Basic Function and Interface

Finale is graphics/font-based, which means that everything that appears in the program is either an image what can be manipulated much like a picture in Adobe PageMaker (okay, maybe not as extensive), or a font in which each key on the computer keyboard can be used to create a multitude of symbols (you can also use a variety of key combinations to create more symbols).  These fonts and graphics are arranged in a series of palettes designed for ease of manipulating certain aspects of your music.  For example, if you want to play around with the staff, you have to select the “Staff” tool; if you want to play around with lyrics in the music, you select the “Lyric” tool, etc.  Once you figure which symbols are considered what, the process for basic notation input becomes exceptionally easy and intuitive.  Additionally, because anything and everything has to fit into one of the provided categories, everything stays organized for your use.

It’s important to point out that the reason why SCORE users had some issues with Finale is because it limited quite a bit of the freedom that was originally available:  while the graphics used in Finale could ultimately be created as needed by the user, the basic foundation of the program was restricted to the use of fonts for the majority of music notation.  The fonts can be altered in as many ways as one could in a standard Word document, but you can not go in and actually alter the font itself (unless you were an accomplished font programmer).  If you want a symbol to look different, you need to change the font.

The interface is rather simple:  the majority of musical elements are color coded (colors you may change if you’d like) to correspond with one of the tool palettes, which can be accessed via either key-stroke or mouse-click.  Within each palette, you are provided with a menu of functions that can be performed with the tool, all of which can, again, be accessed via key-stroke or mouse-click.  The majority of functions in Finale are associated pretty closely with standard musical terms, so if you are looking to add a dynamic (a type of musical expression), there is a good chance you will find dynamics under the “Expression” tool.  I have always thought of it as if you think like a musician, about 95% of Finale’s features are easily understood, accessed, and utilized within about as much time as it would take someone to initially figure out how to play a new board game.

Yeah, it's small, but you get the point.

Formatting

This is where I hear most of the complaints about Finale.  In the realm of formatting, Finale is more related to SCORE than Sibelius in that it does not do anything for you.  This is actually kind of par for this program in general:  if you do not actively tell it to do something, chances are it will not do it.  There are some exceptions in that Finale does quite well dealing with the spelling of chords for standard harmonies when using its autoscoring function.  More visibly, it will 99.9% of the time place stems in the correct direction, align notes exactly within staves and between staves, place slurs and ties in the correct direction and position, and correctly stack key signatures, accidentals, and a variety of other symbols in their correct locations; mundane musical elements that really do not change at all from piece to piece.  Of course, it is important to point out that you can alter all of this if you would like.

For page formatting, though, all bets are off.  You need to tell it what its margins will be for the page and system, tell it how many measures should be in a system, and how many systems on a page.  You get to decide fonts, sizes, styles, and positions for titles, composers’ names, copyright notifications, and page numbers.  Additional information on the first page (editor, arranger, poet, dedications, commissions, or part) might not even appear at all by default.  Expressions and most measure-linked smart shapes (slurs, haripins, trills, brackets, and glissandos) will stay in the exact position you put it in and will not blink an eye if they are in a completely wrong place (dynamics usually go above a vocal staff, but Finale may just generally place them below).  While a lot of people consider this annoying, I find that it makes me much more aware of what is in my music and requires me to be much more involved with how my music will look in its finished form.  Basically, the art of editing your music is not lost in the Finale experience, but required (leaving your music in a default Finale layout will undoubtedly get you burned at the stake).  If you are new to the program, expect to lose some time initially learning how to do this, but once you grow accustomed to it, it will happen quickly, and probably somewhat integrated into the notation process.  Of course, once you figure out a way you would like to consistently present your music, you can adjust most of the settings to default to your specifications.

Playback

Okay, this part of any notation program is kind of annoying.  Yes, it is good that you can write something and hear it; yes, it is great that you can integrate live sample sound libraries with the program to make it sound like “real people;” yes, it is cool how you can change how the program’s playback will interpret every single aspect of your music with some simple alterations (it is actually way cool that you can import a live track to play along with the Finale realizations, but that is more of a multimedia integration than a playback function).  Is it ultimately important?  Not really.  The playback feature of any notation program is easily the most limiting aspect of the program due to its inability to be human.  Yeah, it will pretend, but when you start getting into really funky notation (graphic scores, circular, nonstandard images, etc.), the playback will have no idea how to handel it, often making something up that is nowhere near close to how it would ever actually be performed.  Ultimately, no matter how much you futz with the playback controls, it will only sound real when you get real people to play it.  At most, playback should be used for pitch reference and timing and NOTHING ELSE.  I am kind of upset that Finale has spent much of their recent editions improving playback rather than making advanced notation more accessible to basic users.  I promise you that you will spend more time trying to make the playback sound like how you want it to sound rather than actually working with your music.

That being said, Finale comes with the GPO (Garritan Personal Orchestra), Tapspace Virtual Drumline, a variety of Latin percussion instruments, Row-Loff marching percussion, and your standard MIDI library.  All of these natively interface with the Garritan Aria Player, but you can use any audio unit you want (Contact Player, or whatever) to create whatever interpretation of your music you desire.

There is a distinct disconnect between the notation and the playback in that the more complex, experimental, and nontraditional your music becomes, the more worthless the playback will be.  Just try to do quarter tone playback… just try…

Evolution, Bugs, and Cost

Finale was first released in 1988 and has pretty much had a yearly release since (they switched to corresponding date numbers in 1998).  Each version usually comes with some level of new innovation in functionality or ability, most notably is the linked parts in Finale 2007, the removal of the “Mass Mover” tool in Finale 2008, Mic Notator (the ability to play/sing pitches into a microphone for the program to interpret) in Finale 2001, and the ability to integrate live tracks with the notated music in Finale 2009.  Finale 2000, 2005, and 2008 are notoriously bad versions full or annoying bugs and infuriating quirks; alternatively, Finale 1998, 2006, 2009, and 2011 are notoriously well-made, innovative, and bug-free.  Finale 2003 was the last version of Finale that did not have to be registered with MakeMusic in order to work – now, if you do not register the program within 30 days of installation, you lose the ability to save and print – so it is not uncommon to see pirated versions of 2000 through 2003 floating around the undergraduate music scene.  Recently, the trend has been to drastically innovate the program on even years and then fix all of the innovations in the odd years, thus making the odd year editions the optimal choice if you do not have the funds to update every year.

There are some well-known bugs with Finale that are not exactly detrimental, but are just things to be aware of:  the most obvious one is that Finale will occasionally smash all of the music in a system to the left when entering notes with the “Speedy Entry” tool.  This can be fixed by just refitting the measures with the “Selection/Mass Mover” tool.  The opposite can also happen where one measure’s content will flow over the rest of the system.  This can be fixed in the same way, though if that does not work, you probably just have too many beats in that particular measure.  Playback bugs include strings continuing to tremolo or pizz. when they are not notated to do so, or instruments playing weirdly out of tune after the performance of a bend, slide, or fall.  There are several others that come and go through the versions, such as slurs appearing in one position when zoomed in, and appearing somewhere else when zoomed out (Finale 2007), or the slur being needlessly curved (Finale ’98), or systems being placed on top of each other by default (Finale 2000).  A lot of these have since been fixed, and any other bugs that come out in new releases are usually taken care of by a patch that MakeMusic will release for free download (making your version go from, say, 2011 to 2011a).  They always tell you what they’re fixing, and if more bugs come up, then another patch is usually not far behind.

Finale is expensive.  A new purchase will cost you $600, and an update every year will run $120 ($170 for updates from versions that are 2+ years old).  They do have academic prices, which will cut the program to $350, and if you want to start on a different, stripped down Finale-esque program (which are cheaper but are not capable of as much), they give you a price break should you ever decide to upgrade to Finale.  I feel like a lot of this cost is more or less offset by the fact that, if you have a Finale question of any type, you can call them and get help for free (and they are exceptional when it comes to customer service as you are usually talking to someone that really, really knows the program).

Conclusion

Finale’s basic notation ability (keyword being “basic”) is on par with its competitors.  Where it shines is the freedom it gives you:  anything you want to do with your music, you can do in Finale.  Its interface may be a little weird at first, but after a little bit of tinkering, it becomes extremely intuitive to musicians of all levels.  Playback is fine but really not worth any of your time.  Any bugs are usually fixed really quickly with a patch, and others that are not are well-documented on the Finale Help Forum.  While the cost may be a little inhibiting, you get unlimited free support from people that know the program, and ultimately, the freedom that you have in the program will pay for itself time and time again once you need to notate more advanced and complicated types of music.  The icing on the cake is that the program allows you to make your music look like how you want it to look, allowing each editor/publisher/composer to develop their own unique character for their printed music.

Last word:  check out the image they have posted on this page for a idea as to some of Finale’s advanced techniques!

Computers have become an integral part of creating music:  many people compose and improvise exclusively through electronic mediums; when writing for acoustic instruments, many people will notate their music directly into a computer, and even if the music is written on an instrument and scratched out on a pad of paper first, it is expected to pass through a computer to be notated prior to being given to the performers.  With this expectation, many a software program has been developed to meet the growing needs of music production and publication.

While we have seen several programs such as Encore, Capella, Nightingale, MusEdit, Rhapsody, Overture, ConcertWare, and Smartscore Pro come and go throughout the years, there are two music notation programs that have survived and dominated the market over the years:  Finale, produced by MakeMusic, Inc., and Sibelius, produced by Avid Technology, Inc.  Much like the seemingly ridiculous (and now seemingly moot) rivalry between Macs and PCs, or even the act of taunting and harassing a fan of a rival sports team – pretty pointless within the context of a sporting event, and even more so outside of said context – these two programs have each developed a rabid fan base with a loyalty that knows no end, ready to jump to the defense of their respective notation software at even the slightest hint of a less than shimmering review.

In knowing this, I would like to try and offer an in-depth comparison of the two programs, discussing their perks, differences, and negatives, all the while offering my thoughts on them as a copyist and composer that regularly works with both programs.  I will admit that I started on Finale, and am quite partial to it, but I will not deny Sibelius its moment in the limelight.  Before diving into the comparison of these two programs, though, we need to cover some history:

SCORE

Once upon of time, there was a man named Leland Smith (I suppose there IS a man, since he is not really dead yet).  He is a trained composer, studying at Mills College with Darius Milhaud in the 40s despite Smith still being in high school at the time.  He went on to study at UC Berkeley with Roger Sessions, and later became an assistant to Milhaud.  He also spent a year abroad at the Paris Conservatory where he took several classes from Olivier Messiaen.  After an engaged career of performing and publishing, he found himself at Stanford University starting up the CCRMA (Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics) with John Chrowning.  In 1971, he produced the first completely computer-produced piece of music, and, in 1979, he completed and released the first ever book on music completely produced by the computer.

This is where SCORE came into play.  It was a DOS-based notation software that interfaced much like a coding prompt, offering an ultimately unlimited ability to alter and manipulate music.  It was able to position musical elements wherever desired on the page, as well as being able to change the shapes, sizes, thicknesses, curves, slopes, etc. of nearly any symbol, be it conventional or not.  From what I’ve heard from composers like Jonathan Newman and Jody Rockmaker, SCORE had no playback capabilities; it was not something you used to write your music, and, because of the lack of playback, really did not care if the music being written was following any type of convention.

The result of using this program was a score that looked like it was printed by an engraved printing press.  The downside was that you basically needed to be able to write code in order to use the program, thus it had an intensely steep learning curve.  It had no programed concept of “autocorrect,” and thus did absolutely nothing to enhance the look of your music that you did not already tell it to do, ending up with either an immaculate looking score, or a Jackson Pollock painting (not that Pollock was a bad painter, but how exactly would anyone approach music that looked like his Shimmering Substance when they were attempting to create standardly notated parts?).

For the 80s and the early part of the 90s, SCORE was the industry standard for publishing, being used by such companies as Boosey and Hawkes, Theodore Presser, Alfred, Hal Leonard, G. Schirmer, Peer Music, and Warner Bros. (to add a personal note, many of the listed companies and most of the unlisted ones probably would still produce good-looking scores had they never stopped using SCORE.  Now it looks like most of them do not even pay attention to what their published music looks like).  Despite it never being ported to Mac OS or Windows, many composers who were studying during SCORE’s heyday maintain that it is still the best music-engraving program ever created.

It was this program that laid the foundation for both Finale and Sibelius, and has more or less set the standard of appearance ever since.  I’ll start with the first released program’s review next week.

Please understand, it’s really not due to any specific event.  I’ve found myself surrounded by people that want me to write pop music, that think music is only good if you can remember the melody (despite the fact that very few people can accurately remember a melody outside of a highly repetitive 16-bar phrase), and that, because my name does not come attached to some institution that regularly produces Pulitzer Prize winners, I’m not really worth much.  Additionally, I’ve found that people seem to think true performers will only play music from the 19th century and older, which leave my music and the music of my colleagues out in the rain.

Do you know what I was told last month?  I was told that someone is not a real musician unless they perform Mozart!  This is ridiculous!  Mozart is what a lot of people use to begin their studies in music because of his simple melodies, sparse harmonies, and a performance technique that has had the benefit of being perfected over the last 200+ years.  Quite frankly, REAL performers play Golijov, Corigliano, Crumb, Mazzoli, or anyone else that is still alive and challenging convention.  As so many people seem to have forgotten, there was no convention for Mozart’s music while he was alive, nor was his music instantaneously popular.  He did, however, have the benefit of a universally understood tonal language and endless funds from European Royalty.  He also didn’t have to compete with many other composers: Haydn, MAYBE Bach (though actually, probably not), Salieri, Teleman.

A side note:  Mozart’s music WAS pop music in his time.  There really was no difference then.  Today, the difference is that one preys on the uneducated masses (like advertising and politics), and the other gives them something they don’t quite understand and have never seen before.  Mozart’s uneducated masses did not have the two sides, nor did they really have much else in the form of entertainment to distract themselves from everything around them.

Today, we have to not only compete with one another, but with Mozart, his contemporaries, Bach, and a whole other two centuries of composers.  The reason why our music does not sound like music of the past is because, if we were to write anything like that, the composer whole wrote it before is going to get played over us.  If I sounded like Mozart, Mozart would get played over me because he’s tried and true, and free.  So no, no one that wants to be themselves through their music is going to write something that sounds like Mozart.  We are going to write our own version of melodies accompanied by our own harmonies that have our own titles (all of which can be remembered easily) for the very reason that we are NOT Mozart.

“But Mozart is so pretty!”  How many times have I been told this?  1000?  10,000?  ”Pretty” is not measurable.  As Margaret Wolfe Hungerford once wrote, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” which I feel says that not everyone will or should think Mozart is pretty.  On top of that, do you not learn appreciation and beauty through exposure?  Again, we’ve had 200+ years to learn that Mozart is “pretty,” but Elizabeth Kennedy Bayer has only been around for 26 years, and has only really been writing for about 5 of them!  Her music is awesome, and I would probably apply pretty to her music the same way I would apply it to Mozart’s.

To you Mozart listeners:  I dare you to go hear something different.  I’ve been told it is kind of like trying a new food at the grocery store, though I like the analogy of training for a marathon.  The more you run, the better at running you get (typically).  So, the more you listen to a new type of music, the more you will enjoy that type of music.

To you Mozart players:  When you’re actually ready to learn what it is you and your instrument are capable of doing, play something by someone living (Higdon, Daugherty, Evans, etc.), or, better yet, ask a composer to write you a new piece to help you explore what you are capable of (it’s called commissioning).  If you do it thoughtfully and intelligently, it can be one of the most satisfying experiences of your life, and will long outlast you and everyone around you.

Yeah, I’m annoyed, and I only hope that someone can understand why.

Unrelated:  if you haven’t pledged towards our album of string quartet music, you may do that here.

The plan is pretty simple:  Elizabeth and I are producing an album that consists of professional recordings of all of our string quartets (4 of mine, 3 of hers).  The ensemble that has agreed to record the album is the Tetra Quartet, a group making a huge splash on the chamber music scene throughout the Valley of the Sun.

Dustin Chaffin will be our sound engineer.  He’s been doing this stuff for nearly 5 years, and is always striving to make the best product he can.  He’s responsible for several of the recordings from my post-grad recital.

Taylor D. Dewey is doing the graphic art for the album.  Check out some of his other projects here.

Here’s the catch:  while all of these fine people are working for very cheap, they do not work for free (nor would be want them to).  So, what we need to do is procure a budget of $10,000 to be able to marginally pay for their talents.  We are requesting everyone and anyone who supports the arts, music, and members of our team specifically to donate any amount of money they can to the project to help bring this dream to fruition.

How might one go about donating to this project?  Well, we’re running our fundraising through kickstarter.com, where you can make donation starting at $1.  These are simply pledges.  The way it works is you select an amount you wish to donate, leave your card information through a secure charge service run through Amazon, and that’s it!  Your card will not be charged until we meet our goal of $10,000, and if we don’t meet our goal within our 90 day time limit, your card information is securely disposed of by Amazon, and we do not collect any funds at all.  Seems pretty simple, right?

While I realize that this sounds like we’re asking for multiple acts of charity, that is not entirely the case.  You actually have the option of getting something for your pledges, and Elizabeth and I spent a good long while piecing together a tiered incentive list that should be intriguing and rewarding to anyone and everyone who supports us.

With all of this explanation, we encourage you to check out our profile yourself.  There are amateur recordings and scores for your to look at, and you can always e-mail us if you have any questions regarding our work.  Thank you for your support!

View Larger Map

The address is 1606 East Apache Blvd, and it’s located on the northeast corner of Apache and Una Butte.  If you’re coming from the school, you won’t be able to make a left onto Una Butte to get to the Lodge because of the light rail, so you’ll undoubtedly have to make a U-turn at Apache and McClintock.  The lodge looks like an abandoned building, but there is an insignia on the front side of the building.  Hope to see you all there!

View Larger Map