Software at your service

[musicus]

On another thread, we have seen how easy it is to share music via Sibelius. I thought it might be useful to initiate some discussion about some of the software tools available to pastoral musicians: notation software, certainly; but other things too.

I will get the ball rolling with this quotation from the Sibelius website http://www.sibelius.com/buy/gb_edu.html: Educational discount prices are available on Sibelius 6, Musition and Auralia to schools, colleges, universities, places of worship and those who work or study in them (subject to conditions). [my emphasis]

This is a very worthwhile discount, especially if the parish were to pay. Also, as we have seen on another thread, the related SibeliusMusic website http://www.sibeliusmusic.com/ offers a way to share music, both for free and for sale.

[JW]

Another alternative for the impoverished muscian/parish who may not often need to use music technology is freeware. There is a handy Wikipedia list of what is available, both free and for a charge. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scorewriters

[Nick Baty]

I bought Sibelius 5 from a company I found via eBay – they were called "Soft" something or other. I checked them out first and they are an approved Sibelius dealer. And it was cheaper than buying from Sibelius even with the church/education discount.

[Southern Comfort]

As I said on the other thread, it's only easy to share music via Sibelius if you have Sibelius yourself. Some of us don't have it, and don't want to have it.

Coda (the makers of Finale) were quite happy to share their source code with Sibelius, so that Sibelius users could read Finale files. Sibelius, however, refused to share their own source code with Coda, so it's still a one-way street, alas. If Sibelius thought this would compel people to buy their product, they're indulging in wishful thinking, I'm afraid. The words Ford Mondeo and Rolls Royce come to mind for some reason.

I assume (please correct me if I am wrong) that if you share music via the software, then that enables those sharing to modify the music if they wish? I'd have thought that composers would be rather keen on people not messing about with their music without let or hindrance. Once again, what's wrong with sharing music via PDF?

[Nick Baty]

Not so. Scorch allows you to hear the music but you can't download it as a Sibelius file – at least, not as far as I know.

[mcb]

As I said on the other thread, it's only easy to share music via Sibelius if you have Sibelius yourself. Some of us don't have it, and don't want to have it.

This isn't so - we're talking about sharing using the Scorch plugin, not the Sibelius package. The plugin is free to download. Finale offer something similar, in the form of the Finale Viewer plugin, don't they?

I assume (please correct me if I am wrong) that if you share music via the software, then that enables those sharing to modify the music if they wish? I'd have thought that composers would be rather keen on people not messing about with their music without let or hindrance. Once again, what's wrong with sharing music via PDF?

You're wrong - Scorch files can be read (and printed, if the composer permits), but they can't be downloaded in editable form. (On the other hand, I think - from my briefest exploration - the setup with Finale Viewer might not be as clever.) Using PDFs in comparison is stone age technology - with Scorch (or Finale Viewer for that matter), you can play back the file interactively: for instance, click where you want it to start playing, see the cursor moving along as it plays, transpose the piece, specify what you want to play it back on. It's a useful tool for showcasing musical scores, and well worth trying out.

Coda (the makers of Finale) were quite happy to share their source code with Sibelius, so that Sibelius users could read Finale files. Sibelius, however, refused to share their own source code with Coda, so it's still a one-way street, alas.

Everything's a grudge match to you, isn't it, SC?

[musicus]

Coda (the makers of Finale) were quite happy to share their source code with Sibelius, so that Sibelius users could read Finale files. Sibelius, however, refused to share their own source code with Coda, so it's still a one-way street, alas.

Everything's a grudge match to you, isn't it, SC?

That's a bit harsh, mcb. But Southern Comfort is right in that you cannot read Sibelius files directly into Finale. Dolet 4 for Sibelius will let you effect the transfer, but it isn't cheap. I have used both programs for decades and I still do - horses for courses - but I no longer automatically upgrade them every time a new version comes out - there are too many things in both of them that still need fixing. A little time spent reading the respective user forums is always very instructive if you are debating whether or not to upgrade.

[keitha]

I have used Finale Printmusic 2001 for years (albeit in a very limited way). I decided that it really was time for a change and tried out Mozart, Sibelius and Finale. I could not get on with Mozart, had a few problems with Sibelius (which also seemed to be very expensive) and thought Finale was the best of the lot. After a conversation with Finale's US sales office, I went with Finale Printmusic 2009 on their advice, and has more than met most of my needs (as a fairly average parish organist), and cost around £70. I ordered it by 'phone from Northern Music at 3pm, explained that I needed it urgently, and the disc arrived at 8.30 the next morning.

My laptop runs on Windows Vista and I had no difficulty accessing Martin Barry's 'Come to me' (see 'Delicious' thread), hearing it and printing it off - and very nice it is too!

I am having increasing need for software to print plainchant. I have tried the Gregoire free software, but cannot operate it successfully, and have looked at the St Meinrad offering. Finale tell me that if I upgrade to the full Finale product (which they will provide at a very good discount) I will be able to produce plainchant using it. I would be very grateful if anyone who has experienced any of these can say how they got on - before I start spending money!

[mcb]

I agree with you, keitha, about the price of Sibelius, which is pretty outrageous. They particularly seem to have it in for the British - the educational discount price in the US is $329, while in the UK it's £363. If I've got (a) my facts, (b) the exchange rate and (c) my sums right, $329 is £202, and the markup as a punishment for buying Sibelius in the UK is about 80%.

At least they now offer the educational discount to church musicians in the UK. When I bought Sibelius they didn't do this in the UK, only in the US. Their customer services told me to take it up with their marketing manager if I didn't like it.

I'd be keen to know of a good (Mac-compatible!) method for typesetting square-notes plainchant. In Sibelius it's reasonably easy to set chant using stemless round notes, but it doesn't look as nice as the neumes (even if in fact it includes all the information without the gratuitous mystification of chant notation). I've not found anything that works well, having tried Barfly, and laboured with a St Meinrad font in Microsoft Word. I've even tried Lilypond, which produces beautiful printed copy, but the learning curve is so steep and slippery I always end up falling off.

[musicus]

I agree with you, keitha, about the price of Sibelius, which is pretty outrageous. They particularly seem to have it in for the British - the educational discount price in the US is $329, while in the UK it's £363. If I've got (a) my facts, (b) the exchange rate and (c) my sums right, $329 is £202, and the markup as a punishment for buying Sibelius in the UK is about 80%.

Agreed - and it is British software too! (OK, Sibelius Software is now owned by Avid, but all the same...). The first release of Sibelius, entitled Sibelius 7, was for the RISCOS Archimedes computer and cost £700 (and that was a few years ago). I was (as always) an early-adopter and found it to be amazingly good for a version 1.0. So it's relatively cheap these days!

[keitha]

Thanks mcb. I've had a quick look at Barfly (should be the name of an inebriated rock group!) and Lilyput. I see what mcb means about the problems with them, but I might give Barfly a longer try. I will also check whether Finale produces neumes, or simply 'leaves the tails off' (as seems to be the case with Sibelius).

[Southern Comfort]

Using PDFs in comparison is stone age technology - with Scorch (or Finale Viewer for that matter), you can play back the file interactively: for instance, click where you want it to start playing, see the cursor moving along as it plays, transpose the piece, specify what you want to play it back on. It's a useful tool for showcasing musical scores, and well worth trying out.

<snip>

Everything's a grudge match to you, isn't it, SC?

I think that's a bit unfair, mcb, if not ungracious. All I want to is see your bl**dy piece, the one that everyone says is marvellous (and I'm sure they're right, but how will I ever know?). I don't need to hear it or have travelling cursors or transpose it or overlay it with exotic instrumentation. I can hear it when I see it, thank you very much. Who needs playback? (No, don't answer that!) I agree that PDF is stone age, but quite frankly I'm not interested in all the bells and whistles, and certainly not the Sibelius b&w. They're what cost the money..... Why techies can't realise that there are lots of ordinary folk out there who are still at a basic level, and cater for them, I really don't know.

Thanks for the clarification about the file not being modifiable by the receivers. Good to know.

[mcb]

Apologies for the unfairness and ungraciousness, SC, which were quite uncalled for. I was trying to be funny, but my track record in that department is a bit patchy. For the record, I think the forum would be a poorer place if you were suddenly to become emollient and concilatory. So don't.

As for the alleged masterpiece, all I have to say is that I've told Nick time and again not to post to the forum once the sun has been over the yard-arm for a while. If you're really that keen to see it, SC, you might see whether you know anyone who was at last year's Summer School composers' forum, where it was scrutinised by the experts and put in its proper place.

[Nick Baty]

MCB, you must know that if I'd waited for the sun to even approach the yardarm I'd be too *beep* to type anything. Enough! This is a superb piece which demands a much wider hearing!

[admin]

…Why techies can't realise that there are lots of ordinary folk out there who are still at a basic level, and cater for them, I really don't know.

Ordinary folk? Do they exist?

Just as some composers get bored writing the sort of music that meets the needs of our general person-in-the-pew who has no musical education and is really into 'pop' music (to generalise, you do understand), the sort of music that will get thrown away in the not too distant future (unlike Bach), jobbing music; when they're bored, they write 'art' music which has much less appeal to the unwashed masses, those "ordinary folk who are still as a basic level".

More interesting would be to wonder why we techies call you lot "users", as if you were junkies looking for a fix through using our software