Piano Pete
Senior Member
With what I want in a notation software, I am sure Dorico will get around to it eventually. From what I have been told about the first versions of Finale and Sibelius, they were not much to look at either.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dorico 2 - scoring to video
- Thread starter bryla
- Start date
Are you suggesting that Dorico Pro 2 is not much to look at? Just curious as to some of the reasons. I for one would like tablature but many of the other features have surpassed what is included in the current mature versions of Sibelius and Notion.With what I want in a notation software, I am sure Dorico will get around to it eventually. From what I have been told about the first versions of Finale and Sibelius, they were not much to look at either.
Piano Pete
Senior Member
On the contrary, I think it is something to keep a watchful eye on!
For me, it is not yet in a state where I would be able to comfortably leave Finale behind and do all my work within it. Yes, Finale takes some work to do certain things; however, with my shortcuts, templates, plug-ins, and years of experience with it, I have access to everything I could want, and I can tweak a score to any house's style very quickly. Also most jobs require it or Sibelius, so there is that.
Dorico is missing some core functionality that I need to do my work, and I am sure that they'll get around to adding it in! There are still some standard formatting features that I and many others would love to see. In all honesty, I am a little confused why certain notation elements havent made it in yet when these were requested by so many engravers from the get-go at several of the original demo events. (There is a lovely rant about this somewhere on one of the engraving sites, but I cannot remember where it is). There are many engravers who want to jump ship from both Finale and Sibelius, but we are tied to the standard features that we need. If they had taken a lot of the professional feedback from the onset, they may have had more converts from that percentage of the user-base population. Now, do not get me wrong, I completely understand that implementing even the simplest formatting options may take more time in Dorico since they have unique, modern methods to input information more intuitively-- hence my comment of the original versions of Finale and Sibelius. I am sure they'll get there, but until then, they may not have as many engraving houses dedicate their resources towards their product.
Honestly, I am curious if this was a strategic choice, as it seems that they got a lot of younger, mainstream musicians grabbing it out of the gates. Maybe if they had gone straight for the professionals' requests, they may not have had the same amount of early adopters since the number of "professional" engravers is relatively small in comparison, and the priorities between the professional and mainstream consumers do not always line up exactly. This is just a personal curiosity; I definitely do not have that answer!
That aside, I love the features they are adding, so for now, I'll be on the sidelines waiting to jump in. I may actually pick up a license to start learning it for that day that I can finally leave MakeMusic behind for my professional work. Honestly, what company abandons phone support while also closing their own forum? Cubase is my main DAW workhorse, so it will be nice working in similar environments. Additionally, between Steinberg and MakeMusic, Steinberg has a better current track-record of actually updating their software features. MakeMusic seems to drag their feet to fix even the smallest bugs.
Finale and Sibelius have been coasting for awhile now, and as soon as Dorico fills in the checkboxes of "standard" features, and hopefully current plugin developers support it (fingers crossed), the two notation giants will probably lose a lot of customers. Until that day, I'll wait.
(I can live with a dongle; however, since I tend to do more engraving on the road than midi-mockups, I would prefer if they would enable computer based licensing.)
For me, it is not yet in a state where I would be able to comfortably leave Finale behind and do all my work within it. Yes, Finale takes some work to do certain things; however, with my shortcuts, templates, plug-ins, and years of experience with it, I have access to everything I could want, and I can tweak a score to any house's style very quickly. Also most jobs require it or Sibelius, so there is that.
Dorico is missing some core functionality that I need to do my work, and I am sure that they'll get around to adding it in! There are still some standard formatting features that I and many others would love to see. In all honesty, I am a little confused why certain notation elements havent made it in yet when these were requested by so many engravers from the get-go at several of the original demo events. (There is a lovely rant about this somewhere on one of the engraving sites, but I cannot remember where it is). There are many engravers who want to jump ship from both Finale and Sibelius, but we are tied to the standard features that we need. If they had taken a lot of the professional feedback from the onset, they may have had more converts from that percentage of the user-base population. Now, do not get me wrong, I completely understand that implementing even the simplest formatting options may take more time in Dorico since they have unique, modern methods to input information more intuitively-- hence my comment of the original versions of Finale and Sibelius. I am sure they'll get there, but until then, they may not have as many engraving houses dedicate their resources towards their product.
Honestly, I am curious if this was a strategic choice, as it seems that they got a lot of younger, mainstream musicians grabbing it out of the gates. Maybe if they had gone straight for the professionals' requests, they may not have had the same amount of early adopters since the number of "professional" engravers is relatively small in comparison, and the priorities between the professional and mainstream consumers do not always line up exactly. This is just a personal curiosity; I definitely do not have that answer!
That aside, I love the features they are adding, so for now, I'll be on the sidelines waiting to jump in. I may actually pick up a license to start learning it for that day that I can finally leave MakeMusic behind for my professional work. Honestly, what company abandons phone support while also closing their own forum? Cubase is my main DAW workhorse, so it will be nice working in similar environments. Additionally, between Steinberg and MakeMusic, Steinberg has a better current track-record of actually updating their software features. MakeMusic seems to drag their feet to fix even the smallest bugs.
Finale and Sibelius have been coasting for awhile now, and as soon as Dorico fills in the checkboxes of "standard" features, and hopefully current plugin developers support it (fingers crossed), the two notation giants will probably lose a lot of customers. Until that day, I'll wait.
(I can live with a dongle; however, since I tend to do more engraving on the road than midi-mockups, I would prefer if they would enable computer based licensing.)
Share:
