Dorico (alternative to Sibelius / Finale / Lilypond)
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    Greetings all,
    This is slightly OT, but I know that Sibelius and Finale have been discussed here before. I just wanted to let anyone interested know that Dorico released a new version for ipad today, so if anyone is interested in trying Dorico out for free, this is a good chance to do so. the new ipad version is limited to two instruments (four if you log in with a steinberg account) although that can be expanded up to 12 if you pay a small annual fee.

    FWIW, I use dorico pro (currently 3.5) and I LOVE it. I use it to make all my scores and it is very flexible for choral works and for transcriptions of chant. The new ipad version released today is nearly the full desktop program; it's actually quite surprising how much of it they were able to port over and keep the interface and functionality the same. To be clear, it's not 1:1, although it seems that is the end goal (or something close to it). Dorico 4 is expected this fall.

    In future, if anyone has any Dorico questions, I'd be very happy to help. I'm active on that forum, and obviously I haunt here as well; my specialty is choral and chant engraving (and organ works) so I know many of the tricks to make these types of projects turn out very well.

    Cheers,
    James

    ---
    article about the new ipad version: https://blog.dorico.com/2021/07/dorico-for-ipad-available-now-free/
    link to the homepage for the desktop version: https://new.steinberg.net/dorico/
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    The only aspect of Dorico that keeps me away are the slurs and ties, which retain the same ugliness inherent to Sibelius's slurs; I much prefer the results one can achieve with LilyPond or even Finale in that regard.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen MarkS
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,015
    David Hughes is also enthusiastic about Dorico and used it during the Virtual Colloquium in June, in his talk about preparing your own scores of musical works when the commonly available ones are hard to read or are in an inconvenient key.

    That week he released a new score of a Mass by Casciolini, which was sung at the annual CMAA Requiem Mass on Friday, June 25; and I assume he used Dorico for it.
  • m_r_taylor
    Posts: 343
    I recently got Dorico after having Sibelius 6 for so long, and am pleased with a few things:

    1. How much easier it is to accomplish some tasks than Sibelius 6 despite being more familiar with the second program
    2. How engaged the developers seemed to be with their user base on their own forum.
    3. How much nicer the default font is than Sibelius' - only with a large amount of know-how and revision does Sibelius produce scores that I would feel comfortable selling. (Though I will probably upgrade Dorico's font to something else at some point)
    4. How easily Dorico guides you to making high-level changes to the engraving instead of easily lost individual spacing edits.
    5. How easy it is to produce multi-movement works and put them on a single page and in a single file. Gone are the days of Piece1a.sib, Piece1b.sib, collated onto a PDF only after the fact...
    6. How I don't have to set a time signature before engraving, which is extremely useful for some chant adaptations and for some of my unmeasured music.

    And there's more, but I've found it extremely easy to get used to. I'm sure the current versions of Sibelius and Finale are also just as good, but...I had to pick one, and decided to trust the vision of Daniel Spreadbury who as the original man behind Sibelius seems to be doing the right things.

    Someday I would love to see a mode for 4-line chant - Spreadbury said they didn't have the time to make that now, but that it could be something for the future.

    I might hit you up for advice now and then!

    Final note: I do admit, Dorico is still not beautiful by any means. Some of the old scores (and new) manage to be, I wonder if there are any particular new fonts which can get closer to that for graphical-software newbies like me?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    The only aspect of Dorico that keeps me away are the slurs and ties, which retain the same ugliness inherent to Sibelius's slurs; I much prefer the results one can achieve with LilyPond or even Finale in that regard.

    There are quite a few parameters that you can adjust so you are by no means stuck with the default options. I counted no fewer than 64 current options and settings that can be manipulated in the engrave menu for slurs alone.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    David Hughes is also enthusiastic about Dorico and used it during the Virtual Colloquium in June, in his talk about preparing your own scores of musical works when the commonly available ones are hard to read or are in an inconvenient key.

    That week he released a new score of a Mass by Casciolini, which was sung at the annual CMAA Requiem Mass on Friday, June 25; and I assume he used Dorico for it.


    I'm sure he did. I spoke to him about Dorico in Philly two years ago; he was about to make the switch back then. I believe he was waiting on figured bass at the time which came shortly thereafter.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    6. How I don't have to set a time signature before engraving, which is extremely useful for some chant adaptations and for some of my unmeasured music.

    This is one of my absolute favorite things. Most of what I do these days is unmetered. It's so wonderful. And you can add and take beats away wherever you like with the popovers.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    There are quite a few parameters that you can adjust so you are by no means stuck with the default options. I counted no fewer than 64 current options and settings that can be manipulated in the engrave menu for slurs alone.
    And none of them alter the basic shape, which is what I have an issue with and which looks nothing like fine hand-engraving.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    That is incorrect. There are thickness and shoulder offset values, which definitely affect the arc & contour of the slurs.
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,063
    Technical question: I believe there were big issues (at least at debut) with Dorico importing MusicXML and the like from existing files. A lot of us don't want to re-engrave the last ten years...

    If that got fixed (it was claimed to be fixed at release, but wasn't), it'll be a great program.
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,486
    This looks fascinating. I think Finale will eventually fold, as they have been hemorrhaging customers, partly because they make such a rotten software product. Errors and problems have been going on for 20 years! Everyone is frustrated and ready for something better.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    There was only limited xml support earlier on. It is still somewhat limited but every program has its quirks. Increased support is promised and Daniel (done of the dev team) helped sus out the new xml spec, if I’m not mistaken. They add richer import and export support with every version; I’m very curious to see what d4 will bring in the relatively near future.

    Fwiw, I’ve imported dozens of xml scores from places like cpdl and haven’t had any glaring issues, although I suppose it’s fair to say they were relatively straightforward scores.
    Thanked by 1BruceL
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    it should open sib files directly.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    Finale, Sibelius, and Dorico are all proprietary file formats. None of them can open the others’ files, nor should they. Further development of the universal xml spec is a good thing though.
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    At one time I remember quark could open pagemaker
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    Unless that was an open file format or they had a license agreement, that would have been illegal.

    Some companies do license the ability to open their files elsewhere (you can open or save a Microsoft office .doc file in Apple pages, for instance) however this is the exception, not the rule. In the case of the three warring music notation clans, that won’t be happening, especially since there already exists a neutral interchange format (music xml).
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    ok... revisiting this thread out of necessity... recently lost educational license to Sib and wondering if I should make the jump to hyper(Dorico)space. I have thousands of sib files that span two and a half decades. (just did a search on my computer... files that end with .sib... 23,000...) Now many are autosave copies, I will admit, but just trying to recoop my Sib Rep would be a super major undertaking to say the least.

    I just found that Sib offers a perpetual license for 600$... Serviam... you were the one who really took this thread to the max... how do you feel now four years since our last take on this?
    Thanked by 1LauraKaz
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    They have significantly refined the xml import and export. To be clear, it’s never a perfect process, it many more aspects can be transferred now than 4 years ago.

    I really do believe it’s the way of the future; I think there may be ways to batch convert files too. At least there was with Finale.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    Ultimately, if you’re happy in the sib space, it might be worth just staying there. Development seems to have stabilized a bit, although I’m still leery. Dorico is a learning curve, but almost everyone who makes it through the adjustment period comes out glad they persevered. Just depends on if you feel like learning new tricks.
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    Yea I just don’t know… does anyone else have wisdom on this issue?
  • CGM
    Posts: 741
    I tried to install Dorico a few months ago, and the installer didn't work because of font conflicts. That seems absurd — fonts crashing an installer app? As a result, I remain firmly ensconced in Finale (my engraver of choice for three and a-half decades), and my Dorico license sits dormant.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,031
    CGM, I'm very surprised to read this. I'm a regular on the forum and have never heard of this issue. I'll grant that some people have trouble installing the program since there are multiple steps, but a font issue preventing install is new to me. Did you report it or reach out to the devs?

    Francis—to help me help you, can you be more specific about what you'd like to know or what your particular concerns are? I'm not quite sure how I can help, really.

    All I can say is that I love working in Dorico and think it is excellent for church work, not least of all because it supports open meter in a way that is unparalleled by the competition (chant transcriptions are a breeze) and then the whole concept of "flows" is really useful for file management. This makes designing liturgies, or keeping multiple versions of things (think, hymn tunes with alternate text pairings, different arrangements of the same piece, etc.) really easy. There's a flexibility there that doesn't exist in other programs. Now there is also cutaway support, which makes things like choral responses really easy. Engraving quality is top notch, and the default output is head and shoulders above the competition, save Lilypond. Development is very active, and the dev team responds directly with the users. Multiple of my suggestions have made it in as features, so I know for a fact they pay attention to user feedback.

    All of that said, no one can really decide for you if the transition is worth it. For what it's worth, Avid is downsizing, so that is rather scary. The senior product designer since 2021 was eliminated. https://www.scoringnotes.com/news/makemusic-avid-begin-2025-with-personnel-moves/ This calls future Sibelius development into question, and I rather expect it will flounder for a while. It really ground to a halt when Avid was bought out in 2023, and only recently started to rebound. Now, with Justin Tokke gone, it might very well slow down again. Make of that what you will. I would be nervous to have all my eggs in the Sibelius basket.

    At a bare minimum, I'd start going through my .sib files and saving them as .xml to have a safety net.

    Ultimately, you could always to the 60 day trial and see if you like how dorico operates, and whether or not you're reasonably satisfied with the results of xml imports. That might be the best way to inform your decision.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    I guess I should go through all the files and pull out the original versions and get rid of the duplicates. Maybe I would be left with 1000 scores or so. In order to create the XML files, I’m going to have to subscribe again for at least a year I suppose.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,798
    I really hate that the free version of Dorico does not install like most macOS apps, either by dragging to applications or with .pkg files with the little installation menu that is very simple and doesn’t require more than clicking and then letting the OS do its thing.

    It is a total turn off for me if something doesn’t behave from the get-go like it should; making that a part of the reason to pay doesn’t work like that. Now, MS Studio misbehaves in a fundamental way once you open the app, as it treats each window as a separate process, so I can’t have tabs anymore, and therefore I can’t see what score is in what window, and the new Muse Sounds are external, so it’s constantly asking me for permission to access the thing outside the app (which would only happen once a day on opening MS Studio if the first problem were solved). But it’s somewhat less repulsive because it’s not my first experience with the app…
    Thanked by 1francis
  • Charles_Weaver
    Posts: 111
    For various reasons, I've had to learn and use both Finale and Sibelius professionally and I maintain my Sibelius subscription. But I enthusiastically adopted Dorico on the day it came out (after following Daniel Spreadbury's excellent blog about its development). If I have a choice or if I'm in charge of a project, I will opt for Dorico every time. It just does a much better job creating music that looks like good, professional engraving with a minimum of fussing with settings. Each version has added things that it now does excellently, many of which are useful for church musicians (easy meter changes and open meter; figured bass). If I had to pick one feature that has always been better than Sibelius, I would single out the lyrics, which are about as non-frustrating as they could possibly be.

    If you'll permit me an analogy, it's a little like switching from MS Word to InDesign for desktop publishing. I guess if we extend this analogy, Finale would be Word Perfect, Lilypond would be LaTeX, and Musescore would be Google Docs. There is a learning curve. If you care about design and the aesthetics of engraving, I think it's worth it. I'd be happy to answer any specific questions.
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    Thanks for your input, fellow composers. @Charles_Weaver... if the difference is switching to InDesign, how does Sibelius fit into that analogy?
  • Charles_Weaver
    Posts: 111
    I was thinking it was like Word: familiar; useful if sometimes frustrating; prevented by an old code base and a plethora of different uses from being as laser-focused on typographical aesthetics as the competition.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    The difference between word and indesign is light years. Are you saying Dorico is that much better?
  • Charles_Weaver
    Posts: 111
    Yes, I would say that. It's not to say that I don't still use Word (and Sibelius) plenty. Here are two rather different applications. The first is for a theory assignment from my school days. This was done with minimal difficulty using some of the advanced engraving features, whereas a lot of this would be quite hard in Sibelius.

    image

    The second is a Palestrina piece such as I use every week for church, set with the default settings and almost no difficulty. In this case I changed basically nothing to make the score look nice.

    image

    I make nice looking scores in Sibelius and Finale too, but it's much less work to get something like that from Dorico. Engraving aesthetics can seem a little silly, but I firmly believe that badly engraved music can waste a bunch of rehearsal time and can also lead to problems in performance.
    Screenshot 2025-06-06 at 22.51.39.png
    1474 x 518 - 96K
    Screenshot 2025-06-06 at 22.52.47.png
    1376 x 1178 - 203K
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,798
    I firmly believe that badly engraved music can waste a bunch of rehearsal time and can also lead to problems in performance.


    It’s true. I think that I rightfully knock on Dorico’s flaw for the OS which I hope to never abandon (and I already have one thing with a huge, but very different, learning curve), all while freely accepting that MS Studio* does very, very stupid things that lead to mistakes that you don’t catch, which in turn lead to wasted time in practice, or which are regressions that they introduce (on top of their scammy, dark-advertising business model that is essentially set up to not pay corporate income taxes).

    I also totally get that people made scores ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, but even for more popular pieces like the Palestrina Sicut Cervus, I’m a bit struck by the quality of available scores…

    *though lately, due to collaboration requirements, I have forced myself to use Google Docs, and while Pages still wins because I can use the full OpenType features, almost everything goes right in Docs (the exception is placing a header without text and without body text after it; it does weird things to the page). Anyway, I think that it’s comparatively less of a step down from Pages than MS Studio is from better programs. :)
    Thanked by 1francis
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,142
    Like Charlie, I bought Dorico when it came out. I'm a sucker for underdogs (the Avid team being laid off; I used the beta of Brave for the same reason). And I recognized that Dorico incorporated game-changing concepts. But I couldn't muster the energy to learn the program, until I had to. The initial experiences were just too frustrating.

    I should have done it years ago. One big improvement over Finale is that it doesn't think in measures. This not only makes non-measured music easier. If I'm editing from a Renaissance print, I can enter what I see without the constant "too many beats in the measure", because Dorico will just flow it over the barline. Change your mind and decide you want to reduce note values? Not a biggie. The one thing Finale does better is musica ficta. One can move "real" accidentals above the note, and they'll change with transposition Dorico doesn't do that, so cleanup may be necessary on a transposed project. Also, one can't export a single xml for a multi-flow project.
  • francis
    Posts: 11,052
    Hmmm… this is all very interesting information.
  • PaxTecum
    Posts: 334
    When the need for this kind of software came up again in my life, I had not used Sibelius in years and no longer had a subscription, nor did I really need to access any of the scores I had previously made in Sibelius. So, jumping into Dorico was very easy for me in that sense. It definitely had a learning curve, but once I got over the hump it has been really great. Beautiful scores are simple to produce, and I find the inputting methods to be much easier as well (though, I never used Finale, so my only experience with that was an old version of Sibelius)
    Thanked by 1francis