And your point is…???

I have long noted the many issues with finale including missing features. Some things  can be made up for via plugins but yes, lots of stuff needs to be brought into 2022. At the same time I’ve been able to make do for a few decades now. But yeah, they will lose market share if they don’t start to innovate. I think musescore is less a threat than Dorico. If this were many years ago I’d likely give up and learn Dorico. But it’s 2022 and I don’t have time to compose let alone learn another notation program. My sense is that the main advantage of Musescore is its price. That’s it. But good that there are choices. 

anyhoo, good luck kvetching. If you have ideas for enhancements please send them to MM. Yeah, text has always sucked but at least we have file sharing. Yay (???). 

The best alternative is TuxGuitar, which is both free and Open Source. Other great apps like MuseScore are Guitar Pro (Paid), Avid Sibelius (Freemium), LilyPond (Free, Open  In Finale, go to File → MusicXML → Export . If your version of Finale can't export to MusicXML, or if you  192.168.l.254   want a more accurate export, download the Dolet plugin. Once you have a MXL or XML file,  Source) and Rosegarden (Free, Open Source).

Musescore is not even in the same zipcode as Finale. I have heard rumors that Musescore 4 is about to be released so we'll see if that brings it closer. At KU in the music department where I am very familiar the kids use Musescore for only one reason. It doesn't cost anything. Music majors are generally broke all the time. Perhaps it doesn't sound like it but music is an expensive degree.

I have a good friend that makes his living composing  music. He uses Sibelius. He is a Sibelius power user. Believe me Sibelius has its own set of quirks. Dorico just isn't ready for prime time yet.

MM or any company don't do things because, one of, or both of, two reasons. No money to do it or don't have the technical talent to do it. Companies are always looking to conserve resources whenever possible. MM management apparently doesn't see a real return spending such resources in improving Finale. Not enough bang for the buck. Somebody in a management position sold the file sharing feature as a big deal and all would embrace it. Nobody I know has however!

The smufl font upgrade was a real upgrade and will be a strong advantage as it matures.

One thing for sure is MM could help by not being so closed off from its user base. I keep remembering how the old MM people were and how different the Boulder folks are. Again, probably money, the lack thereof.

MuseScore is free and worth every ¢. This assumes that one can stand the workflow. I cannot but, if you can, knock yourself out.

I own current licenses to six notation products. They're tools and I use what gets the job done.

I get it, but dealt with our son using his version of MuseScore last night trying to do a music homework assignment and it was really really painful. It was like being condemned to use Simple Entry in Finale but even worse than that (sorry to those simple entry devotees out there). As much as we all tend to kvetch about Finale's many longstanding issues, it is just so much more capable than MuseScore. I'm sure Sibelius and Dorico (both of which I've never used) are similarly capable (and Dorico has a few nice features that Finale would be smart to consider). But MuseScore, at least from what I witnessed, can be painful. At least for someone who is new at it like my 20-year-old son.

I try them all and I always realize Finale is the best especially when you add certain plug-ins. And, Musescore isn't that bad either once you get to know its terminology and how it operates. If you want to try the worst music editor get Smart Score Pro 64. That is the most convoluted music editor out there.

I don't like some very important features in Sibelius like it printing function and score layout. Finale lets you make your score anyway you want but Sibelius tries to make you to do it how it wants to. 

Finale could be the top notch notation software available anywhere with easy enhancements but it seems MM is steadfast against any of them. They think the industry want file sharing. Perhaps it does what do I know? Well for one I don't.

I think, to your earlier point that you've made in other threads as well, it's not just a matter of lack of capital or lack of skill, it's also a matter of prioritization. I find it hard to believe that the engineers/programmers at MM can't do some of the things that are found in some competing products like Dorico or Sibelius. It might be $, sure (I have no way of knowing). But it also may be a matter of whether or not some feature requests rise to the top. If enough people make it known that updated versions of JW Plugins are critical for using Finale moving forward, then that's something that might rise to a higher priority. Same with enhancing how accidentals are handled (I've seen the preferences setup for Dorico online and it's more inclusive and useful than how Finale handles accidental checking, and even better than JW Accidentals, since I can't make any changes to the latter without it crashing Finale). 

So $, talent but more importantly, prioritization is what drives things in terms of software development. You want something in Finale, let it be known to the team at MM. I've done that and feel like they are very receptive to enhancement suggestions. But for sure, it isn't a matter of programming skill; they are fine in that area. Keep in mind they are also dealing with a lot of legacy code; that also affects what can be bolted onto existing software and in some cases, it might not be wise to do it that way even if technically possible. 

Here's how Dorico handles accidentals as various options. This would be nice to have in Finale, for example. Same with how they now handle note insertions; much better than how it's done in Finale IMHO.

I just tested the newest release of Musescore , which is Musescore 4. It is so easy to use.

Well two years later and Musescore 4 is still not even on the same zipcode as Finale 27. I have the latest Musescore on my computer and I use every once in a while just to see. " It is so easy to use", try moving one measure to the next page or a previous page. The best thing about Musiscore is its mixer. I wish MM would wake up and fix the atrocious arcane Finale mixer.

I am also highly involved with music ed college kids and, yes, they do use Musescore but they do so because it is free not because it is better or easier to learn. Free carries a lot of weight with college students.

Make Music management has decided that the cloud and sharing is their main most thing and the way to go. Their future. This leaves Finale's notation updates as secondary. I still believe MM resources are limited and they can not do both at the same time. Thank heaven for plug-ins!

It all depends what you need. MuseScore 4 is out. I’m looking it over for barbershoppers who don’t want to spend $300, and quite frankly, they don’t need Finale. I think MMs biggest mistake was dropping the less-featured products.

If they want to do a chart and submit it to the Society, they would probably want Finale. (Of course, they could send it in the way they have it, and if it was good enough for publication, headquarters would send it to me or one of the other volunteer copyists, to whip it into shape.) But if they want a nice legible chart for their quartet or chorus, there is no reason not to use MS. What I find interesting, reading the forum, is that MS4 seems to have done away with some features from MS3., and people are asking to have them back. Time will tell.

In any case, I wouldn’t count MuseScore out. There are many (dare I say multitudes) of aspiring composers and students who will find it absolutely adequate to their needs.

Muse Group is intent on changing the world of music exchange as we know it—and they have access to the capital it takes to try. MuseScore is a minor cog in this — or was till they acquired Hal Leonard last December. It's the largest sheet music publisher in the world and a critical element if the prize is world domination. The goal is now to make MuseScore good enough to be the in-house notation app and, by their own admission, they have a long, long way to go.

Interesting observation:

What I find interesting, reading the forum, is that MS4 seems to have done away with some features from MS3., and people are asking to have them back. 

They can ask but that isn't going to happen. For MS to get good—necessary in their scheme—MuseScore needs to follow accepted notation standards on most fronts and not pretend that they don't exist. Does it become more free-form like Finale (where you can do anything if you figure out how) or rigid like Dorico? Time will tell but it probably won't be like Sibelius where the object is to build an insular little world that revolves around ProTools.

Hi Ernest,
After reading your comment I suspect you really don't use musescore much, do you? For example, to move a measure to the next system is super easy. It's like in a text editor. Select the last message you want to keep in the system and press the return key. All following measures will be pushed into the next system. Tip: Check out the keyboard shortcut library under the musescore preferences.
CHEERS!

All following measures will be pushed into the next system. 

Exactly! Try moving one measure. Not everything.

To move one measure down to the next system, select the next-to-last measure, and RETURN. As Thomas said, just like a word processor.

" It is so easy to use", try moving one measure to the next page or a previous page.

Both of you have missed my point. I probably need to be more clear. Finale can move any measure to any place without moving or messing with all the other measures. Next page previous page or all the way to the end or beginning, Musescore winds up with garbage like this.

i will admit that if no Finale for whatever reason I would be a Musescore user. Dorico is a hot mess and even more convoluted than Musescore is. And Sibelius is way too expensive besides being controlling with all the BS Avid makes or wants you to go through.

Musescore is good for a free program but certainly not ready for prime time............yet.

Musescore is good for a free program but certainly not ready for prime time............yet.

Yep. They’re the first to admit it, too. The future and big $$$ is in publishing as far as they are concerned; notation is one of the stepping stones. MakeMusic is owned by one of the other major publishing groups, Alfred Music. Will they to catch up? Perhaps but neither Finale nor Muse Score were much in evidence at NAMM a few weeks ago  Muse Group/Hal Leonard and Alfred had large booths next to each other.

Muse Group is talking about adding an AI component to MS5. Will it read my mind? Time will tell but there’s a major hiring effort going on if you’re an AI engineer. I don’t think you have to move to Cypress — or perhaps you do..

I appreciate all your comments my friends. Just to clarify. We are on the Finale forum for a reason. We all use Finale for our work, many of us for many years. And we can all agree that it is still way superior to even the newest inclination of Musescore. (It is hard to comprehend that people used musescore 10 years ago when it was just a joke.)
The real reason of my post is not to promote Musescore but rather to figure out how we can keep Finale around. For that to happen we need to convince MM that Finale needs a major interface overhaul that attracts new customers. I'm teaching an arranging course right now at Columbia College. 20 out of 22 students chose Musescore. That's crazy, but simple the truth.
Finale has lost the fight for new customers to Musescore. And by the way, I don't think it's the $90 that keeps the students from getting it. I see how much they pay for their audio plugins. It's Finale's bad reputation of being too complex and buggy. Here is an example how it can be done. Logic Pro is Apple's DAW. You can run it in a beginner friendly mode or switch it to expert (advanced) mode. It also runs as a slightly slimmed down version on an iPad. And they also have an entry-level app that is free called Garageband. So for someone who is just starting out with Digital Music production, Apple offers them several ways. And Finale offers non of that. To me, Finale was the equivalent of a German built Mercedes in 2000. When you are a market leader you need to keep innovating in order to stay competitive. Mercedes is still the leader in automobile innovation today. And that's where MM failed.
Let's get it done MM!
CHEERS!

 I don't think it's the $90 that keeps the students from getting it. I see how much they pay for their audio plugins.

I not only think it is the free aspect of Musescore that attracts the music majors, I am positive. There is a huge difference between their iphone and ear buds or whatever electronic device a college kid has and almost anything else.

One thing, my friend, we do agree on is Finale needs a major upgrade to keep pace. However, MM has decided the future of MM is the cloud and sharing and that is where they are concentrating their resources.

Having messed around with all of them, my overall assessment is that to compete, Finale really needs to focus on the user interface, as the world has moved beyond what Finale is probably the still the best at - finished typography. The others get about most of the way there, which is good enough for 99% of use cases. With an easier, transparent UI, most practicing musicians will gladly accept the ease-of-use trade-off; publication-grade detail is beyond the pain point of all but the most finicky, obsessive publisher. (Note: publisher. In my bubble, almost everyone using notation software at this point is a musician - I'm the only one publishing scores in my circle; they are using them directly in their ensembles. I couldn't work with the other apps because they are trying to do my thinking for me and I can't get their biases out of the way, I prefer the empty drawing board Finale presents me. But they are beavering away on a UI overhaul nonetheless, right?)

Finale really needs to focus on the user interface,  ...

I really don't know why MM doesn't do an updated  GUI. It wouldn't effect the basic program just how it looks. The tiny buttons are sorry looking in todays world, IMHO, as always. 

The biggest irony I see, though, is folks don't seem to think Sibelius, Dorico and, yes, MuseScore don't have their own quirks. They do and they are many just different quirks!.

Addendum:

Its really just the workspace GUI that is wanting. The sub menus are not too bad except some are not resizable and they should be. If it can't display it full contents make it resizable. No real reason that all windows should not be sizable.

the UX definitely needs a lot of work (eg, the Shape Designer, which is antique ca. 1995). But they also need more and better functionality and actual innovation. The idea that one has to really purchase plugins in many cases, some of which are pricey, just to do some basic things is incredibly bad. Some things should be done automatically (I need to redraw the screen manually to see certain things update-really?). Again, there is a huge need to innovate to stay relevant, not just pretty up the interface. It's still a pig, even with better lipstick.

No betas for user testing in two years or so. No mention of anything on the horizon from MM. They just don't seem to care anymore. So Finale is pretty much going to die once its long-time users go away, since I doubt they're getting a ton of new users. If I'm wrong, great, but I don't think so. I mean, people are even still discussing Sibelius, and of course Musescore and Dorico. Outside of this forum and the better forum some of us peruse that is run by users, who is really discussing Finale these days? Maybe they only care for Finale to be used by some publishing houses. I'm not a publishing house. I'm a composer and could care little about what a publisher wants. Finale used to be great for us composers. Now, it's always an adventure as to whether it does what I need it to do, reliably and without some odd transient bug or oddity creeping in.

Please, anyone, don't tell me that Finale works perfectly for you. You're clearly blessed or don't have the needs that many of us composers do. For a lot of us, Finale is a slog, and often unpredictable. It's not a matter of not knowing the program; I've been using Finale since version 3.2.1 in the early 90's. And the reliance on multiple sets of plugins (JW, TGT, Patterson, and a ton of .lua scripts) makes it often a search-and-rescue operation to find the right thing I need at that moment, since there is clearly plugin and script creep. Many of those things should be baked into Finale and part of the normal workflow, not done as add-ons. My $0.02. 

I'm a composer and could care little about what a publisher wants.

Well, I'm a publisher first, and I want a better UI/UX too. You really don't need a second monitor to work in Dorico - but I need two and want a third for Finale. And what better exemplifies the UX deficiency - other than MS-DOS windowing - is the smuffle font disaster, and pathetically weak default styles. Hey - what about a one-click library for LilyPond, Henle, and other styles? Yes, I arrange and compose, but I'm as much a (self) publisher who still can't understand why an accidental on an eighth note four staves away means the quarter note spacing beneath needs to gap toothed - so I manually reposition for 'beautiful', making me one who turns off automatic page updates; I'm glad to have the option. Good thing these plugins are around, but their necessity increases the cost of Finale.

I doubt it's easy to revise the UI - there is so much legacy code that such a project would need to be jobbed out to Kendall Square or some similar place. This is not cheap, but if they are losing a hundred seats or more every year at every college, school, or conservatory, lack of attention to this would inevitably be fatal. Even Sibelius figured that and pulled itself together. So maybe there are sharp minds in some isolated UI lab working on a secret project? Podcasts won't save the day. 

I am in 'concert' so to speak with you guys but in dealing with the faults and facts of Finale you  need to be factual. The fact is Sibelius uses plug-ins just like Finale for mundane tasks. And matter of fact if you bought Finale at the current price not the Summer Sale price and bought all the plug-ins you could it still would still be at or under the cost of Sibelius. The cost of a perpetual license for Sibelius Ultimate is $599. Yes you can rent Sibelius, but you never own it that way.

The idea that one has to ... purchase plugins in many cases, ..., just to do some basic things 

Plugins do not do anything that Finale can't do on its own by you the user. They simply automat it.

Some things should be done automatically

And some, if not most, should not be done automatically which is one of the great features of Finale. And, is one of the first reason that both Finale and Sibelius have and use plug-ins. Who wants some Sibelius designer telling me how my score should look. No thanks.

I doubt it's easy to revise the UI 

I would think it would be quite simple. You should not be messing around with the basic engine of the program just how it looks. For instance all windows should be sizable.

Many of those things should be baked into Finale and part of the normal workflow,...

On this we agree plus how stand offish and unresponsive the MM management is. They are certainly not encouraging or promoting or selling Finale to get new customers. They have their collective heads in the "clouds" while Finale dies.

Ernest Biggs, you made some really good points!
For example, a new UI does indeed not need to change what's under the hood.
However, automating certain things like avoiding collisions when writing the score would be nice. It could be an optional, meaning it can be turned off generally or for selected measures in case you want to get your hands dirty.
The most important point you made is also the saddest. The MM heads don't care any more about leading the music notation world, and they haven't done so for a long time. They are just milking the old cow as long as they can. Soon you can buy Finale for 99 cents. Having said that, I so hope that I am completely wrong and they blow us all away with their next upgrade! Yeah!

I haven’t been blown away by an upgrade to Finale since I wrote a business school paper about how Finale 3.5 was an elegant application. It was. Nothing since has been as well designed, innovative or impactful. I’ve not been approached about any beta testing and suspect no one has. F27 was kinda meh. Until and unless they make a serious commitment to revamping the code and interface, it’s just window dressing at best. Nothing screams “end of life” for an application than the lack of any hints of a substantive upgrade from MM. Just the opposite; they’ve gone to the trouble of clearly telegraphing that they are not at all focused on Finale development beyond some minor bug fixes. Sad.

Thomas,

 I so hope that I am completely wrong and they blow us all away with their next upgrade!

I fear your hope will go wanting.

MM heads don't care any more about leading the music notation world, and they haven't done so for a long time. 

Almost exactly coincides with the move to Boulder Colorado and new management.

 ...automating certain things like avoiding collisions when writing the score would be nice. 

I actually think this would be a bad thing and I hope Finale keeps it the way it currently is. Since I got Perfect Layout I work almost exclusively in scroll view and let Finale put things where it will. When completed or nearly so I run PL. It works beautifully. The sad issue here is MM needs to embrace PL and figure out how to incorporate into Finale. Yes it should be a choice a selection, whether the user wants to use it or not but it is is a tool that seems to have eluded MM.

Now before somebody chimes in and says, well Perfect Layout costs money. Yes it does but even buying Finale and also buying Perfect Layout you are still less than either Sibelius or Dorico costs and you have retained the ability to do it your way and not how some Sibelius engineer thinks you should. That has always been Finale's strong point and feature.

Another point, I quite frankly don't understand why some folks that continually complain about how poor Finale is and how great Sibelius, Musescore or whatever is, don't switch. I would if I were that person. I have a good friend that is a full time composer. He makes his living at writing music and is very successful. He is a Sibelius power user so I am reasonably acquainted with Sibelius. The point is, if you think Sibelius doesn't have its little quirks and issues you are sadly mistaken because it does.

Well, a lot of us who note the many longstanding issues with Finale and look at Dorico as at least having really committed support, frequent software enhancements and actual innovation, etc. also mention that 1) some of us have a lot of years invested in Finale and really don't have the time to learn Dorico etc (and yes, Dorico has its own issues, I'm sure) and 2) we want Finale to improve; we are not leaving. 

Saying that other software has their own flaws is sidestepping the elephant in the room: Finale is not being continually improved nor is there evidence that a very necessary and welcome update with meaningful improvements is in the cards. Sure, Sibelius, Dorico, Musescore have their own challenges. But at least there is visible activity for all three of those programs.