Talk:Sibelius (computer program)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Opening music
The program plays a brief passage from one of Jean Sibelius' symphonies when it is started up (which symphony is quoted depends on the version of the software).
- Does this count for Acorn computer versions? Sibelius 3 for Windows quotes Symphony No. 5 while Sibelius 2 quotes Symphony No. 7. --Puzzlet Chung 06:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, the Acorn programs didn't have any startup music. Ben Finn 15:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- It would be nice to have a chart showing the versions of the software and the passage quoted, with rehearsal letter or bar number. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] heh heh...
"(It is not clear what will happen to the name if and when the software reaches version 7.)"
Nice touch, guys =) Kareeser 21:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Acorn 'version' numbers
The original Acorn version of the software was called Sibelius 7, but the "7" was not a version number.
Is this right? I could have sworn I used a 'Sibelius 6' on the Acorn... or read a manual, or something... chrismear 10:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sibelius 6 was (is) a cut-down version of Sibelius 7 for schools/amateurs - it's not an early version of Sibelius 7. Sibelius 7 went through versions 1, 2, 3, 3.5, as did Sibelius 6. Ben Finn 10:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ahhh... it all becomes clear. Cheers! chrismear 15:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Criminy, it says as much in the article, doesn't it? Another A-grade for reading comprehension over here please... chrismear 15:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] screenshot
Would it be at all possible to get a screenshot of Sibelius, preferably of the same musical passage as in the screenshot for the article on Finale? Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've added such a Sib4 screenshot (different score though, the double violing concerto sample that is included with Sibelius) Moltovivace 02:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reviews
I've deleted an external link to a (critical) review which is effectively a blog on an unknown author's website. There remains a (favourable) review on a saxophone web site which I have also deleted, both to retain balance and because I doubt that web site is at all well-known either.
I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on links to reviews, but given how many times Sibelius has apparently been reviewed over the years by proper magazines etc, can I suggest that any links to reviews at least be to reputable, widely-known publications that readers can trust? 84.69.158.125 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article title
In line with Wikipedia naming policy, shouldn't this article be renamed to e.g. 'Sibelius (music software)', since the product itself is called 'Sibelius', not 'Sibelius notation program'? (Declaration of interest: I'm one of the original developers.) Ben Finn 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right, for two reasons: consistency with the policy ('Sibelius notation program' is not the name of the subject) and the fact that "notation program" is not a good specification anyway.
- I will move it now, because the absence of objection during the 2-month period passed since your question indicates nobody will object if it's done, while the absence of approving replies doesn't indicate anyone will object.Magipavra 02:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
I just did a major cleanup of the article; merged SibeliusMusic in and tidied up the article so it doesn't sound like the ad. Could people please review and check what I've done? A million heads are better than one! Jaser 12345 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
