale. Hope this clears things up.
What version of Finale you're using?
I've never encountered a problem with a version of Finale > 2009.d1 failing to recognize and properly interpret the <page-height> or <page-width> XML tags. In fact, I just downloaded Elite Syncopations (created in Musescore 1.2, using a custom page size of 223.706 x 175.197 mm), from OpenMusicScore.org, opened the XML file in TextEdit and manually changed the <page-height> and <page-width> values to 2112.264 and 1493.52 [NB: scaling <millimeters>7.112</millimeters> = 297 x 210 mm], respectively, saved it and it imported into Finale 2010.r4 Mac at A4.
mikelyons
Supporting Member
I just want to throw my tuppence into the fountain:
I have been a sib user since v2. I can do almost anything I want in sib, one way or another. I loathe finale and all its get. It is, to my way of thinking totally counterintuitive.
I have, and am maintaining, a copy of MuseScore which I do use but mostly to clean up Music XML files, whic it does a much better job of than Sibelius.
I have been working with Lilypond, but, as Andrew says, it is a real faff and I can't see me sticking with it long term.
What the Steinberg offering will be - if it comes to fruition before I reach my dotage - I can't say and by then I might not be able to afford it.
If I were to recommend software to someone looking to start from scratch? It would definitely be MuseScore. it has the huge advantage that it is free. It works pretty much as yoiu would expect and, most importantly, it is being updated regularly.
I have been a sib user since v2. I can do almost anything I want in sib, one way or another. I loathe finale and all its get. It is, to my way of thinking totally counterintuitive.
I have, and am maintaining, a copy of MuseScore which I do use but mostly to clean up Music XML files, whic it does a much better job of than Sibelius.
I have been working with Lilypond, but, as Andrew says, it is a real faff and I can't see me sticking with it long term.
What the Steinberg offering will be - if it comes to fruition before I reach my dotage - I can't say and by then I might not be able to afford it.
If I were to recommend software to someone looking to start from scratch? It would definitely be MuseScore. it has the huge advantage that it is free. It works pretty much as yoiu would expect and, most importantly, it is being updated regularly.
John Morton
Member
Thanks for your input on this. I was using 2014 (I've just upgraded again). There's a 16 line explanation of the procedure for changing the default page size to A4 so let no one say this is straightforward. My own attempts to do this simple action ended in frustration, initially, at least, which is just plain wrong. That's my point. Obtuse Finale, again. Printing out part of the Finale manual as it is offered (which entails destroying a tropical rainforest) produced badly truncated page layouts with long vertical paragraphs an inch wide down the left hand side and the other paras moved sideways, destroying the logical sequence. This is because the page layout was tailored to US letter size. The procedure you described is, surely, inconvenient?
John Morton
Member
It really is counterintuitive. The worst aspect, by far, is the need to constantly change tools in order to do anything. Selecting notes etc. is tricky and selecting regions even worse.
The procedure I describe (changing the page size manually) was purely for test purposes, to ensure that Finale recognized the <page-height> and <page-width> tags generated by another notation program using an earlier version of XML (1.2) and reformat the page size appropriately, which it did.
As I said in the first sentence of the paragraph, I have never encounter a problem with Finale (v.2009.d1 or later) failing to recognize and properly interpret the <page-height> or <page-width> XML tags generated in XML 2.0 or later; otherwise, it's simply File > MusicXML > Import.
As to the purported "obtuseness" of changing the default page size, the procedure's been the same in every version since 2007:
Open whatever template you use
Switch to the Page Layout Tool
Navigate to Page Size in the Page Layout menu and set the page size to A4
Save and close the template.
Don't know how it can get any simpler or more straightforward than that!
John Morton
Member
Please refrain from using exclamation marks. We are on here to exchange information and to learn, not to win.
We covered the aspect of using templates following an earlier misunderstanding. Yes. Agree on that but your explanation of why you felt the need to do what you did only adds to the mystery. I have been searching for the passage in the Finale manual where Make Music admit the program's wider shortcomings with regard to paper sizes in general (which includes the destruction of page layout in the manual). The problem is that some comments on here (not necessarily yours) indicate that their authors have no experience of other programs by means of which they might make comparisons. I have used various types almost daily, on a professional basis, since 1994.
We covered the aspect of using templates following an earlier misunderstanding. Yes. Agree on that but your explanation of why you felt the need to do what you did only adds to the mystery. I have been searching for the passage in the Finale manual where Make Music admit the program's wider shortcomings with regard to paper sizes in general (which includes the destruction of page layout in the manual). The problem is that some comments on here (not necessarily yours) indicate that their authors have no experience of other programs by means of which they might make comparisons. I have used various types almost daily, on a professional basis, since 1994.
GJG
Well-Known Member
I have always acknowledged that I have no experience of using Sibelius, or MuseScore; that doesn't mean that I am not entitled to challenge when someone makes statements about Finale which are inaccurate and misleading. That has nothing to do with comparisons.
John Morton
Member
My reply here is directed to the original post by Cornet Nev, if he hasn't tired of this catfight.
Here' how it goes, in my opinion, of course:
People tend to like Finale because of its superior playback via its suite of virtual instruments. But notation programs are not sequencers. For this you'll need a DAW such as Cubase, Pro Tools or Apple's Logic Pro, the latest version of which is equal to Pro Tools but a quarter of the price. It isn't copy-protected, either so you won't need a USB i-lock. With DAW suites you can master music to so-called 'broadcast' quality, which I'm about to do with regard to some library music. These progs can produce notation but they're not dedicated score writers. This leaves the score writing aspect of Finale. Now, a determined individual can, with lots of practice and the patience of a saint, eventually swing with Finale but it's a long and winding road, largely because of the need to change tools a lot. Playback and irregular key signatures (etc.) require extra operations (=time to a pro) and expect the subject of media sizes to be more complicated (to cut a long story short - see above). Quote from the manual (not me): ..."Finale does not have a single setting that controls the default page size for all new documents".
It's a shame, because Finale is a wide-ranging, professional program able to interpret and play back text commands such as 'mute' etc. The trouble is that the act of interacting with the program in order to put notes down, the main reason for using the program, is very badly conceived. If my critics would just try, for example, MuseScore they'll see what I mean (rather than wrongly accusing me of inaccuracies - I've gone deeply into Finale).
You'll find, Cornet Nev, that Finale users will characteristically back into a corner and vigorously defend their territory rather than accept new ways of working.
I'm drawing a line under this, now.
Here' how it goes, in my opinion, of course:
People tend to like Finale because of its superior playback via its suite of virtual instruments. But notation programs are not sequencers. For this you'll need a DAW such as Cubase, Pro Tools or Apple's Logic Pro, the latest version of which is equal to Pro Tools but a quarter of the price. It isn't copy-protected, either so you won't need a USB i-lock. With DAW suites you can master music to so-called 'broadcast' quality, which I'm about to do with regard to some library music. These progs can produce notation but they're not dedicated score writers. This leaves the score writing aspect of Finale. Now, a determined individual can, with lots of practice and the patience of a saint, eventually swing with Finale but it's a long and winding road, largely because of the need to change tools a lot. Playback and irregular key signatures (etc.) require extra operations (=time to a pro) and expect the subject of media sizes to be more complicated (to cut a long story short - see above). Quote from the manual (not me): ..."Finale does not have a single setting that controls the default page size for all new documents".
It's a shame, because Finale is a wide-ranging, professional program able to interpret and play back text commands such as 'mute' etc. The trouble is that the act of interacting with the program in order to put notes down, the main reason for using the program, is very badly conceived. If my critics would just try, for example, MuseScore they'll see what I mean (rather than wrongly accusing me of inaccuracies - I've gone deeply into Finale).
You'll find, Cornet Nev, that Finale users will characteristically back into a corner and vigorously defend their territory rather than accept new ways of working.
I'm drawing a line under this, now.
