# Is there a point to Sibelius now over Dorico for beginner composers for paid notation software?



## Awoo Composer (Jul 4, 2022)

I mostly use MuseScore, but from what it seems Sibelius isn't loved as much anymore because the developers pretty much got lazy and barely changed anything while Dorico/MuseScore/Finale(?) improved. 

I admit that Sibelius looks nice and from what I've seen it is a good piece of software and easy to use, but MuseScore seems to be pretty much as capable as it according to Google searches. Dorico seems like the most logical place to go for notation software if you're going the paid route. That being said, Dorico is also rather expensive.

The subscription model doesn't bother me _too_ much but it only seems like Ultimate is worth it because Artist is too restricted. But it looks like other than trying out their free version I should just use MuseScore until I can afford Dorico. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Anyone have opinions?


----------



## JohnG (Jul 4, 2022)

The reason to use Sibelius or Finale is if you’re working with a team of copyists or orchestrators that uses one of those programs.

I just performed a highly informal survey, but it covered a range of territories: Tokyo, London, Nashville, Los Angeles, and Sofia (Bulgaria). Not one team of copyists is using Dorico yet, at least the ones on “big” productions.

Many people love Dorico, clearly, and I’m not in any way disparaging it. I’ve seen the output and it’s lovely. Maybe the Dorico team could step up the proselytizing so they can get the copyists and orchestrators on board?

Separately, Sibelius works very well. I am not sure what you mean about “barely changed anything.”

Honestly, I think all the notation software is annoying; I just find Sibelius more intuitive. As one of my orchestrator friends said, “you can use a blue hammer, or a green hammer. It’s still a hammer.”


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 4, 2022)

Dorico does some things wonky if you are coming from Sibelius. However as a compositional app, I find it much better. The fact that it also has excellent engraving features is a bonus.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 5, 2022)

JohnG said:


> The reason to use Sibelius or Finale is if you’re working with a team of copyists or orchestrators that uses one of those programs.
> 
> I just performed a highly informal survey, but it covered a range of territories: Tokyo, London, Nashville, Los Angeles, and Sofia (Bulgaria). Not one team of copyists is using Dorico yet, at least the ones on “big” productions.
> 
> ...


I think the bottom line is that whatever the orchestrators deliver is what the copyists will use. The only actual copying that goes on these days tends to be from orchestrators who still use pencil and paper.

For me, I will use Sibelius when a client insists, but other than that, it's always Dorico.


----------



## Awoo Composer (Jul 5, 2022)

JohnG said:


> Separately, Sibelius works very well. I am not sure what you mean about “barely changed anything.”
> 
> Honestly, I think all the notation software is annoying; I just find Sibelius more intuitive. As one of my orchestrator friends said, “you can use a blue hammer, or a green hammer. It’s still a hammer.”


Sorry, should've been more clear. What I've read is that Avid hasn't really changed the program much since version 7 came out. Basically they let it stagnate while the competition improved. This is all reading other's opinions on it though - my only notation software I use is Guitar Pro or MuseScore, the former because I learned guitar tab and not standard notation.


----------



## Al Maurice (Jul 5, 2022)

If you don't need engraving or more players than 24, then Dorico Elements could be a place to start and it's available at a fraction of the cost; comparison available here:









Compare the Versions of Dorico: Elements & Pro


Dorico comes in three editions: Pro, Elements and SE. Compare their features to find the edition that's right for you.




www.steinberg.net


----------



## Rob (Jul 5, 2022)

JohnG said:


> The reason to use Sibelius or Finale is if you’re working with a team of copyists or orchestrators that uses one of those programs.
> 
> I just performed a highly informal survey, but it covered a range of territories: Tokyo, London, Nashville, Los Angeles, and Sofia (Bulgaria). Not one team of copyists is using Dorico yet, at least the ones on “big” productions.
> 
> ...


just to confirm that in the team of copysts in the Publishing company I work for (in Italy), some are privately experimenting with Dorico but no one is using it for the job, they say it's not ready yet. Still Finale, Sibelius and in some cases Score are the softwares used.


----------



## Daniel S. (Jul 5, 2022)

Dorico is increasingly being used in the art music publishing world now, with large publishers such as Schott Music, Boosey & Hawkes, and Chester Music all choosing to originate projects in Dorico – for example, Schott's new reduced version of Orff's "Carmina Burana" was originated in Dorico:

https://www.schott-music.com/en/preview/viewer/index/?idx=NTU2NTI1&idy=556525&dl=0
Many smaller publishing houses, such as Fennica Gehrman in Finland, are also choosing to use Dorico for most of their new origination. Music publishing is a conservative business and it takes time for them to adopt new software platforms; as in the commercial music world, adoption is often driven by the tools used by the people doing the original work. For example, some of Chester's composers actively prefer Dorico over other software, and so they submit their works to Chester in Dorico format, so the publisher then uses Dorico for those publications.

In the commercial music world, Dorico has been used on a number of big productions – Alan Silvestri uses it for all his sketching, for example, including the forthcoming live action "Pinocchio" movie, but typically those sketches end up as Finale files when prepared for copying. Some productions, such as "The Prom", the 2020 Netflix movie, have been completely orchestrated and prepared in Dorico. And there will be more to come – we are talking to one music prep house at the moment about a large-scale orchestral project that will be Dorico from end to end.

Even though Dorico is already as mature as both Sibelius and Finale in almost every way that matters, because it has been on the market only five years or so, and in truth has probably only been able to match the established players in all of those important ways for the last two or so years, it's not surprising that it hasn't yet overtaken them in the publishing and commercial music worlds.

Despite its many benefits, there are many professionals out there who are able to do excellent work with the existing tools, and the path of least resistance – whether you are preparing the next beautiful urtext edition or churning out super-legible parts for the recording session tomorrow morning – is to stick with the tools you know and have grown to rely upon.

Our challenge is to make the advantages of using Dorico so great that it's worth overcoming the inertia of that existing comfort and reliance. I think we are doing that in lots of ways, but while we can shout about all of those advantages, we can't force people to actually try a project in anger and have the patience to overcome the initial issues with working with a new tool so that they can enjoy them.


----------



## Robin (Jul 5, 2022)

Rob said:


> they say it's not ready yet


This keeps popping up quite often in such discussions but I really wonder what exactly they feel is missing. Did you ever get any specifics on this? At latest since version 4 Dorico is perfectly capable of creating "industry standard" orchestral scores and parts for film/game scoring unless you need more modernist notation (which currently is harder to fake in Dorico than Sib) or some very specific things.

I have made the switch from Sib to Dorico with version 3.0 about 3 years ago and have done quite a few full orchestral projects for media in it without any problems since then. Just recently, I needed to go back to Sib for a project because the entire team worked on it and coming (back) to Sib from this way it was striking how limited it is compared to Dorico. In spite of me having used Sib for 15+ years before I made the switch to Dorico, it took me about twice as much time to get to the same notation result in Sibelius than it would have taken me in Dorico.

But as Daniel says, the industry is slow and many seasoned orchestrators don't have the time to retool, so I think it's more of a generational issue but I have no doubt that Dorico will become industy standard in the forseeable future.


----------



## Rob (Jul 5, 2022)

Robin said:


> But as Daniel says, the industry is slow and many seasoned orchestrators don't have the time to retool, so I think it's more of a generational issue


yes I think this is the point... add to that that the majority of publications we deal with is contemporary classical operas and concert pieces, with custom notations and things like staves revolving like spirals...


----------



## Daniel S. (Jul 5, 2022)

Yes, I think when people say "Dorico isn't ready yet", what they most often mean is, "I'm not ready for Dorico yet". It's much easier to assume that the tool isn't fit for purpose rather than to do the work to determine that for real with practical experience.


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 5, 2022)

I know this is not going to happen but I’d love if Dorico had some tailored bespoke orchestral library like Staffpad has or what Musescore keeps promising for version 4 (I will believe it when I see it). I know the templates are great using existing libraries but one can dream eh?


----------



## Luke W (Jul 5, 2022)

I'm a Nashville engraver/arranger who's used Finale for 31 years. The only reason I'd switch to Dorico is if my clients began asking for Dorico files. Until I start losing work for staying with Finale, I can't justify learning a new program. 

I attended Daniel's info session here in Nashville way back when it was first released. Even version one without chords or even repeats(!) was clearly a product with a modern engine under the hood that intuitively approached the work as music, not desktop publishing. I wish I had a reason to switch to Dorico. But I have no clients who've asked me to switch, so it would just be an investment of the purchase price and lots of time to learn a new program without any financial return.

I feel for Daniel, because they're building a better mousetrap. If they're giving it to colleges and students, they have a shot at the next generation. But I can't think of a marketing angle or incentive they could offer me to change horses after 31 years. Only the demands of the market could push me there.


----------



## Robin (Jul 5, 2022)

I can relate to your attitude but I think you're seeing the switch too much as only switching to something newer and shinier, which is not the full story. For me the incentive to switch was that I was seeing the radical time saving that I would get from Dorico vs Sibelius. In the field of media scoring/orchestration, Dorico has allowed me to increase my output rate or getting to the same result with less work which in my opinion is way more worth than the money you spend on the software and time to learn it.


----------



## Luke W (Jul 5, 2022)

Depending on your work, I agree speed could be a reason to switch. But if I still have to convert files back into Finale before sending it to clients, then convert back to Dorico if they return it for corrections - that's not speedy. And it's a sure-fire method for corrupting files. So until clients move to Dorico, I need to stay with Finale to be an efficient member of the team, rather than a source of potential issues.

Sounds like you're scoring for media - not engraving for publishers. If that's the case, I could definitely see the jump to Dorico making sense, particularly if you're doing midi mockups. I think Dorico is pointed to the future in a way Sib and Finale are not. I'm glad it's an effective tool for you!


----------



## JJP (Jul 5, 2022)

Daryl said:


> I think the bottom line is that whatever the orchestrators deliver is what the copyists will use. The only actual copying that goes on these days tends to be from orchestrators who still use pencil and paper.


There is quite a bit of copying that is done by places that genuinely care about consistent quality of the parts and efficient rehearsals and recordings. 

Most of our work is scoring for media or live performance. Regardless of the format sent by an orchestrator, we do all the copying in our preferred program to ensure a consistent look. We import everything into our Finale template. I have regularly worked on projects where we receive multiple formats from various orchestrators for the same production (Finale, Sibelius, & hand-written). We standardize everything to ensure that performers don't have to look at changing parts from cue to cue. We also proofread every single note on every part before the performers see it to ensure accuracy and consistency in labelling, sizing, etc., to conform with our in-house standards. This sometimes also enables us to catch orchestrator errors before the music is on the stand.

It pains me to hear that some music prep folks don't take this kind of pride in their work these days. Performers have noticed. It makes their jobs harder.


----------



## bryla (Jul 5, 2022)

Every project I work for is assuming Sibelius is standard still. I was on the same project Robin described and I was not even asked what I used 

I use Dorico on my own from time to time and if I were new to this I would choose Dorico and play the waiting game. Right now it's not in demand and the output of Sibelius and Finale is just as fine.


----------



## JJP (Jul 5, 2022)

I should also add that our template and style has evolved over 20 years to make sight-reading as easy as possible for performers. We've tweaked all sorts of things such as line thickness, notehead sizes, note spacing allotments, font specifics, placement of various expressions. These settings differ from many of the defaults given by notation programs.

The question with any notation program is efficiency once you step outside the default workflow. We do things a bit differently to get the results we need. Even things like parts being linked to a score can be cumbersome when multiple people work simultaneously on the same cue, or if the parts have settings for a look that is significantly different from the score. There are a number of under-the-hood things that most people don't consider when dealing with larger teams or the needs of specific workflows.


----------



## bryla (Jul 5, 2022)

Exactly! I've frequently been asked what program I use because they didn't recognize it. Line thickness, spacing and fonts can make it go a long way!


----------



## ptram (Jul 5, 2022)

dcoscina said:


> I’d love if Dorico had some tailored bespoke orchestral library like Staffpad has


Wondering if Iconica can be considered this library.

Paolo


----------



## Robin (Jul 5, 2022)

JJP said:


> We've tweaked all sorts of things such as line thickness, notehead sizes, note spacing allotments, font specifics, placement of various expressions.


I regularly cry out in pain when I see sightreading scores/parts delivered in the most basic default settings of their scoring software by "orchestrators" who wonder why the mood in the orchestra is not as they expected.


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 5, 2022)

ptram said:


> Wondering if Iconica can be considered this library.
> 
> Paolo


I'd love to see a Berlin Orchestra Berklee template at least, for the time being. It doesn't have a mass of articulations but it would be fine. Ideally NotePerformer 4 will make huge strides towards realism. to be honest, when I'm using Dorico, the purpose is to compose for real musicians so I'm not too obsessed with realism. Down the line, however, it would be amazing to chuck my dAWs and just use Dorico for ALL music output.


----------



## Robin (Jul 5, 2022)

dcoscina said:


> I'd love to see a Berlin Orchestra Berklee template at least, for the time being. It doesn't have a mass of articulations but it would be fine. Ideally NotePerformer 4 will make huge strides towards realism. to be honest, when I'm using Dorico, the purpose is to compose for real musicians so I'm not too obsessed with realism. Down the line, however, it would be amazing to chuck my dAWs and just use Dorico for ALL music output.


There is a downloadable expression map for Berklee: https://blog.dorico.com/resources/ (scroll down to Playback Templates)


----------



## JJP (Jul 5, 2022)

Robin said:


> I regularly cry out in pain when I see sightreading scores/parts delivered in the most basic default settings of their scoring software by "orchestrators" who wonder why the mood in the orchestra is not as they expected.


Most of the time if orchestrators are delivering their own parts for a session where things need to be sight-read, you can assume there will be plenty of reasons to cry. 

Let us all raise a glass to the money and time lost to poor part copying by people who thought software would do the work for them. Let us raise one more to the unfortunate performers who were blamed for bad performances that were result of poor orchestration or copying.

I also realize I've completely derailed this thread. I'll take my leave. 🚪


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 5, 2022)

Robin said:


> There is a downloadable expression map for Berklee: https://blog.dorico.com/resources/ (scroll down to Playback Templates)


Thanks! Surprised I didn’t see that!


----------



## Arbee (Jul 5, 2022)

Robin said:


> I regularly cry out in pain when I see sightreading scores/parts delivered in the most basic default settings of their scoring software by "orchestrators" who wonder why the mood in the orchestra is not as they expected.


I learnt very early in my career that hiring a good copyist will put the orchestra in a much better mood, and make a tough sight reading challenge much less intimidating.


----------



## daychase (Jul 6, 2022)

Luke W said:


> Sounds like you're scoring for media - not engraving for publishers. If that's the case, I could definitely see the jump to Dorico making sense, particularly if you're doing midi mockups.


How would Studio One's score editor compare to Dorico for this use case (edit: for the purpose of composing music in notation without the intent to have printable music for performers, to be clear), out of curiosity?


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 6, 2022)

daychase said:


> How would Studio One's score editor compare to Dorico for this use case, out of curiosity?


not even close... seriously. Maybe Notion but even that has pretty basic print and layout parameters. If you intend to have charts played, don't rely on a DAW notation printout.


----------



## Luke W (Jul 7, 2022)

daychase said:


> How would Studio One's score editor compare to Dorico for this use case (edit: for the purpose of composing music in notation without the intent to have printable music for performers, to be clear), out of curiosity?


Maybe someone who's doing this specific thing - composing with notation input without planning to print the music for players - can comment? I'm always writing notes for live players to read, so I'm doing a different thing. But my understanding of Dorico is that it's ultimately about printing music, but with a more compositional approach than an engraving approach. So if you're never going to print for players, maybe stick with a DAW?


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 7, 2022)

Luke W said:


> Maybe someone who's doing this specific thing - composing with notation input without planning to print the music for players - can comment? I'm always writing notes for live players to read, so I'm doing a different thing. But my understanding of Dorico is that it's ultimately about printing music, but with a more compositional approach than an engraving approach. So if you're never going to print for players, maybe stick with a DAW?


Dorico is much superior if one plans to use notation to create music. DAWs notation editors are ok- hey, I love Studio One and use it all the time, but for anything where note input is notation based, I jump to Dorico. DAWs are clumsy by comparison. My 2 cents. 

Though I have received review copies of sample libraries, I've shelled out my own dough for both Studio One and Dorico so I have no dog in this hunt. Just my experience using both apps the OP mentioned.


----------



## Page Lyn Turner (Jul 7, 2022)

I know three composers who purchased Dorico but they have no time to learn it due to deadlines and big body of work already in Finale/Sibelius, they felt they had to buy it! It seems with all these MIDI capabilities and as it's future-proof composers appreciate this software, it's generational as someone already has mentioned; for a beginner composer I'd suggest Dorico.


----------



## dcoscina (Jul 7, 2022)

Page Lyn Turner said:


> I know three composers who purchased Dorico but they have no time to learn it due to deadlines and big body of work already in Finale/Sibelius, they felt they had to buy it! It seems with all these MIDI capabilities and as it's future-proof composers appreciate this software, it's generational as someone already has mentioned; for a beginner composer I'd suggest Dorico.


yes and no. I'm in my mid-50s, have been using music software since the late 80s and did quite a few scores in Encore in the 90s. If I was constantly working in a print house, I would agree that Dorico would be a bit of an undertaking to learn, especially when time is money. But, for composing outside of media where one has a little more time to learn new tech, I've found the time spent well worth it and could not fathom going back to Sibelius, even though I just finished a job proofing a full scorebook and had to work with Sibelius for it.


----------



## gzapper (Jul 8, 2022)

JJP said:


> I should also add that our template and style has evolved over 20 years to make sight-reading as easy as possible for performers. We've tweaked all sorts of things such as line thickness, notehead sizes, note spacing allotments, font specifics, placement of various expressions. These settings differ from many of the defaults given by notation programs.
> 
> The question with any notation program is efficiency once you step outside the default workflow. We do things a bit differently to get the results we need. Even things like parts being linked to a score can be cumbersome when multiple people work simultaneously on the same cue, or if the parts have settings for a look that is significantly different from the score. There are a number of under-the-hood things that most people don't consider when dealing with larger teams or the needs of specific workflows.


I can see how your house wouldn't move platforms the way most studios won't move away from pro tools. 

But I can also see Dorico taking the smaller parts of the market, people like me who do notation as one small piece of my output. Its only when more composers start submitting Dorico files to you that you'd likely even get a copy to compare outputs to xml exports. 

I can see advantages in the Dorico workflow that may or may not help bigger projects, multiple pieces or 'flows' within a single file, ability to import, export and apply different style and playback parameters and the very powerful multiple layouts attached to scores and parts. That I imagine could be a massive timesaver on team projects. But I have no idea where the actual flexibility and final output quality of the program lies for your specific needs. 

I'll keep my pre subscription copy of Sibelius alive for working with others but I don't think I'd ever want to compose in anything other than Dorico now.


----------



## dtoub (Jul 9, 2022)

Personally, as a composer who doesn't use a publisher nor has any need for "industry standards" (whatever TF that is), I would not count Finale out. I have a lot of respect for Dorico and if I were starting out I probably would strongly consider it. But my personal affection is for Finale since it's handled pretty much everything I've thrown at it over several decades, including my early 12-tone stuff and my more trademark minimalist stuff. As with all software it has some speed bumps along the way (mostly with playback), and it does have a learning curve (which I'm told is also true of Dorico and Sibelius). And some code and UX is getting stale. But from the perspective of an independent new music composer who doesn't earn $ for it, it really has a lot to offer. Just my $0.02.


----------



## Jett Hitt (Jul 9, 2022)

I’ve been a Finale user for thirty years, and I can assure you that it is all but dead. It’ll hang on for a while just because it’s so entrenched, but for all intents and purposes, it has ceased to be developed. They haven’t added anything meaningful to it in fifteen years. Dorico is the future. There’ll be growing pains, but in a decade, it’ll be king.


----------



## Bendico (Nov 13, 2022)

I understand that full time copyists and engravers need to stick with their current tools. Still, as a musician, composer and 25 years Finale user, I would encourage everybody to spend a week or so on Dorico. To get a feeling of how the future of music notation is going to look like, and maybe some ideas for how you and your company could plan for an even more productive and efficient workflow.

I generally spend maybe half the time entering a score in Dorico than in Finale. I make a lot fewer errors in Dorico because I can focus on entering the music instead of fiddling around clicking and moving the mouse, opening plugin dialog boxes, etc. Once the score is done, I will go on with the parts. Because of Dorico’s meticulously designed layout and notation algorithms, they’re basically ready. Tweaking them will take me maybe 1/10 the time when doing it in Dorico compared to Finale. Again I’m doing much fewer mistakes because Dorico let’s me focus on the music. Oh, and before I send the 40 part score to the conductor, I need to condense it: I create a few custom condensing groups and check “Condensing” in the menu, and viola.

I’m also a software engineer. And Finale is by far the worst user experience of any software I have used. I tried Sibelius, but at that time, there were complex notation I couldn’t find a way to do with it. And the UI wasn’t exactly revolutionary either. No great alternatives in sight, so I stuck with Finale for a looong time. Spending countless nightly hours fiddling with ties, slurs, articulation, dynamics aligning, staff sizing, getting rid of orphaned systems, in every part and score. Then came Dorico. From version 3 I realized I’m never going back. It’s a beautifully and cleverly designed software that makes life as an arranger and composer so much easier. And if someone needs to get my work into Finale, I send them a Music XML. (And a link to download the evaluation version of Dorico


----------



## maximuss (Nov 14, 2022)

I am going to wait for Note performer 4 before I make any investments in a new library and equipment. Hopefully they will deliver broadcast quality instruments so I don't have to waste so much time producing mockups. I think the sample library biz is too confusing. Not one library delivers everything so you have to have multiple libraries. Then you have to blend them and do all the fancy audio engineering to make it work and you are forever tweaking to get it right, which I cannot do because I don't have the knowledge or time. I have to focus on composing and orchestrations for clients.


----------



## ptram (Nov 14, 2022)

Rob said:


> contemporary classical operas and concert pieces, with custom notations and things like staves revolving like spirals


Isn't custom notation easy to do in Dorico? I've not been using Finale for decades, so I don't know if it still has an advantage in this area. What I really like, in Dorico, is that you have all the SMuFL sets at hand reach when creating new symbols.

Also, you can import SVG graphic, so you should have everything, ready to print at the highest quality thanks to SVG being vector graphic.

Spiral-like staves were one of the impressive examples proposed by Finale. But wasn't it made by importing an image? Or can it be made with parameters? If it is the former, it should be something easy to do in Dorico, by importing an image in a frame.

Paolo


----------

