[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is it time to update the Finale 2008 sample in Essay?

From: Abraham Lee
Subject: Re: Is it time to update the Finale 2008 sample in Essay?
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:26:15 -0600

On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 6:17 AM Jean Abou Samra <> wrote:

> Le mercredi 15 mars 2023 à 00:57 +0100, Jean Abou Samra a écrit :
> Le mardi 14 mars 2023 à 17:44 -0600, Abraham Lee a écrit :
> At the time I started with LP, the Finale 2008 example wasn't that old
> in the Essay section. Is it really fair for us to continue showing this
> since quite a few versions have been released since then? I mean, Finale 27
> has been out since June 2021 and is now at 27.3. I'm not saying the
> example is bad, nor doesn't it illustrate a historical
> piece of evidence clarifying why LP was needed. I guess I'm wondering if
> it's worth creating a new set of examples to show why it's *still* needed,
> even after all these years? Thoughts?
> I suggest you open a tracker issue.
> I have done it now,

Thanks, Jean, for doing that. I was hoping for a more public discussion to
see if creating an issue is even warranted. The essay is a historical
document, to be sure, so updating the comparison files might not be needed
at all. It just feels a bit odd to read "we have chosen Finale 2008, which
is one of the most popular commercial score writers". This was absolutely
true... once upon a time. Reading it now makes it sound like we had to dig
waaaaaaaaay back in order to pretend to make it seem like Finale isn't good
enough and that LilyPond does it right. How does
Finale/Sibelius/Dorico/etc. do nowadays? Do they get it right now? I'm
certain folks have asked this question.

For comparison, I just entered the two systems in the essay into MuseScore
4 and got a practically perfect output. Entering one voice at a time (voice
1, then voice 2), all existing pitches were maintained in voice 1 despite
making alterations in voice 2 (like that omitted flat that Finale 2008
leaves out). I didn't have to correct or add anything that was missing.
Maybe I just got lucky because of how I entered the passage. Arguments can
be made about other layout decisions, but I think it's hard to argue
against what MS4 has done compared to the hand-engraved examples:

[image: image.png]

So, maybe all that's needed is a different wording in this section to
reflect why *at the time* this comparison made sense (like what is
described at the beginning of the essay)? That would certainly be simpler
than recreating the comparison (which might not come to the original
conclusion like it used to).


PNG image

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]