finale (2000) music notation software

Finale (2000) Music Notation SoftwareReview by: David LefkowitzNotes, Second Series, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Jun., 2001), pp. 975-981Published by: Music Library AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/901022 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 23:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Music Library Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.25 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:13:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mulias

http://www.jstor.org/stable/901022?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


DIGITAL MEDIA REVIEWS EDITED BY STEPHEN DAVISON

Finale (2000) music notation software. Coda Music Technology, Inc., 1999. Windows and Macintosh versions available. $545.00 list price, $275.00 academic price (variable pricing available for upgrades and site licenses). Minimum system requirements: Macintosh System 7.1 or

higher, Windows 95/98/NT4 or higher, 8-16 MB RAM minimum (32 MB recommended), 20MB hard disk space (plus 20MB disk space for documentation).

In his recent review of Sibelius (Notes 56, no.4 [June 2000]: 1005-7), David Gilbert discusses the commitment one makes to a relationship with a piece of software. His analogy falls short, however, in not consid- ering the possibility of actually deciding to "tie the knot." In 1987, after two unhappy years in a relationship with Professional Composer, I began using Finale version 1.05, and I can now say that we are "married." After thirteen years, I know how to manipulate my partner to get whatever I want, and when I am about to go too far. This, however, is not a dysfunctional marriage; the results are generally good, and we no longer fight a lot. But the downside of this long-standing relationship is that some of Finale's minor faults loom disproportion- ately large, while I scarcely notice other defects that would drive other people mad. I will return to these defects-including problematic documentation and a steep learning curve-after describing the enor- mous potential of Finale, and the ways in which it has been improved in recent years.

As both a composer and a theorist, I put Finale through its paces. Examples 1-3 demonstrate some of Finale's potential to the composer: the use of alternate note heads and symbols (ex. 1); some symbols used in harp music (ex. 2); and free graphic notation (ex. 3). Examples 4-8 are drawn from theoretical work: stemless notes in organal notation (ex. 4); C-clefs and barlines placed between the staves for Renaissance music (ex. 5); the use of lines to indicate harmonic prolongations in a Bach chorale

(ex. 6); a metrical hierarchy without the use of staves or clefs (ex. 7); and a Schen- kerian analysis of a portion of a Beethoven string quartet (ex. 8).

Some of these non-ordinary examples, such as the barlines in example 5, are easy to produce. Others, such as the note heads in example 1, are easy but time-consuming. Generally, the less the notation is based upon notes placed metrically within measures, the more difficult it is to manipulate. Examples 7 and 8 require a fair amount of experience to produce.

Finale is based upon the following two conceptual premises: 1) music consists of notes occupying specific metrical positions; and 2) all other parameters (dynamics, ar- ticulations, etc.) are attached to those notes or measures. This contrasts with applica- tions such as Score, which (somewhat over- simplistically) view music as a collection of graphic symbols, including the notes them- selves. While a Score file is thus a listing of the graphic location of symbols on the page, a Finale file is a listing of pitches and dura- tions and their metric placement in measures and staves, with all other information dependent upon that list. Finale also distin- guishes between "Scroll View" (an infinite horizontal scroll of notes and measures) and "Page View" (the layout of the music in systems on the page), much as most word processors distinguish between a "normal" view (an infinite vertical scroll of words and lines) and a "page layout" view (the layout of the paragraphs on the page). The arrangement of systems on a page, page

975

)



NOTES, June 2001

Slowly, Mystically, J=44-46 P

0X^ +~ 0 +)- 1N -

s- eJhtone mejjjli un - - - to thee i

° + ° + u *) Not sprechstimme: close rles'. .-^^ i A: r#rb

n '--~~^<or dwell on consonant sound.

lower staff. depress silently t1p mf

3f #teB # - #»^ t t# t Sos.Ted.

Ex. 1. The use of alternate note heads and symbols

Ex. 2. Some symbols used in harp music

Ex. 3. Free graphic notation

976



Digital Media Reviews 977

- e r . -0 .i * Il r.i ri 0 0a

Rex cae -i, Do-mi - ne squa-i - di-que so ii,

Ex. 4. Stemless notes in organal notation (Musica enchiriadis, Thesaurus Musicarum Lathaam)

Josquin Desprez: Faulte d'argent

E t t~~~~r Fr

Faul - te d'ar -

- E. r i r yjl a a F , i - i r r r Faul - te d'ar - gent, C'est dou-leurnon pa - reil - - -

,9: 6 r r F.Fr' Fr · r,J J .I J JF Faul - te d'ar - gent, C'est dou leurnon pa-reil

Ex. 5. C-clefs and barlines in Renaissance music

le, Faul - te d'ar

~~~I ~(sus. 2-3) (AP)

I V6 I V T D T D

Ex. 6. Harmonic prolongations in Bach

Measure

Beat

Principal Sut

Secondary Si

2 4J

i(S) J (W)

)division J( S) m

(W)

bdivision ;-- J- '

(S) (W) (S) (W) (S) (W) (S) (W)

Ex. 7. Metrical hierarchy

Superius

Tenor

Bassus



NOTES, June 2001

Ex. 8. Schenkerian analysis of Beethoven

numbers, and so forth, are a separate com- ponent of a Finale file.

Although Finale's complexity grew with its ability to produce professional-quality results, it is still possible to use Finale in the simple way in which it was conceived. There are three methods in which notes can be entered: Simple Note Entry, Speedy Note Entry, and Hyperscribe. Simple Note Entry is a point-and-click method of entering notes: slow and steady, and easy to learn. Speedy Note Entry is a step-time method, whereby you "play" the appropri- ate note with one hand-either on the computer keyboard (for single notes only), or on a MIDI keyboard (single notes or chords)-while pressing a number on the keypad corresponding to the desired dura- tion with the other. When I use Speedy Note Entry, the time I spend entering notes is a fairly insignificant portion of the total time I devote to a finished score.

Hyperscribe is Finale's MIDI transcription tool. In time with Finale's metronome click, or at a tempo determined by the performer (typically by tapping on a MIDI instrument's sustain pedal), you play the music you want to input. It has serious problems, which I suspect have more to do with the nature of transcription than with Finale itself. To get good results, one must play extremely accurately and non-legato, and the music must be fairly simple rhythmically, with no notes significantly shorter than others. The reason for this has to do with "quantization"; all attack and release points are adjusted to the nearest quantization unit. If that unit is large (coarse), small variations in performance will be ignored, while if it is small (fine), such small varia-

tions may show up as transcription errors. Regardless of how well a transcription is ac- complished, subsequent editing will almost always be necessary.

These three tools have always been part of Finale, and will be familiar to those who have used it before. I will outline below some of the ways that recent versions have been improved.

First, the organization of menus and document options has been consolidated and standardized, making things much easier to find. The most visible change from earlier versions is that document options-such as whether to abbreviate 4 time as C in a given document-have all been brought together into one palette of choices accessi- ble through the Options menu. It is now quite easy to customize the layout of tool palettes, and to create piece-specific staff views (displaying only the woodwind section of an orchestral score, for example). The Mass Mover Tool has been improved, consolidating all the options into pull-down menus, and bringing diatonic and chro- matic transposition options together.

Other aspects of the user-definable inter- face have been vastly improved. I especially appreciate the thirty-six Expression Tool "metatools": every alphanumeric key on the computer keyboard can be programmed to correspond to a particular expression (such as a dynamic). I use this extensively in my theoretical work. In example 6, for instance, I used an analysis "template" (a blank document with certain preset features) in which the top row of the keyboard represented major-key Roman numerals, the second row represented minor-key Roman numerals, with Arabic numerals in

978



Digital Media Reviews

the third row, and function labels in the bottom row. For example, the "5" key cor- responds to "V," the "t" key (under the 5) "v," the "g" key the Arabic "5," and the "b" key "D" (for Dominant). In composition, I've programmed the 1-8 keys to correspond to dynamics (ranging from ppp to fff), and other keys can be used for other words or symbols. In older versions of Finale only the ten number keys could be so programmed, thus the thirty-six that are now available are quite welcome. I hope that upcoming versions will allow more keys to be used for metatools as well.

The Expression Tool has also been improved in two other important ways. First, the list of expressions created can now be reordered-although the display is not de- signed for over 100 of them-which allows, for example, tempo indications to be grouped separately from performance method indications (such as arco and pizz.). Second, as mentioned above, Finale distin- guishes between items attached to notes and those attached to measures. In earlier versions, the former were called "Staff Expres- sions," the latter "Score Expressions," and each had a different, nearly identical tool. Now they are accessed with the same tool, and are referred to as "note-attached" and "measure-attached," respectively. Along with that change, when the Expression Tool is chosen, all the handles for the expressions in the score (except those entered in layers other than the current layer) appear. This is an important time-saver, as one no longer has to search for the note or measure to which a given expression was attached. But this change does have a downside; when starting up, the default mode for the Expression Tool is measure-attached, and one has to specify note-attached in the tool menu, thus reducing the time savings of the two-tool consolidation. Making this choice with a key-click would be more expedient. Additionally, the Shape Designer available through the Expression Tool remains far too rudimentary. For example, to create an upside-down clef, I had to use a drawing program and then import the resulting graphic. The Shape Designer needs to be capable of such tasks.

The graphics tool has been improved. Importing and exporting graphics files is now easy, rather than arcane. Be warned, however, that the original of an imported

graphic must reside in the same folder as the Finale file, or else it will not appear on the page when the file is reopened. A con- tinuing problem is that exported graphics are exactly as large as the page exported; if the graphic is then imported into a text document, it will have to be reduced to the size of the actual graphic itself. As with other graphics or drawing programs, Finale should make it an option to export a graphic which is no larger than the item itself.

Part extraction-creating individual in- strumental parts from a score-now works as it should. The Line Tool (formerly called the Smart Shape Tool) is improved, allowing the user easily to create a variety of lines and slurs without going through the often-cumbersome Shape Designer. On the downside, some of the lines are a bit awkward to manipulate. More importantly, the lines that are created cannot be copied individually: the lines that extend from the "I" and the "T" in example 6, for instance, were created individually, and to ensure that they are exactly the same length and aligned properly is quite difficult.

The Time Signature Tool and aspects of Finale relating to time signatures have also been improved. It is now quite easy to create music with multiple simultaneous time signatures, as long as the barlines all coin- cide. To create music with staggered barlines is more difficult: you need to hide barlines and then draw in "false" barlines as graphic objects.

Finale now includes a new music-spacing allotment library, called Fibonacci, which has solved the on-going problem of music spacing. Fibonacci allocates 1.6 times the spacing for each doubling of a note value, ensuring a much more professional appear- ance. On the downside, Finale has added the default choice of "Automatic Music Spacing." This means that if you forget to cancel this option, editing the music auto- matically respaces the entire measure stack, losing all your manual space adjustments. This option needs to be changeable in the preferences menu.

Some of Finale's annoyances verge on being problematic. The Clef Designer (used if the eight default clefs do not suffice) is still extremely awkward and non-intuitive to use. In Speedy Note Entry, despite the fact that the defaults for spelling chromatically- altered notes can now be adjusted, the

979



NOTES, June 2001

results are sometimes worse than in previ- ous versions. An Ab-minor triad input with a MIDI keyboard into a file in the key of C major, for example, is spelled Ab-B-EV. It is not difficult to change individual notes, but this version of Finale makes changing entire chords an annoying process. In older versions a respelling at the beginning of the measure would become the default spelling later in the measure, but this no longer is the case. Although improved, accidentals remain an issue when using automatic transposition (either of blocks of notes or with transposing instruments). Some notes will need to be respelled, and on rare occasions accidentals will not be displayed.

The Page Layout Tool in Page View (used to manipulate the layout of the systems on the page) also behaves differently from earlier versions. Double-clicking on a system no longer brings up the margin settings, and the way in which measure groupings are formed has been changed. In older versions, if you forced a measure from a lower system up to a higher system, the higher system would have a set number of measures in it while the measures in the lower system would continue to "float." Now, the measures in both the higher and the lower system are "frozen," and the lower system must be unfrozen. It is possible to unfreeze specific systems, although this option is not found in the Update Layout Options where it might have been expected. Also, if additional measures are inserted into a system above "frozen" systems, the original measure groupings are lost.

Measure insertion also has the potential to ruin Measure Number Regions. Measure Number Regions are used to renumber a group of measures. This is an important feature when using first and second endings, which traditionally are assigned the same measure numbers, or when creating independent musical examples within the same file. The dialog box in which such regions are defined has been made much clearer and easier to work with, but it should be possible to make more global changes with a single command.

Finale has improved other aspects accessi- ble in Page View. It is now possible to change instrument group names and to add additional staves to individual systems without affecting the entire piece. As with older versions, one can manipulate the ver-

tical spacing of staves within individual systems using Staff Optimization. In some earlier versions, though, it was possible to drag-enclose all the staff handles of an optimized system and adjust those as a group, since only one handle was displayed per staff. Now, Finale produces two handles: one for the general (default) staff spacing, and a lower one for optimized systems only. This distinction is an important one to make, but it should be possible to ask Finale to display only the lower handles in Page View. This way if, say, the string section needs to be separated from the percussion, it would not be necessary to shift-click repeatedly to move those staves.

The last tool I will discuss is the Text Block Tool. Text blocks are attached to measures or pages rather than being orga- nized metrically, and they can include multiple fonts, for which a simple text editor is provided. In most ways this tool is well de- signed, except that it is difficult to reuse expressions, or even to view them, as one has to click one-by-one through all of the expressions used in the file. A few years ago I was writing a good deal of music for harp, so I pre-programmed twenty-one different text blocks to use for pedal changes (DK, Dt, D#, CL, etc.). To reuse such a pedal change now, I have to find the original in the score and copy it to the new location, or create a new one. It is also difficult to ensure that the baseline of a multi-font text block will be aligned with the baseline of an Expression Tool expression because the handles of the two types of text are posi- tioned differently.

Because I often wish I could combine multiple fonts in a single note-attached text expression, it seems to me that the Expres- sion Tool and the Text Block Tool should be collapsed into one. There would thus be three types of attachment options (note-, measure-, and page-attached), and with one click the rudimentary text editor of the Expression Tool could be expanded into the fuller text editor of the Text Block Tool. The text blocks could then be easily accessed from a grand list, allowing them to be reused and copied from one place to an- other just as Expressions are. Additionally, this would allow measure-attached Text Blocks to be accessed in Page View.

The biggest problem with Finale is the documentation and support. Unless you are already a Finale grand master, the on-

980



Digital Media Reviews Digital Media Reviews

screen documentation is difficult to under- stand, with bad writing and poor organization. Here is one example: "The Automatic Barlines plug-in allows you to used to auto- matically set up barlines, matching the key changes in your document. In a high variety of music it is conventional to use a double barline when the key changes." Indexing and organization are by tools and not musical issues. A problem I had re- cently illustrates this drawback. I wanted to have a first and second ending marked with brackets, but Finale drew the brackets over both systems. Searching the index for information on repeat signs, endings, and brackets yielded no answers. Then I discovered that the ending bracket is defined as a "Staff Attribute," so information on this can only be found in the section dealing with the Staff Attribute Tool. The manual might benefit from a rewrite by both writers and musicians who know nothing at all about the program.

Years ago I gave Finale telephone support a few tries, and was consistently frustrated to discover that they knew less about Finale than I did, and could never help me with the problems I had encountered. Conse- quently, I gave up completely on telephone support, and have not tried to contact them in more than a decade. I cannot say whether or not they have gotten any better, but they now have online support, including chat rooms. In preparation for this re-

screen documentation is difficult to under- stand, with bad writing and poor organization. Here is one example: "The Automatic Barlines plug-in allows you to used to auto- matically set up barlines, matching the key changes in your document. In a high variety of music it is conventional to use a double barline when the key changes." Indexing and organization are by tools and not musical issues. A problem I had re- cently illustrates this drawback. I wanted to have a first and second ending marked with brackets, but Finale drew the brackets over both systems. Searching the index for information on repeat signs, endings, and brackets yielded no answers. Then I discovered that the ending bracket is defined as a "Staff Attribute," so information on this can only be found in the section dealing with the Staff Attribute Tool. The manual might benefit from a rewrite by both writers and musicians who know nothing at all about the program.

Years ago I gave Finale telephone support a few tries, and was consistently frustrated to discover that they knew less about Finale than I did, and could never help me with the problems I had encountered. Conse- quently, I gave up completely on telephone support, and have not tried to contact them in more than a decade. I cannot say whether or not they have gotten any better, but they now have online support, including chat rooms. In preparation for this re-

view, I made several unsuccessful attempts to login. I was repeatedly returned to the login page, even after being welcomed by name. I note that there are more than 20,000 postings listed, however, so there must be people who are successfully partici- pating.

Finale is now releasing Finale 2001, a demo of which I have examined. There are now sixteen default clefs and an improved Clef Designer. Text Blocks can be accessed in either view (although the Tool itself has not been improved), and some aspects of the page layout discussed above-most especially the relationship between measure groupings and the insertion of new measures, and the problem with selecting optimized staves to be shifted-have been improved. Finale 2001 also boasts the following selected new features: smaller files; web publishing; easier notation software; unlimited free support; forty plug-ins; and the free inclusion of Midiscan, making possible the scanning and importing of printed music into Finale. (Finale also claims to be compatible with Musitek's Smartscore.) In short, although Finale may occasionally be difficult, it is exceptionally powerful, and its continual improvements speak of the ongoing commitment we can count on from the publisher.

DAVID LEFKOWITZ University of California, Los Angeles

view, I made several unsuccessful attempts to login. I was repeatedly returned to the login page, even after being welcomed by name. I note that there are more than 20,000 postings listed, however, so there must be people who are successfully partici- pating.

Finale is now releasing Finale 2001, a demo of which I have examined. There are now sixteen default clefs and an improved Clef Designer. Text Blocks can be accessed in either view (although the Tool itself has not been improved), and some aspects of the page layout discussed above-most especially the relationship between measure groupings and the insertion of new measures, and the problem with selecting optimized staves to be shifted-have been improved. Finale 2001 also boasts the following selected new features: smaller files; web publishing; easier notation software; unlimited free support; forty plug-ins; and the free inclusion of Midiscan, making possible the scanning and importing of printed music into Finale. (Finale also claims to be compatible with Musitek's Smartscore.) In short, although Finale may occasionally be difficult, it is exceptionally powerful, and its continual improvements speak of the ongoing commitment we can count on from the publisher.

DAVID LEFKOWITZ University of California, Los Angeles

Treasures from American Film Archives: 50 Preserved Films. Produced by the National Film Preservation Foundation; curator, Scott Simmon; music curator, Martin Marks. Distributed by Image Entertainment. San Francisco: National Film Preservation Foundation, 2000. [4-disc DVD set, 642 mins; with book (xiii, 137 p.). $99.99]

Treasures from American Film Archives: 50 Preserved Films. Produced by the National Film Preservation Foundation; curator, Scott Simmon; music curator, Martin Marks. Distributed by Image Entertainment. San Francisco: National Film Preservation Foundation, 2000. [4-disc DVD set, 642 mins; with book (xiii, 137 p.). $99.99] "How will we know it's us without our past?"

John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath (1939)

Perhaps the urge to chronicle history is part of human instinct. We sense a need to know where we have been to assure our- selves of where we are. Recording the past through sound and visual images has always been as much a part of our behavior as our zeal for progress.

During the last century the motion picture became the consummate medium through which to preserve expressions and

"How will we know it's us without our past?"

John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath (1939)

Perhaps the urge to chronicle history is part of human instinct. We sense a need to know where we have been to assure our- selves of where we are. Recording the past through sound and visual images has always been as much a part of our behavior as our zeal for progress.

During the last century the motion picture became the consummate medium through which to preserve expressions and

experiences, from the lofty visions of a dis- tinguished auteur to the most ordinary activities of our daily lives. At no time prior to the development of film were the sights and sounds of history so perfectly preserved, with such clarity and exactness that we can witness the past whenever we desire.

We view the motion picture in a variety of ways: as art form, as entertainment, as cultural and social expression, and as part of our national heritage. Nearly ever) aspect of our lives has been captured by filmmakers, both professional and ama- teur. The preservation of their work is the

experiences, from the lofty visions of a dis- tinguished auteur to the most ordinary activities of our daily lives. At no time prior to the development of film were the sights and sounds of history so perfectly preserved, with such clarity and exactness that we can witness the past whenever we desire.

We view the motion picture in a variety of ways: as art form, as entertainment, as cultural and social expression, and as part of our national heritage. Nearly ever) aspect of our lives has been captured by filmmakers, both professional and ama- teur. The preservation of their work is the

981 981



finale (2000) music notation software

Documents