Got to be done. There's no short cuts.
-
Robert..
you mean it can be done, but there are no key command?
or
It's may coming in a future update?
-
Heilige Maria, what a day... The manuals are überweak!
How you break a beam in a tuplet.
How you extend a beam over a barline.
How you select one staff over the full score when you see only page one.
Why does it jump to 100% zoom.
How to Tuplet over the bar line.
How you import a single staff into the score via MIDI.
How you deselect this god damn auto formating who always streteches to the the full page.
No nothing in the user guide about simple things like that, the word BEAM doesn't even appear in the manual once, nor the online help. Maybe it's a b-word. Have this programmers ever seen a composer from the near?
[:@] [:@] [:@] [:@]
.
If you are referring to Sibelius, most of this is very easy. Go to their forum and all will be explained in a very short time. However, I've just checked the manual and it certainly does mention beams (page 6[H], so it can't be Sibelius; sorry.
DG
-
How you select one staff over the full score when you see only page one.
Sibelius: triple clicking.
There are various things that need alternative ways to write them down. Usually this involves creating lines which don't play back.
What do you mean by breaking the beams of a tuplet? Anyway, beaming of tuplets in Sibelius3 manual can be found on page 154.
Beaming across barlines, again in Sibelius3 manual page 154. This involves creating a beam-line (shortcut L), as the sofftware cannot do this automatically.
Good luck!
===
BTW: I love the humour in the Sibelius3 manual! Makes it actually a pretty fun read!
-
@weslldeckers said:
What do you mean by breaking the beams of a tuplet?
BTW: I love the humour in the Sibelius3 manual! Makes it actually a pretty fun read!
By "breaking the beams of tuplets" i meant for example: 32nd 17-tuplets, 17:16 at the place of two quarter, so you subdivide the tuplets for phrasing i.e. to 3-3-2-3-3-3 by interupting two beams in between the groups.
Well, i still working with the v4.0.1 demo, which comes with no user guide, respectively with a very basic demo guide, as i said the word beam is not involved there.
Is the full Sibelius manual you talking about a booklet or a pdf? I can't join the forum since i haven't buyed a copy yet. Since several days one computer is running 24hours with Sibelius and Finale, and i test my notation needs, however Finale demo comes with the full manual.
.
-
BTW: I love the humour in the Sibelius3 manual! Makes it actually a pretty fun read!
who bring back the fun!
click click click
.
-
to 3-3-2-3-3-3 by interupting two beams in between the groups.
Ah, breaking like that. Shouldn't be to hard with the second 'page' of the keypad menu (that keypad thing with note values at page one, beam starts and ends at page 2, and lots more on the other pages). Press the 'plus' key of your numeric keypad to switch pages.
-
The word on the street is that Sibelius is a very user-friendly program...
That being said, I use Finale [:D]
I do know that Finale is one of the more popular engraving tools... and can do just about anything that you want it to.
Kendor Music uses Finale and I believe that Hal Leonard used Finale engraving.
The problem with a great deal of "power" in a program... it that it requires a great deal of knowledge and research to use it (thus making it not-so user-friendly).
but as somebody mentioned earlier... if you have used one program for a long period of time with great success... why switch?
I'll keep using my Finale [:)]
besides... they upgrade EVERY year for the most part... and the upgrades have been very significant in the past couple of years.
I see Finale entering more into the world of "Playback" as Sibelius had done a couple of versions ago. That seems to be the most focus for these competitors at this time.
-
[Replying to a very old post, sorry!]
I use Sibelius, though each have their pros and cons. I find Sibelius easier to use for composition to get ideas down quickly. There is not a 'triplet tool' and so forth. Sibelius is very much like working with a piece of paper.
However, Finale has better notation abilities for contemporary music to get a nice printed score. You can fake your way through with things in Sibelius, but Finale has support for stemlets, and other things which are quite nice that Sibelius lacks.
Gripes with Finale:
- Have to choose a key at the beginning of a score- though I know there are ways around this
(come on, join us in the 20th/21st century, Finale!)
- All the tools are not easy to use and I somewhat feel like I'm using an AutoCAD drafting program when notating music
- Not as easy to work with in free composition like Sibelius
- Releases every year: force upgrade yearly with users
Gripes with Sibelius:
- Not easy to make contemporary markings, as built in with Finale
- No VST/AU etc support which the newest Finale is embracing
- slow with releasing an intel mac version
- No resize percentage tool. Hard to resize individual components like in Finale, and make specific changes to score
- Fewer beaming/tie specifics than Finale. Easier to specify uniform beams and ties in Finale, in exact measurements.
-
I used Finale from 1997 to about 2004, then I started using Sibelius more often. Both have their strengths, but I'm doing most of my work on Sibelius these days. I also find it a bit more like working on paper, though I did like the way Finale would allow me to enter the accidental *after* the note in speedy entry, which Sibelius doesn't allow -- to me, that's more like paper, as I tend to draw in the note/notehead, then put the accidental in front of it.
But to be totally honest, I wish there was another genuine competitor. There are annoyances in both Sibelius and Finale. Maybe Sibelius 5 will cure some of these. Don't know. The ENP package in PWGL is very impressive, but it's not intended as a real typsetting program, but rather a notation interface for composition.
http://www2.siba.fi/PWGL/enp.html
What's even cooler is that it's free!
J.
-
Does actually any of you compose with the proceeding and the workflow this two programs offer?
.
-
Sorry Angelo, I don't think I understand the question. Are you asking whether any of us actually composes with Sibelius or Finale, rather than just using them for notation? If so, yes, I compose all my concert works in Sibelius currently, Finale up to a couple of years ago. The piece "reflectere" in the projects section was composed in Finale, and the playback is direct from Finale as well. For the occasional commercial project I will also compose directly into Sibelius now. It's just a matter of the sort of writing that's required. I never play/record anything into the notation programs, I just punch it directly into the score. So, if it's a project for which I feel I need to see it on "paper", I'll write it in Sibelius (or Finale), while if it's something I feel I want to play/record I'll use Logic or Live. If somebody would make a sequencer that really used notation as a foundation, I'd be ecstatic, since I could finally unify all this into one workflow (except for the fact that I've recently picked up Live, and am really enjoying it for certain projects). As it is, I can't stand looking at the garbled notation output generated by notation programs or notation interfaces (i.e., in Logic) when trying to record "live" input. It just feels like such a profound waste of time to unscramble it back into sensible notation... my keyboard skills are pretty awful, though, so I'm not helping matters in that department I'm sure.
There's a notation interface in the ftm package for MaxMSP which uses a clever combination of a musical staff to indicate pitch, and piano scroll-like bars to indicate duration. If something like this could be used in a professional sequencer, as a method for viewing recorded input and editing its rhythmic representation, it would be a huge step in the right direction. But I'm afraid that the music literate are not a huge priority for sequencer developers... which I don't quite understand... (well, I suppose I do: money, money, money.)
J.
-
@jbm said:
Are you asking whether any of us actually composes with Sibelius or Finale, rather than just using them for notation?
Yes, that's what I meant. Doing the composition soley in Sibelius or Finale, no other program involved.
But how you manage to render the stereo master out of the notation program?
.
-
Composing has nothing to do with audio tracks. For concert works I hardly ever produce anything but a score and parts. Obviously if I need to play a demo to someone it is easier to export a MIDI file to a sequencer and deal with that there, but a fair amount of the time a demo is not required.
DG
-
@DG said:
Composing has nothing to do with audio tracks. For concert works I hardly ever produce anything but a score and parts. Obviously if I need to play a demo to someone it is easier to export a MIDI file to a sequencer and deal with that there, but a fair amount of the time a demo is not required.
DG
Certainly. I just thought jbm said that he makes the demos out of Sibelius, but I guess that is not the case and also impossible.
.
-
I copmose (I won't correct that typo) in Sibelius with the GPO studio as a playback device. For musicians that's enough quality to let them imagine what's going on. For less-musical minds like directors I go the pain-in-the-ass route and play every line in with my breathcontroller into the sequencer (in my case Samplitude) and produce a full-fledged demo..
-
@mathis said:
I copmose (I won't correct that typo) in Sibelius with the GPO studio as a playback device. For musicians that's enough quality to let them imagine what's going on. For less-musical minds like directors I go the pain-in-the-ass route and play every line in with my breathcontroller into the sequencer (in my case Samplitude) and produce a full-fledged demo..
Well, me, a fully grown adult plumage Comouchiteur (french for composer of hirsutism music), and Hydrantent (german for conductor who conducts an ensemble of water hyridants) would proceed and follow exactly the same Pogonotrophy as you do.
.