# Finale 10



## alphabetgreen (Jun 25, 2009)

I was just on the verge of buying Finale 9 when I was notified of the arrival of Finale 10 in two weeks.

My needs are this. I require a sophisticated notation programme to accommodate large and complex orchestral scores, with parallel part writing. I'm choosing Finale for financial reasons (I don't qualify for education status) because many pro-composers have said that Sibelius and Finale are as good as each other (with Sibelius having a slight edge). It just depends what you are used to because their operation methods are different (yet equal). So seeing as I have no experience with either, and Finale is significantly cheaper, that's my option.

Are there any dedicated Finale users on this forum willing to advise me whether it is worth holding out for Finale 10 and paying the more expensive price, or should I just comb the internet for Finale 9, bearing in mind my requirements as stated above? I won't be using the audio output (I have Cubase for that), just the printing capabilities.

Oh, and does one know of any dealers making special offers on Finale (either 9 or 10)?

I look forward to hearing from you as I'm on the verge of sending out scores to various institutions and the lack of a notation programme is severely holding me back.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## c0mp0ser (Jun 25, 2009)

I use both Finale and Sibelius. When I get a gig that requires me to use Sibelius, it's like a breath of fresh air.
Not sure what the new version 10 is like but in order to use finale quickly and crank through scores, you need Quickeys to switch between tools. There are no shortcut keys built into the program to switch between the dynamics tool and the mass mover tool for instance. You have to actually click the icon if you don't have Quickeys set up. Extremely inefficient.
Sibelius is just far more intuitive and "musical". And now with version 6 out, with the new magnetic layout feature thing, there are like no more collisions in the scores or parts.


----------



## c0mp0ser (Jun 25, 2009)

Having said that. It's just important to know both in my opinion if you're a professional. You never know what your clients will prefer.


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jun 25, 2009)

c0mp0ser @ Thu 25 Jun said:


> Having said that. It's just important to know both in my opinion if you're a professional. You never know what your clients will prefer.



I didn't realise the output differed that much. I thought it was just the operating procedures that were different.

I know what you're saying about Sibelius and if I could raise the cash, I'd go for it, but £200 is a big difference where price is concerned.

Thanks,

Simon


----------



## rgames (Jun 25, 2009)

A few comments (I use Finale):

First, I believe you're saying you don't currently have a notation program. If that's the case, and you're sure you want Finale, then I don't know why you wouldn't just get Finale 10. You can probably buy 2009 right now and get the update for free because it's so close to the release date.

Keep in mind that Finale updates are EXTREMELY incremental (i.e. almost no difference year-to-year). I upgraded from Finale 2000 to Finale 2006 and couldn't really tell a difference...! Then 2007 got linked parts (a huge time saver) so I did that upgrade and it's what I use right now. I've looked at the 08 and 09 versions and they look pretty much the same. So, in the years 2000 - 2009, I see one added feature worthy of an update.

Most of what Finale has focused on in recent years is incorporating the Garritan library and trying to turn it into a sequencer. I REALLY wish they would just skip that and fix a bunch of bugs that have been around for ages... Finale sucks as a sequencer. Period. I wish they would stop developing that element of it. They're losing their professional user base and catering to the amateurs on that.

Also note that Sibelius is more widely used in the UK and Europe - Finale moreso in the US. That's my experience, anyway.

If you're trying to decide between Finale and Sibelius, I can't help you there because I've never used Sibelius for anything other than a demo. Finale is quirky, a lot of the features are buggy, and it doesn't feel like a modern application. But it can get the job done.

rgames


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jun 25, 2009)

rgames @ Thu 25 Jun said:


> A few comments (I use Finale):
> 
> First, I believe you're saying you don't currently have a notation program. If that's the case, and you're sure you want Finale, then I don't know why you wouldn't just get Finale 10. You can probably buy 2009 right now and get the update for free because it's so close to the release date.
> 
> ...



That's a great help. Thanks.

Simon


----------



## rgames (Jun 25, 2009)

I hadn't looked at 2010 so I just went to the site and checked this out:

http://www.finalemusic.com/Finale/features_chart.aspx

That page shows all the features added since 2006. Again, most are related to turning Finale into a sequencer. The rest are very minor changes except for linked parts. I don't see anything in the 09-10 update that means much to me, so if the 09 version is much cheaper, I'd say go for that one if you want to go with Finale.

Again, Finale can get the job done. But not always in the way you might think. Several times a year I wind up stumped and go over to the forum and get some help. A lot of the tools don't behave the way they're supposed to but there are almost always workarounds.

rgames


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jun 25, 2009)

..and there's always help when you need it? Have you come across a problem that you haven't been able to rectify as far as notating your own score is concerned?

I'm gonna have a scoot around the net and look for Finale 9 then. The linked parts is extremely important to me. Does Finale 8 have them (just in case some old stock might be hidden away on E-bay or something)?


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jun 25, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Thu 25 Jun said:


> ..and there's always help when you need it? Have you come across a problem that you haven't been able to rectify as far as notating your own score is concerned?
> 
> I'm gonna have a scoot around the net and look for Finale 9 then. The linked parts is extremely important to me. Does Finale 8 have them (just in case some old stock might be hidden away on E-bay or something)?



Sorry, just had a look at your link and Finale 8 do do linked parts.

I've just found a pretty good deal here, whaddya think?

http://www.northernmusiconline.co.uk/pr ... nale_2009/


----------



## rgames (Jun 25, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Thu Jun 25 said:


> ..and there's always help when you need it? Have you come across a problem that you haven't been able to rectify as far as notating your own score is concerned?



Definitely not always help when you need it. But the Finale forum has, eventually, resolved almost all of my issues. I've contacted official Finale support but they're pretty useless. I think the only issue that still has me stumped is how to handle enharmonics in the score vs. the parts, e.g. if you want to use the enharmonic in the part so it's easier to read for monophonc instruments but leave the proper spelling in the score so the conducter sees the intent within the harmonic structure.

Another one that had a seriously flawed workaround was handling a cadenza that extended across several systems. Finale is supposed to have a tool that does that but it doesn't work (verified by the forum members). The solution was to make a bunch of measures with wacky time signatures then hide the time signatures and the barlines.

There have been others that I don't recall offhand...

I'm not certain if Sibelius is any better - maybe some else can chime in.

rgames


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jun 25, 2009)

rgames @ Thu 25 Jun said:


> alphabetgreen @ Thu Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> > ..and there's always help when you need it? Have you come across a problem that you haven't been able to rectify as far as notating your own score is concerned?
> ...



Hell, I can imagine wanting to change the enharmonics for the parts to make them easier for the players. You see, this is why I have to do all this research before spending several hundred dollars on a programme. I bet there's another thousand dilemmas out there that people have come across that makes a computer programme less versatile than a pen and paper. I'm not going to let that problem (above, about the enharmonics) dissuade me from buying it though. If the crunch comes, I'll make it readable for the player and include a written miscellaneous note in the conducter's preface to the score.

Thanks again,

P.S It would be interesting for someone else to chime in about Sibelius... agreed.


----------



## rgames (Jun 25, 2009)

alphabetgreen @ Thu Jun 25 said:


> makes a computer programme less versatile than a pen and paper



Leere you're getting 600,000 deaths from, not that many people have died in the Iraq war. Not even close. Check synthetic's post, he has a tally of the deaths so far. [/quote]


I guess you're obviously not factoring in the civilian deaths....[/quote]

Actually i heard figures above one million and it was a serious source. And one thing we know is we cant trust the military or the mean stream medias in the US.  ú þÎg -Re: BUSH's latest "statement"......ÄA study by The Lancet estimated 655,000 Iraqi deaths


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jun 25, 2009)

No problem. As long as it CAN do most things. I find what you're saying true of Cubase as well. There are still things that I'm learning about that programme, and some of it isn't in the instructions either. It also has it's weird quirks that you cannot justify for a moment. For example, on the edit page, when I try to move the play cursor backwards to work on a previous section, Cubase suddenly widens the score path for no reason, and I have to reset it afterwards. Also, on the tempo track page, when I try to alter the time signature from 2/4 to 3/4, it'll jump to 4/4 without any given reason. Therefore I have to actually write the time signature in the box provided. 

But that's life, isn't it? :lol:


----------



## nikolas (Jun 27, 2009)

I'm a Finale user (2009). One word of caution on Finale 2009! It was NOT meant to run on 64-bit systems. It's on 32-bits, which means that, although you don't need the extra RAM, since you have Cubase, you still might run on trouble with the installation procedure! You see there are code bits inside the installer (I believe anyways) which are left from 16-bit installation, and this means that if you have more than 2 GB of RAM it fails to see it and you run into trouble.

For the record I had to open my tower, physically take out 2 GB of RAM to reach 1 and then install Finale, only to put RAM back on.

No idea if Finale 10 will be better to that.

Other than that, honestly I've been using Finale 2000 for like 10 years (which makes sense since I got to Finale 2009 immediately), and while there are a few differences, in all honesty 95% of them are in sequencing. The same way that finale 2000 worked, it's almost the same now. Yes you get parts, you get some time saving thingys but nothing else.

BTW, Uk is Sibelius land, as far as I know (from uni and all that), but I just couldn't cope with learning a new notation program THAT WELL!


----------



## Robin (Jun 27, 2009)

I'm a Sibelius user and have used finale several times and heard colleagues speaking about their expierience with Finale.

I'd say you should go for Sibelius, as at least in my experience, the learning curve is faster and the very extensive reference book that comes with the programme is extremely useful. Also, I have to say that the Sibelius online forum for users is awesome. There are constantly people from Sibelius replying directly to questions, sometimes within minutes and when they aren't there, expierienced users will reply. Haven't seen a question unanswered there in ages.

I tried the finale demo of several versions over the years and was pretty annoyed only after a few minutes struggling with all the very confusing menus and tools and things you "can't do that way, because you have to do em this way".

However, it still depends on personal taste I think, some people might want to say that Finale works better for them and it probably does. It's like the old debate Mac vs. PC. 

Just sharing my experience here...


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jun 27, 2009)

Nikolas

OK, thanks. I have 32-bit OS, but 2.5 gigs of RAM. Will that give me problems?

Robin

I just can't afford Sibelius, simple as that.


----------



## nikolas (Jun 27, 2009)

You shouldn't have any trouble with a 32-bit OS! At least I don't believe so. 

Robin: It's the same here, but from the other side!  I just can't work with Sibelius. I can't even find a way to input notes!  As you say it's like the old debate PC vs Mac somehow... :D


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jun 27, 2009)

nikolas @ Sat 27 Jun said:


> You shouldn't have any trouble with a 32-bit OS! At least I don't believe so.
> 
> Robin: It's the same here, but from the other side!  I just can't work with Sibelius. I can't even find a way to input notes!  As you say it's like the old debate PC vs Mac somehow... :D



I'll be happy enough with Finale 2009 (linked parts are crucial), I reckon. There seems to be enough professional/serious amateur composers that use it, including your good self.

Thanks for the heads up.

Simon


----------



## alphabetgreen (Jul 2, 2009)

Thanks for everybody's help. I've just bought Finale 2010 (just arrived today, but I haven't installed it yet). I managed to get it from the above link (Northern Music) for £345 incl p&p, which is what I was expecting to pay for Finale 2009. Can't be bad. 

Please be prepared for a multitude of questions, although I'll be joining the Finale forum straightaway. :lol: 

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## alphabetgreen (Aug 18, 2009)

nikolas @ Sat 27 Jun said:


> I'm a Finale user (2009). One word of caution on Finale 2009! It was NOT meant to run on 64-bit systems. It's on 32-bits, which means that, although you don't need the extra RAM, since you have Cubase, you still might run on trouble with the installation procedure! You see there are code bits inside the installer (I believe anyways) which are left from 16-bit installation, and this means that if you have more than 2 GB of RAM it fails to see it and you run into trouble.
> 
> For the record I had to open my tower, physically take out 2 GB of RAM to reach 1 and then install Finale, only to put RAM back on.
> 
> ...



Sorry to trouble you again, Nikolas. This learning curve isn't exactly difficult, but it is for me because I am so used to composing on Cubase's score editor and the input methods are so different. It's like buying a new cellphone/mobile from a different company and learning how to write text messages again from scratch, only 1000 times more difficult. I'm finding I'm having to do the tutorials 3 or 4 times over before I even attempt to work on my own material, and it doesn't help that I am still composing with Cubase. That said, I am a tryer and I will suss it eventually.

The question that I wanted to ask you was this. Somebody else said that because of the linked parts, he couldn't enharmonically change one note on an individual part whilst leaving the original note on the conductor's score. That worries me, because my way of working is that I tend to score the conductors music all in C (concert pitch) and transpose the clarinet, trumpet, horn parts as required. Is that possible?


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 3, 2010)

I don't import a lot of MIDI files into any of the notation programs. I just compose from them using their built in sounds because I eventually will get musicians to play the parts. I will give it a try and see if that happens though....


----------



## alphabetgreen (Feb 3, 2010)

Thanks Dcoscina.


----------



## raweber (Apr 16, 2010)

alphabetgreen @ Tue Aug 18 said:


> The question that I wanted to ask you was this. Somebody else said that because of the linked parts, he couldn't enharmonically change one note on an individual part whilst leaving the original note on the conductor's score. That worries me, because my way of working is that I tend to score the conductors music all in C (concert pitch) and transpose the clarinet, trumpet, horn parts as required. Is that possible?



Absolutely. In your master score you want to choose "Display in Concert Pitch" in the Document Menu, and in the Linked part turn that off. Only caveat is to make sure that when you set up the staff for that instrument, you told it that it is a transposing instrument (automatically handled if you use the Wizard to set up your score).


----------



## dp_audio (Apr 17, 2010)

I'm going to pick up Sibelius soon. Magnetic layout is enough reason for me. That's always been a pet peeve for me in Finale -- that I have to eyeball stuff and knowing it's not aligned. The ability to use my own VIs through sound sets is also nice. Plus, I get a sickening discount on it through Berklee.


----------

