I am sure the folks at MM have heard of it since it has made the rounds on the ole inner web but why doesn’t Final embrace this fantastic work saver? After all MM does include TG Tools and Patterson. Plus, I understand MM also helped JW convert to 64-bit.
I included first pages of a recent score that has just been run through Perfect Layout for you to see if you happen to not be aware of it. MM needs to give PL some thought.
Finale 26.3 and now 27
Latest Windows 10
Yep!
MM includes lite versions of TG Tools and Patterson, just as they used to do with SmartScore. Teasers, if you will. If you want more, you pay the developers.
Let’s take it as a given that MM probably can’t develop a Perfect Layout solution in-house. So tell me: If Finale were to buy PL from elbsond, would you be willing to pay an additional $85-$180 for Finale+PL to have it included? I’m not slamming the usefulness of PL; I just don’t need it myself, and don’t want to pay for it. Or would you like them to buy it and include it for you at no additional charge? I sincerely doubt that will happen.
Consider my real job as a (semi-retired) cabinetmaker. I go out and buy a shaper, for $1500. But my life would be a lot easier (and safer) if I had a $500 power feed unit. Would I expect the shaper manufacturer to include it at no additional charge? Not bloody likely. Or if they included one and raised the price to $2000, how many people would resent that, and not buy at all? As long as the optional add-on is available, I have the choice to buy it, or not. Same principle as Perfect Layout. It’s out there. Buy it, if it adds value to your work. Skip it, if not.
I can't say if PL adds value to my work, but it is a bit of a time saver. It's not perfect (heh) by any stretch of the imagination, but it gets me close enough on most projects to cut my layout time almost in half. A (very) few projects it seems to make worse for magical reasons I can't fathom, and it almost always screws up Human Playback using NotePerformer--for some reason the two do NOT play well together. I only recently began composing again (been a full-time author for going on ten years) and PL has saved me enough time on final layout that I feel confident doing both now.
If you are not getting the exact results you want, there are dozens of setting possibilities in PL that you can customize. Remember you can run PL again or as many times as you like if you decide to change stuff.
I have run a dozen or so original concert band scores and a few jazz band scores through PL Silver and have not seen any problems with playback. I also use NP3. (I even run smaller ensemble groups through it.)
There is a new version of PL coming out soon. It addresses some of the issues PL had. For me, for the kind of work I do, above is an example, PL works very well. Now, I can't see Finale without it. In fact, the new release of Finale is supposed to have enhanced plug-ins from the JW collection. Perhaps MM is finally realizing the advantage of including good plug-ins and maybe PL will be one someday.
Mike says he’s fine with Perfect Layout being a third party tool for those who want it. Ernest says he agrees that Finale should remove some features.
What? Earth to Ernest, that’s not agreeing.
I have no dog in this fight but if Perfect Layout is a third party tool, telling Finale developers they need to buy it is not a Feature Request. No it isn’t. Suggesting that Finale should include some or all of those functions, that is a feature request.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
10 comments
Date Votes