But isn’t that also the case for other specialised software products like Microsoft Excel vs. Google Sheets? I mean, how often do you ask if Excel would ever adapt their workflows to match those of Google Sheets (or the other way around)?
Or have you ever compared 3D software? They are fundamentally different - internally as well as regarding UI and workflows -, and when you switch between them, you have to adapt.
Honestly, this is one issue I really don’t understand. Different products use different approaches for the tasks at hand and the user can or cannot use them. I would even say this is the big advantage of having different software products. If Dorico’s (admittedly quite different) workflows dont suit you, have a go at Sibelius or MuseScore.
Yes: every app will be designed to work in a certain way. The expectation that I can tailor it to work how I want it is unrealistic (notwithstanding that we can configure key commands to anything we want, and there are already a variety of preferences to set different modes of operation.)
And indeed, some new users struggle with Dorico, until they have a moment of epiphany, when they suddenly ‘get’ how it is designed, and how it all works; at which point it becomes easy, obvious, and dare I say ‘intuitive’.
I’d strongly disagree with this. Dorico has some amazing features and capabilities that make many processes faster. Layout is much faster. Making parts is faster. Preparing works with sections/movements is faster. The flagship feature in v6, Cutaway scores at the touch of a button, is unparalleled in any software.
A very naive question, posted on the Dorico forum, you have to expect the answers, especially as the members here have stuck to very old versions of Sibelius and know nothing of its current possibilities (version 2025.4).
If you really want to know the difference, you should also ask your question on the Sibelius forum…
Having used Sibelius for over 20 years, I was naturally hesitant to switch. Old habits die hard, but once I took the time to set them aside, I quickly came to appreciate that Dorico operates with its own clear and carefully considered paradigms. Its approach offers a more consistent, logical, and modern workflow for notation. Yes, there’s a significant learning curve, but the rewards are well worth the effort.
The separation into Setup, Write, Engrave, and Play modes, which can initially frustrate new users, is, in fact, one of Dorico’s great strengths. This structure allows for ultimate flexibility and reflects how thoughtfully the software has been conceived. It’s clear that Dorico’s development builds on hard-won experience from the team’s earlier work on Sibelius.
Even as a relative newcomer at version 6, Dorico already feels both mature and elegant in its implementation. Features like playback templates and expression maps are deeply integrated and far exceed what Sibelius currently offers in this area.
Another important factor is the cost of ownership. Steinberg’s upgrade pricing has remained modest (around £100 every couple of years), especially when compared with Sibelius’s subscription model at £140 per year.
To borrow a phrase once used to describe Wagner’s music (“a sunset mistaken for a dawn”), I’d say Sibelius now feels very much like that sunset: familiar, but fading. Dorico, on the other hand, is the dawn: full of possibility, evolving with real momentum, and supported by a team that listens.
A northern sun then, that never sets before bouncing back…
For my part, I recognise that Dorico 6 brings a few new features that I’ve been waiting for (cutaway scores, for example).
But I won’t adopt it until it allows me to enter the rhythmic value I want, without correcting it according to its criteria (and don’t get me started on the notation options, I know what they are and they don’t work; nor does this “Force duration” button, which I find inconvenient).
I totally understand where you’re coming from: no software is perfect, and we all have particular features or workflows that are non-negotiable for us. That said, it’s worth keeping in mind that no one is being forced to adopt Dorico. Sibelius, MuseScore, and others remain perfectly viable alternatives for those who prefer them.
The Dorico team has shown repeatedly that they listen carefully to user feedback and are willing to revisit design decisions over time. In the meantime, it’s great that we have genuine choice in notation software. Hopefully Dorico will eventually tick enough boxes for you, but until then, it’s entirely valid to stick with the tool that best fits your needs.
For anyone curious about exploring Dorico further, the 60-day trial is a great, no-risk way to get a feel for it.
a) Nothing?
b) Nobody here has switched over from recent versions of Sibelius
Personally, I keep an eye on what Sibelius is doing, reading the details every time they issue an update. Not so long ago I signed up to use Sibelius for a month, using their latest version to clean up and export old files so I could use them in Dorico. I can’t speak for any other ex-Sibelius users on here, but I can’t imagine I’m the only one doing that.
I just want to add my own perspective as another user who doesn’t fit that assumption. I’ve owned Dorico since version 3 and was happy to pay for each update as a way of supporting its ongoing development, even though I didn’t start properly using it until version 5.
At the same time, I still own Sibelius Ultimate (2024.10), mainly for compatibility with the many legacy scores I’ve yet to convert to Dorico. I also make a point of keeping up with developments in the world of notation software by subscribing to the Scoring Notes newsletter, which is an excellent resource for tracking updates, new features, and broader industry trends.
For me personally, I see no compelling reason to reinstate my Sibelius subscription, but I’m glad the option exists for those who need it.
100% agree Mats.
I’ve used both Sibelius and Dorico for many years and in my view Dorico completely outclasses Sibelius in almost every respect. Apart from the absence of a scripting language, there is nothing I miss from Sibelius.
The lack of query etc, is what is my main problem. The sequences can probably be made by software like Keyboard Maestro as well, but it is always better with built-in functions.
Better scripting has always been planned. I’m sure the team will implemented when they are able to devote their time to it. And you know that it will be awesome, when they do.
No, that’s not the point. If a piece of software is well designed and intuitive, you should not need to adapt to some hidden internal logic just to perform basic actions. Different workflows are fine, but there is a difference between a different design and one that actively gets in your way.
For example, say I want to delete a rest. In a good UI, if I select the rest and hit Delete, it disappears. Simple. In Dorico, nothing happens. Instead, I have to know there is a separate command under the Edit menu called Remove Rest.
That is just the dumbest example that came to mind, but I could name dozens more. The issue is not complexity. The issue is that the software often fails to behave in a way that matches natural expectations.
That’s exactly the issue. If an app requires an epiphany before basic operations feel obvious, then it is by definition not intuitive. Intuition means that the software behaves in a way that aligns with expectations before you’ve studied its internal model.
For many things, it is faster — layout, part extraction, working with flows, handling large projects with multiple movements, all of that is brilliantly implemented and saves a ton of time once you’re up and running.
But come on… you can acknowledge that Dorico has groundbreaking features and still say that parts of the UI are convoluted or counterintuitive. That’s not an insult, it’s just an honest observation.
Sorry, but that’s not what intuitive means. It does not mean it works the way I am used to. It means the interface communicates its function clearly and allows the user to understand what to do without needing documentation or prior training.
A new approach can be powerful, but if the user needs to study the manual to do a simple task, it is not intuitive. It may be consistent or well structured under the hood, but that is not the same thing.
But the same goes for Sibelius. To give one example, off the cuff: to set the vertical position of chord symbols (for instance), one needs to go to the Default Positions dialog and set one set of positions for the Chord Symbols Text Style (measured from the top of the staff, by default), and another lot of positions for Other Objects > Chord Symbols (measured from the middle of the staff, so a different value to achieve the same result), and then one needs to know that for any chord symbols that already exist their position needs resetting.
This isn’t intuitive, either, it’s just the sort of gremlin that one gets used to after a while.
