Talk:Finale (scorewriter)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Examples

Why was the midi sample file removed? I think it's appropriate to have one to show what could be done with this kind of software. --Dungodung 07:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, I don't think the midi sample added anything, for two reasons: (1) Finale is primarily a scorewriter, not a MIDI editor, so if we want to demonstrate its main purpose and capabilities, we should include a sample printed score, not a MIDI file; (2) the midi file was nothing to do with Finale per se, so if it belongs anywhere, it belongs on the Scorewriter page. (That's just my 2p's worth, though - I don't feel particularly strongly about it.) Wombat 08:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

A sample printed score would show the software's end product, which I think we should do, but I think, IMHO, that we should also show an intermediate stage towards the end product. So I've added a screenshot. Del arte 7 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)

I've added a .ogg file showing off Finale 2006's Garritan and Human Playback capabilities. Moltovivace 20:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Finale annoyances

For staccato dots, an articulation library has to be loaded.

This annoyed me a lot in the past, but I think it's been fixed now. It was a pain to find that articulation library. But it seems Finale 2004c doesn't have that problem, at least not for common articulations like staccato dots. I have yet to find Bruckner's "pike" articulations, though. Del arte 7 July 2005 22:52 (UTC) P.S. The previous heading title of "Finale annoyances" (now "Interface problems") captures perfectly the POV of anyone who has had to use Finale for anything more complicated than Mary had a little lamb. (Of course we need to be NPOV here, though).

I'm quite surprised that this section of the article has survived. Does a critique of bugs and limitations really belong here? If we decide it does, shouldn't we (a) add a summary of Finale's best trumpeted features to balance it out, and (b) do the same for other notation packages? Wombat 11:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

An overview of bugs and limitations is appropriate for any article dealing with a software program. The article on Internet Explorer mentions that browser's security problems and patches. I challenge both of you to list the most common bugs and limitations of Sibelius. Try hard, and your list will still be shorter than the one for Finale. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Many of these so-called "bugs", such as "articulation library loading for staccato markings", are fixed with Finale 2006, so you can expect that list to get shorter and shorter. Either way, those listed are not really bugs. I think all these references to Sibelius should be removed, however. Moltovivace 20:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of the listed features aren't bugs, though some come close (overlapping accidentals, for instance; having been a fairly evangelical born-again Sibelius user for several years now, I was astonished to learn that Finale _still_ has such fundamental problems!). Still, the page shouldn't become a stomping ground for Finale-Sibelius wars, or an opinions forum. If we do include a list of gripes, let's make sure they're encyclopedic. Much more mature articles like Internet Explorer can serve as a useful guide. Wombat 08:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It's good news for most that you don't have to use EDUs (Enigma Duration Units) so much in newer versions of Finale, because most musicians hate having to count anything. I for one don't mind the math, and 512 EDUs = 1 eighth note seems as easy to me as 2 + 2 = 4. Anton Mravcek 23:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, Finale is not perfect by any means, but a factual criticisms section should list actual limitations. Those listed are not current, not highly reported, or intentional design. Here's a breakdown: To move that measure to the previous page requires clicking it with the Mass Edit Tool and pressing the Up arrow. Ties, which actually change the duration, are required on all notes whereas slurs, which indicate expression/performance practice are (generally) not required on all notes of a chord - this was intentional design. An articulation library has been loaded into the shipping default file (and all templates) for at least 10 years - the only way to start a document without an articulation library is to choose the File Menu > New > Document Without Libraries. Cross-layer accidental collision (where accidentals would collide in 2nds if the notes were in different layers) was fixed in Finale 2004 (if "Use cross-layer accidental positioning" is checked in Document Options-Accidentals). Finally, with the help of MusicXML support, Finale is backwards-compatible back to version 2000. I'm not trying to promote nor defend the software, but if this article is to accurately depict the culture of open scrutiny Finale has endured over the years, we should mention that, and perhaps list real high-profile limitations anyone can find easily on MakeMusic's open Finale Forum. Objections? FinaleSpecialist 5:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's not good to dwell on problems from Finale 98. But lots of people are still using Finale 2005, 2004 and maybe even 2003.

The need to load articulation libraries has been solved, at least for any articulation likely to occur in a Beethoven Symphony. But even a Bruckner piece has articulations that Finale doesn't have, like the pike accents.

"(if "Use cross-layer accidental positioning" is checked in Document Options-Accidentals)" Ah, that's often the rub. There's always one option tucked away that might be causing all sorts of problems.

Pictures speak better than words. Here are some snapshots from a PDF print-out of a score I've been entering into Finale. Del arte 23:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

While I find it utterly bizarre that any scorewriter should be even capable of producing results like these without a great deal of deliberate manipulation (it would take a lot of effort to make a Sibelius score look quite so bad, for instance), I suppose the obvious response is that these are not unsurmountable bugs, merely display problems which take extra user effort to correct. The underlying issue is not that Finale isn't capable of producing nice-looking scores, but that it takes rather a lot of cajoling to do so. Wombat 08:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That was with Finale 2004. I entered all the notes, articulations, markings, etc., in Scroll View, using mostly Speedy Entry. I never used the Page Layout tool (though I might have clicked on it accidentally once or twice, perhaps contributing to the "confusing layout problems" mentioned by FinaleSpecialist).

To be fair, though, the three examples are selections from what has turned out to be a 70-page score. Other than these, and the fact that many of the measures of the coda take up a whole page each (though surprisingly, not the final measure, which somehow got crunched) the score looks reasonably neat. Del arte 22:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It takes a lot of cajoling to get nice scores with Finale. My Web browser is smart enough to fill in my home state and zip code on a form. I would expect my scorewriter to be smart enough to move tremolo beams out of the way of noteheads, and to put tempo markings above the flutes' and first violins' staves only. Oh, and smart enough not to crunch bars either. If our friend Delarte here was putting in a Wagner score, imagine how many tremolo stems he'd have to move! Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 17:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

We're not selling Finale here, but we're not selling Sibelius either. And why should we use Finale Forum as the benchmark of what are the program's limitations? I take it everyone here uses or has used Finale and can confirm or debunk any statement in this regard.

I challenge you to cite a better source than the Finale forum for a "Criticisms and known issues" section. If it's a valid criticism, and anyone knows about it, it's on the forum.

I consider the Finale forum suspect because it's hosted on the same website selling the program. Del arte 21:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, Sibelius Sales, Finale doesn't (always) automatically avoid collision of notes and tremolos, Sibelius doesn't automatically avoid collision of notes and slurs. We could go back and forth all day. FinaleSpecialist 5:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Wombat's statement that Finale isn't capable of producing nice-looking scores, but that it takes rather a lot of cajoling to do so sums up perfectly the opinion of the vast majority of people who use Finale. Anton Mravcek 20:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made some changes and would appreciate feedback from everyone here! ta muchly Wombat 11:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The historic quote is "High Learning Curve" not "Overly Difficult to Use." A professional engraver might have gripes with Finale, but would definitely not describe it as "overly difficult to use." On the other hand, new users, (particularly those that are afraid of manuals), can find the number of tools and options overwhelming. (Probably the reason for PrintMusic, SongWiter, Etc.). Also, the EPS export limitation no longer applies due to the recent revisions, so I took the libery of removing it. FinaleSpecialist 5:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Really? As an arranger, I often feel as if the program is targeted towards engravers rather than composers and arrangers. The extensive need for mathematical calculations (such as with EDUs) and the ability to control placement down to the pica are the factors that give me that impression. Del arte 21:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow you Sibelius trolls really know how to lie. Wombat, is your real name Ben Finn?

I've never had to load a library to add a staccato, or any basic articulation in Finale, unless of course I was stupid enough to go and delete my default file.

Wombat and Anton: "Finale isn't capable of producing nice-looking scores, but that it takes rather a lot of cajoling to do so sums up perfectly the opinion of the vast majority of people who use Finale. "

This is flat out BS. How many Finale users do you know? 3 Sibelius employees/power users do not represent the "vast majority of people who use Finale" I know at least 300 Finale users, and I would say that an overwhelming majority of them would disagree with that statement considerably. I know at least a few Sibelius users who say the same thing, because they are stuck with sibelius.

Sibelius is fine if you really don't care what your output looks like, but if you do care, Finale lets you control every aspect of your music, even allowing you to create the things you see above if you really want.

There are UI problems in Sibelius as well. If we want to compare old versions of Finale and Sibelius, let's talk about how copy/past used to work in Sibelius. I remember having to select a region, click the copy button *then* click the paste button and *then* click the destination measures, and don't make the mistake of selecting the destination region before hitting paste, the copy/paste buttons disable.

Another UI thing that drives me nutz about Sibelius: when I click a measure, just what exactly am I doing? I could conceiveably select a note, a measure, or show the insertion point. It's not very clear what I've clicked. Perhaps I should go over to the Sibelius entry and start a list of Sibelius annoyances. I dislike folks who come and speak about things in broad strokes. If it is "Finale Ass-Kissing" to dispel rumors that have a hostile tone, well, I guess I'm an ass-kisser. ----AverageFinaleUser "Stuck With Sibelius"24.94.211.190 09:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Please, do "go over to the Sibelius entry and start a list of Sibelius annoyances." Put them on the article page, I promise I won't chase them to the Talk page. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 18:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Finale annoyances

In order to more easily determine which Finale annoyances are encyclopedic or not, I've organized the list of complaints into a table. 141.217.173.170 21:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a start, but this table is mostly incorrect as pointed out in the new column. If you're working for Finale's competition, please focus on improving that Wiki article. If not, RTFM (Read The Finale Manual) or call Tech Support first. As a proficient long-time Finale user I feel a sort of obligation to the software and it's accurate representation with all the Sibelius trolls running rampant out there. FinaleSpecialist 9:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The manual is extremely confusing. A lot of people I know give up on the manual and just try asking me. Del arte 23:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC) P.S. The people you are calling "Sibelius trolls" are probably people who for some reason or other are stuck using Finale.

Problems	Solutions	Problems with the solutions	Debunk (from FinaleSpecialist)
The last measure of the piece often takes up a whole page, even if it only contains whole notes. It takes work to get that last measure to fit on the previous page.	To move that measure to the previous page requires clicking it with the Mass Edit Tool and pressing the Up arrow.	This solution might cause that last measure to get crunched on to right margin of the preceding page, as in the examples above.	Only if you've changed the default settings will you get a crunch (unchecked Automatic Music Spacing to manually space everything). Is clicking and pressing the up arrow really that much "work"?
While it's easy to put ties on several noteheads of a chord with one keystroke (if they're on the same staff), Finale does not make it easy to do the same for slurs, by default it only allows one notehead of a chord to have a slur.	This is by intentional design.	Plenty of scores of the Romantic era have simultaneous slurred phrases on the same staff.	In the same voice? In a homophonic setting? Even if this were impossible in Finale it wouldn't be in the top 50 gripes.
For staccato dots, an articulation library has to be loaded.	Fixed in Finale 2000. New documents with setup wizard have default articulation library.		Nope. The Finale 3.0 default file (1992) included an Articulation library (take a look).
When two or more notes of different layers on the same staff have accidentals, the accidentals are almost always collided.	Fixed in Finale 2004 (if "Use cross-layer accidental positioning" is checked in Document Options-Accidentals).	This is something the composer/arranger would expect the program to do without being told.	It's checked by default. Finale DOES do this automatically. (It just allows you to adjust it manually if you want to.)
To correctly beam music in compound or irregular meters, Finale has to be told to display one time signature but operate in another. For example, music in 6/8 needs an internal time signature of 3/8 + 3/8 to beam correctly. To figure out internal time signatures, one must often use EDUs, two groups of 1536 EDUs in the 6/8 example. Alternatively, the composer/arranger can manually beam each group of notes.	Not a problem when initial time signature is set up with the setup wizard.	Remains a problem for time changes.	Not so. Look at the visual display of the Time Signature box and be sure you see two dotted quarters (not 6 eighths). It will beam just fine.
Pick-up measure option in wizard takes care of notes but not rests. If there are players in the ensemble silent at the beginning, they will count wrong and come in at the wrong time.	Before extracting the parts, make sure that pick-up rests match the pick-up notes.	This is something the composer/arranger would expect the program to do automatically.	FINALLY! A real issue. They should fix that.
Tremolo beams in double stops collide with noteheads.	With the articulation tool selected, move the tremolo beam out of the way of the notehead.	For a score with a lot of tremolo double stops, this can quickly become tiresome.	Also true. It's a pain.
Finale is incapable of thinking without barlines.	For music without barlines, just hide the time signature, barlines, rests and other trappings of measured music.	The "fake" time signature must still be carefully chosen.	Not so. Set a huge number of beats in the time signature for the whole score, set a measure per line, and check "Position Notes Evenly Across Measure" in Measure Attributes.
Finale does not automatically put a copy of the tempo marking below the double bass staff, as is common in some editions of orchestral music.	Simply create duplicate tempo markings that have no playback effect and are placed below the staff by default.	This is something the composer/arranger would expect the program to do automatically.	Correct. Finale does not do this automatically. (Although you can assign a marking to any combination of staves using a Staff List).
There is no simple way to create trill flat, trill natural or trill sharp signs.			Simple enough. Ctrl-click Custom Smart Shape Tool. Choose flat/natural/sharp trill. Double-click and drag. How hard was that?
Staff optimize tends to remove the wrong staves. (For example, if on a given page, all of the oboe's measures are empty except the last measure of the page, staff optimize will remove the oboe).	Fixed in Finale 2006.		Nope. Want proof? Start a wind quintet (Setup Wizard is easiest), add one note on the last measure of the oboe staff. Page Layout Tool > Page Layout Menu > Optimiza Staff Systems > OK. Optimizes fine. Can you give me steps to reproduce the behavior you described?
Two or more articulations on a single note will collide.			Fair enough.
There is no simple way to create staff sharing (such as is often necessary in harp parts).	Beginning with Finale 2004, there is a plug-in for doing this, called the cross staff plug-in.	One expects the program to do this natively.	Although I can't really "debunk" this, finding the plug-in is really the only difficult part (F1 and search Cross).
Very long slurs dissappear from parts (or only the beginning of the slur shows up, but not the middle nor the end).	Pencil in the missing slur.	One expects the program to print all slurs.	I haven't seen this since Finale 98. Try it now. Steps: Start any multi-staff score and fill top staff with quarter notes. Add a slur from the first to the last note (use Scroll View). Extract the top staff. Slur appears over every system, starting with the first and ending with the last note.
The user manual is unhelpful and confusing.			I learned almost everything I know about Finale from the User Manual :). I'd say it was very helpful.
Finale 2006 can't record an audio file using the Garritan Personal Orchestra.	The program promises a patch in the future that will allow users to do this.		This will be a nice addition. I'm guessing it will arrive in a free update. (There are obviously many workarounds for this anyway.)
Composer's names with certain diacritics can't be entered into either Setup Wizard or File Info (e.g., Antonín Dvořák).	Enter the name without diacritics then use the Text Tool to change the font and enter the diacritics.
The main and flipped versions of an articulation are so close together that some symbols look like a different symbols, leading a user to think Finale doesn't have a particular articulation when in fact it does. (For example, the staccatissimo pikes used in Brahms's First Symphony, various Bruckner works)	Click "Edit" in the articulation selection box to see the main and flipped symbols spaced farther apart.
Finale 2006 now can do midmeasure repeats, but when a midmeasure repeat involves a pick-up measure, there is a hiccup before playing the section the second time.	Rewrite the music using regular whole measure repeats, with first and second endings if necessary.

Annoyances in detail

Hmmm. Well, my only substantive disagreement with Finale Specialist is over the slurs. I engrave choral music and I very often (like, in virtually every score) need to use multiple slurs on single voice chords. It might sound like a minor thing, but Sibelius does this without batting an eyelid, and that's one major reason I switched to Sibelius. Also, your explanation of how to notate unmeasured stuff is a workaround (i.e. it's 'faking'), so that doesn't dispel the criticism that it's a limitation of the program, merely provides a way around it.

With that said, I do share your discomfort with the way this article is going. Having used both programs side-by-side over many years, I know which one I prefer for speed of use, ease of use, intuitiveness, and quality of output. (And it ain't Finale.) But that's beside the point. If we're not careful, the list of gripes in this article will get quite silly. I really don't think we need to get into arguments about whether the program is good enough in this respect or that respect. To my mind, all we need is an NPOV summary of general views about Finale, perhaps highlighting a few differences between it and the competition, both in terms of where it's limited and where it performs well. Wombat 10:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I like having examples. Just having the general view makes me wonder if that's really the case or just the POV of the person who wrote the paragraph.

It's OK if the list of gripes in this Talk page "gets quite silly." That way we can sift through them and pick out the good examples from the examples only very specialised users are likely to notice (e.g., composers of unmeasured music).

I use Finale because I feel I am too old to switch to a different program. There's a kid who tells me I should switch to Sibelius because it's easier to use. But he doesn't give me any examples. Neither does the Sibelius article here at Wikipedia, and I would appreciate it if it would. Anton Mravcek 19:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I too have discomfort with the direction the article is heading. But compensating Finale bashing with Finale ass kissing is not the way to go. When Finale Specialist writes things like "Finale is criticized a lot because it's been around a long time," that sounds more like Finale Apologist. Let the people who put up with Finale on a day-to-day basis write this article. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 17:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I've put up with Finale on a day-to-day basis for over 10 years and remember when it was indeed "difficult to use." The first two versions didn't even ship with a default document! Even as recent as 2002 all the document and program options were jumbled together in chaotic undescriptive submenus and guitar tab required a plug-in! Based on over 15 years of Fianle versions I don't think I'm being unfair by listing "longevity" as a major contributer to Finale's reputation. I'm not selling any software - after all, users of both Finale and Sibelius are the real winners in this competition. I'm just dissappointed to see Finale bashed for things like "for staccatos an articulation library needs to be loaded" - it's just plain wrong. FinaleSpecialist 10:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Staccato dots have been finally taken care of, but still no pike accents (have you taken a look at your user talk page?). And those are not just for Bruckner's music, they appear in the Finale of Brahms's Symphony No. 1 in C minor, too.

Sibelius is probably the best scorewriter for professional music purposes (I've only used a demo version, though, can't afford it). But for creating musical examples for Wikipedia, the best choice is probably GNU Lily Pond. Del arte 23:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The absence of a somewhat rare font character in the default library is a weak benchmark for choosing a software program. Just download the music font that has this character. Engrave an orchestral score in both products (with help from the manuals). Then tell me which one you would like better if you had to do it FOR A LIVING. From what I understand, the norm at Hal Leonard is Sibelius for pop songs, lead sheets, etc., and Finale for classical/orchestral stuff. Both are used by professionals. FinaleSpecialist 23:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

With respect, chaps, I think this discussion is in danger of getting a bit irrelevant. I have as strong feelings as the rest of you about Finale, but we're writing an encyclopedia article here, not putting Finale on trial. The important question is not "Is Finale a good program?" (or even "Is Finale better than Sibelius?"), but "What characteristics of Finale, positive or negative, are deserving of a mention in an encyclopedia article on the subject?". It's useful to discuss Finale's flaws, but the aim of the discussion should be to isolate which particular flaws, or categories of them, belong in the article - not just to amass evidence that Sibelius is the better program.

(PS. Just to ignore my own advice: I do engrave vocal music for a living, on both Finale & Sibelius depending on the commission, and I have no hesitation in plumping for Sibelius as the hands-down winner, with or without the manual. I've not yet found anything that Finale can do that Sibelius can't, though I'm open to correction, and the list of things Sibelius can do natively for which Finale needs a workaround is as long as my arm! Sorry.) Wombat 07:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Finale needs a lot of workarounds is something that is "deserving of a mention in an encyclopedia article on the subject." Two or three examples involving fairly common notation problems (perhaps a Bach chorale, or a Beethoven symphony) should be enough to illustrate the issue to readers who demand examples but don't have the time to read an entire book on the subject. Del arte 21:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are convinced this is deserving of mention, please describe the most incriminating "workaround" that comes to mind. To be most convincing, I suggest using the most recent version - Finale 2006, and a relatively basic musical example. Seems like a good place to start, and gives everyone here a chance to agree on the appropriate action. FinaleSpecialist 23:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm still using Finale 2004, I might be using 2006 next month if the IT department gets it together. As far as I know, you have to pay for Finale upgrades, so I'm sure I'm representative of a large portion of users who are one or two major versions behind. Del arte 21:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A sentence or two pointing out the need for some workarounds, backed up by perhaps one example of a particularly incriminating workaround, would cover it nicely. Might I suggest this: a straightforward piano piece which requires cross-staff quaver beaming (I have one in a grade 1 piano book) would be ideal, since (a) it's a common notation, (b) it can't be done in Finale without significant faking, and (c) it is not a limitation of all scorewriters, thus making it relevant to this article. Wombat 13:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If "significant faking" includes choosing a menu item and clicking OK, I can find such limitations in any scorewriter...Highlight the region with Mass Edit, then: Plug-ins > TGTools > Cross Staff, click OK. This has been a feature shipped in Finale since version 2004. You'll need to think of a better one. FinaleSpecialist 14:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Cross staff notation is something I'd expect a notation program to be able to do without a plug-in. If it needs a plug-in, I'd call that faking. Del arte 21:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Plug-ins are a marginal case. By definition, a plug-in _is_ a workaround, i.e. a non-native operation appended to compensate for a limitation in the program. That, in fact, is the whole point of giving a program pluggable capacity in the first place. But since plug-ins are fairly easy to use and semi-integrated into the software itself, they are also arguably 'fixes', albeit temporary ones. Sibelius, too, has a fair old list of plug-ins (though at first glance, I can't see any functions in there that Finale can accomplish natively).

By the way, we can't really complain about a problem with Finale if that problem has been fixed in a recent version, can we? Even if that recent version is expensive and therefore not widely used… Wombat 08:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we can and should complain about problems one major version behind (currently Finale 2005), which is probably what most people have. A problem with Finale 98, on the other hand, does merit a "Let it go" response. Anton Mravcek 20:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The average user comming to this page is most likely interested in purchasing Finale or a similar scorewriter. They don't much care for past bugs that have been corrected. And it must be indicated if this so-called bug is no longer an issue in recent versions. Moltovivace 23:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been using Finale 2006 for a couple of days now, having skipped over 2005 altogether. Doesn't look all that different from Finale 2004. I haven't entered any new scores with it yet, but all the crunched bars in my old Volkmann file have been corrected without my having to do anything other than open the file in Finale 2006. The collided tremolos remain.

Also, I tried to try out the Garritan Personal Orchestra. The instructions in the user manual are geared for new documents, but I would imagine I can use GPO for my old documents. I tried to follow teh steps in the User Manual, but I'm still not sure if I got GPO or not. Del arte 22:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Wombat: 'I engrave choral music and I very often (like, in virtually every score) need to use multiple slurs on single voice chords.' So what's so hard about adding a second slur and flipping it. I engrave choral music a LOT and it's no big deal.

Then each to his own. I prefer Sibelius's solution, that's all. Wombat

Wombat again:' Even if that recent version is expensive and therefore not widely used…'

What do you base this statement on? I bought Finale for less than Sibelius would have cost me in 1997. I just upgraded to the most recent version for something like $90. Please site a source to back up your statement that the recent version is expensive and not widely used. It says at the bottom of the editing window that you must "Please cite your sources so others can check your work."--AverageFinaleUser "Stuck With Sibelius"24.94.211.190 09:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to cite a source for a hypothetical. I wasn't saying that Finale's recent version is expensive and not widely used. I was saying that, even if it is expensive and not widely used (which is an open question, not one I want to be drawn on), we should still base the article on the most recent version. Wombat 08:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The interface for setting staves to MIDI instruments and channels manually is not intuitive.

Finale 2006's studioview is incredibly innovative and streamlined and is undoubtabley dominant over Sibelius, hands down. Download the demo to see for yourself. Moltovivace 23:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Studio View is great, but it doesn't solve this particular problem. (Would rather stick to fact checking than be forced to defend Finale from radical, ill-informed miscreants/propoganda machines - let's keep direct comparisons to a minimum. This artical is not about S****** as much as its mention here is sure please Mr. Finn). Here's the deal: start a new horn quartet, then go into the instrument list and change a staff to a different channel. They all change. You need to define a new instrument manually and then set it to a different channel. (You shouldn't use the same channel on two staves because MIDI on/off messages will apply to *all* notes on that pitch.) The new check box "Use a Separate Channel for Each Staff" does eliminate this issue for new files started with the Setup Wizard. FinaleSpecialist 8:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Introductions

Hey, maybe you are the "radical, ill-informed miscreants/propoganda machine" for Finale. If we check your IP, will we find it's from CodaMusic headquarters? 207.74.110.137 23:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm Mark Johnson, author of the Finale Power series and documentation editor for all of MakeMusic's notation products. Seeing the mistakes in this article I couldn't help but make my corrections, and sort of felt an obligation as a true proponent of the whole Wikipedia ideal. I hope this disqualifies me from the "ill-informed" accusation, without qualifying me as ultra-partisan. In my position, it is hard to view false/obsolete information and spirited pro-competitor comments *especially on the Finale page* as anything but unfair Finale bashing. I have (tried) thus far, and will continue to limit my comments to correcting material that is in error. (You most certainly will not find me posting anything on the competitor's Wiki page other than direct, Finale-specific items). Anyone else care to introduce themselves? FinaleSpecialist 12:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure: I'm an innocent end user who engraves music (mostly choral) for professional and amateur clients. I have no connection to any particular software company and in the past have used both Sibelius and Finale for many years (I started with Finale, but used the two in tandem when Sib became available). Recently I've virtually given up on Finale and switched entirely to Sibelius for reasons mentioned above, but I do still maintain an interest in the latest changes to Finale in case it closes the gap in the future.

And for what it's worth, I agree, FinaleSpecialist. Professional expertise, applied in an NPOV way, is invaluable. Your restraint in editing and your willingness to discuss issues here are both welcomed, at least by this user! Wombat 12:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm a student. I don't have any notation software on my computer at home, which is antiquated anyway. At my school, they upgraded from Finale 2004 to Finale 2006 a month ago. The freshmen often come to me to help them with Finale. There are a couple of older students whom I go to for help. On only one or two occasions have I been able to figure something out just by reading the manual.

Mark Johnson, I read a couple of sample pages of your book on Amazon.com. You're to be commended for restraining from listing your book as a reference in the article. And by the way, you explained the solution to the famous last-measure problem much better than the manual. I have fixed that problem in many of my scores. Thanks a million! Del arte 19:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms section revisited

• Whenever notes are tied over a bar line or the middle of a bar, the computer turns the volume of the note down and the instruments affected do not regain their volume.

I have not experienced this in Finale 2006, has this bug been fixed since this statement was written?--Dbolton 01:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that whoever wrote that experienced a one-time glitch and blamed it on the program. Of all the issues I had when I used to use Finale, I never experienced this one. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Phil Farrand

The author bio for the Nitpicker's Guides to Star Trek says that Phil Farrand wrote Finale. Was he the lead programmer, and on what versions? Might Farrand's penchant for watching Trek episodes in slow motion to spot mistakes account for the unfriendly user interface of Finale? ShutterBugTrekker 22:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This is my understanding of it, having talked to the president of the company at a trade show (I'm going to ignore the snarky comment about UI that hasn't been true in 10 years...)

Well, if Phil Farrand worked on it ten years ago, the UI problems of ten years ago might be his fault. Just for the record, though, I'm not a musician. I've talked to musicians at Star Trek conventions, and from them I get the sense that Finale is the Microsoft Word of music notation software: the most widely used program in the field, an absolute necessity for what they do, but with a long list of annoyances, workarounds, etc. ShutterBugTrekker 22:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Back when it was called Coda, it was owned by the Wenger company, and was simply a software distributor. Phil saw the need for something that really didn't exist, and he alone wrote Finale 1.0. Wenger sold Coda to Vivace, Inc, and the rest as they say, was history. He moved on after 2.0 was released, I *think*--don't know for sure. --AverageFinaleUser24.94.211.190 09:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's get this little tidbit verified and added to the article. Anton Mravcek 20:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Compatibility

Users sharing files between different versions of Finale will notice that it is not backwards-compatible. Newer versions of Finale can open older files, but not the other way around.

Ahem. If newer version of Finale can open older files, then Finale is most certainly backwards compatible. If older versions of Finale cannot open newer files, that just means Finale is not forward compatible. Most programs offer a limited form of forward compatibility by being able to save files in older formats (with possible loss of functionality). Judging from the article, Finale apparently doesn't. To reiterate, however: being backwards compatible means newer versions can use the output of older ones, not the other way around (which is much harder to do properly). I've altered the article accordingly. JRM · Talk 15:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Look up the definition of forward and backward compatibility. Finale does not fully meet either criteria. An example of forward compatibility is HTML. Very old browsers (from HTML 2.0 era), will still be able to comprehend HTML 4.0. No conversion is nessesary in forward compatibility. An example of backward compatibility is Microsoft Word, newer versions can specifically save files for an older version to read. --Dbolton 18:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a clarification in the article. I realised that the original sentence could be misinterpreted--Dbolton 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the definitions provided in the Wikipedia article; it argues that if a program isn't capable of saving files in an older format, it's not backwards compatible. It surely is more backwards compatible if it can do this in addition to reading files in the older format, but the Wikipedia definition seems to regard backward compatibility as an absolute: if you can't use the application to edit your old files in their old formats, it's not backward compatible. It's only fair to point out that by that definition, few applications are backward compatible: almost all have the ability to convert files in an old format to a new, but few bother to support saving to their older format (not just, as the article alleges, as a vendor lock-in strategy, but because having to support older formats is a maintenance headache—saving documents in an older format requires conversion as well, since it in all likelihood will not support new features).

With this in mind, I've slipped in the word "fully". Finale is at least not completely incompatible with earlier versions if it can read their files. JRM · Talk 12:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Name

Why Finale (computer program)? It should be Finale (software). I'm goin to cahnge it, reverse it if you strongly disagree.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nousernamesleft (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I couldn't find the MoS guideline for software article titles back when I made the change from whatever it was before. (Or maybe there was no guideline at that time.) SFT | Talk 16:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent blanking

If there is information that is inaccurate in the Operation and Criticism sections please discuss that information here. Removing entire sections (that contain valid and useful information) is not helpful.--Dbolton 17:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Criticisms and known issues section does not belong in an encylopedia article that is trying to give an overview of the program. It is misleading at best, containing a great deal of information that is out of date or a result of user error. The biggest problem, however, is that it was written by people who are not qualified to give a realistic "big picture" of the problems that are most commonly faced among Finale users. Every Finale user uses the program in a unique way, and I can assure you that most of the problems that have been listed in this section over time are not among the ones commonly encountered or reported by Finale users. As it is now, this section can accomplish two things. It can mislead readers into believing that the issues listed are actually more prominent than they are. And it can mislead people into not realizing there are actually much more significant problems faced by far more users. In short, unless you intend to do the necessary research by contacting the company to find out what issues actually DO belong in this section, this section should not exist. It is random (taken from a tiny random sampling of Finale users inclined to write here), and it is not in any way objective in its content selection.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.149.109 (talk • contribs)

I recognize that the criticism sections can sometimes be controversial. However, The criticism sections are common to software articles (see Internet Explorer#criticism for an example. They contain valuable information about the product. For the article to remain objective it should cover both the strengths and weaknesses of the software. I will let others determine the value of the criticisms you removed rather than reverting them myself. I'm not sure asking the company for information to include in the criticism section would be objective.--Dbolton 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of menu bar clock in Mac OS X by Finale 2008

Has anyone else noticed that Finale 2008 blanks the menu bar clock in Mac OS X? What causes this glitch and how do you fix it? Anton Mravcek 00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is a feature, not a glitch. Apparently the programmers thought the users weren't smart enough to tell the difference between the time on the Playback window and the time in the menu bar clock. Jindřichův Smith 00:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Figures. Actually, I noticed what you mentioned about how some tools bring it back. Anton Mravcek 21:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Finale Printmusic Screenshot1.png

Image:Finale Printmusic Screenshot1.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for bias!

I just redid the "Criticisms" section, adding two paragraphs about general criticism to replace the sentence that was there, and separating the list of specific bugs (which could be a lot longer but really shouldn't be) from the general stuff. It might sound a little biased, though I tried to write it formally. But what little bias is in there is the collective bias of thousands of users, as you probably know if you're reading this! Feel free to change the wording, but remember when I say Finale users are unhappy with MakeMusic's response to cries of "fix the bugs, leave the interface alone," I'm really stating a fact. [Aargh, forgot to sign.] -- The Realms of Gold (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I actually thought it was hardly biased at all. You presented the facts as they were (or at least how I see them aswell), and you didn't put your own commentary. Good job! — Ian Lee (Talk) 07:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing time signature

how i can change the time signature? my entire music is 12/8 and in just 1measure i want to change to 6/8 and then 12/8 again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.28.199.207 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Click the time signature tool and click on the measure you want to change. Change the time signature, and under "Measure Region" just tell it to do 1 measure. Happy composing! — Ian Lee (Talk) 19:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)