Comparison of Music Composing Software: Finale, GarageBand and

Musescore

Xinchi Su

School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, U.S.A.

Keywords: Composing Software, Music Production, AI-Generated Music, Computer Music.

Abstract: As a matter of fact, lots of software has been developed to realize music composing. With this in mind, based

on the historical development of computer music and its current use, this article compares and analyzes the

three composition software, Finale, Grageband and Musescore, after combining the data. It introduces in detail

the general usage of Finale, Musescore and Grageband, as well as how to use these three-composition software

to compose music. It details the differences between Grageband, Musescore, and Finale, and discusses how

this three or two composition software can be combined to produce richer and more beautiful music. Then, it

discusses how these three-composition software will be combined with AI in the future since AI is developing

rapidly now. Then discussed how AI can be added to the built-in systems of these three software, allowing

AI to generate a complete piece of music based on the basic melody or rhythm input by the user. Finally,

based on the existing data and analysis, turns out that Musescore may be the best composition software now.

1 INTRODUCTION

Music composing software is a strongly useful tool

that helps us create music and adjust our own

perspective on it. In the era when computers were not

yet widely developed, composers could only record

their music with pen and paper, which usually took a

long time to write a large piece of music. As the times

developed, computers were invented, and the

definition of computer music came into being. The

term "computer music" refers to a variety of artistic

endeavors made possible by the development of

computer technology, from the direct creation of

sound within the computer to the compilation of data

for use in the composition of traditionally notated

scores. The processes involved in switching from

analog to digital working modes were going to have

a significant impact on how the composers. The

working environment for them has changed

significantly as a result of these fundamental shifts in

the nature of the underlying technologies (Peter, 2013)

. The computer music creators don't expect to write

entire scores in the blink of an eye, but rather to

master the basic principles of creating such music

(Pell, 2023). Moreover, the development of computer

music can be roughly divided into three parts, I: Early

Languages and the Rise of MUSIC-N, II: The

Computer Age (Part II): Realtime Systems, III: The

Computer Age (Part III): New Language

Explorations (Nick & Julio, 2017). These composing

programs, like Finale, Garageband, and Musescore,

continue to be very influential today. Sheet music is

written using Finale and Musescore, which correlate

to the above scenario. Composing will be much more

efficient by using these two programs, and the music

can also be played by the software after it has been

created. A computer notation application must not

only address the complex rules set forth for modern

notational practice, but also function in an advanced

and user-friendly way. This need is met by Finale,

which automatically translates musical notation,

including durations, formatting, and beaming, with

the option for user override. Finale views chords and

notes as data representations of pitches that can be

changed and transposed as needed (Purse, 2014).

Grageband can produce more complex and gorgeous

sounds. It can add multiple audio tracks. It is like a

music studio but can be carried around. It can import

songs written in Finale to add more desired effects on

this basis. Multiple audio and MIDI tracks can be

recorded, mixed, and edited simultaneously, and then

saved as audio files in a number of different formats

(Mayers & Lee, 2011). This article focuses on

analyzing the main differences between Finale and

Musescore, and whether it can be modified in the

Su and X.

Comparison of Music Composing Software: Finale, GarageBand and Musescore.

DOI: 10.5220/0013486800004619

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Data Analysis and Machine Learning (DAML 2024), pages 30-34

ISBN: 978-989-758-754-2

future by adding computer-generated music. Using

studio software like GarageBand to compose richer

music.

2 DESCRIPTIONS OF MUSIC

COMPOSITION

The underlying logic of today's mainstream software-

based compositions is generally the same: create a

library to store the required sounds and instruments,

etc., and then set some rules to allow users to input

specified instructions to let the system generate the

music, which can be random or specified. The

emergence of more affordable and eventually more

adaptable mainframe computer substitutes marked

the end of the groundbreaking era of computer music,

which was driven by the creation of the MUSICn

family of programs. Leland Smith, who worked at

Stanford University, made a significant advancement

when he created a music-based syntax for specifying

specifics of pitch and rhythm using MUSIC V and the

SCORE subprogram. This is the prototype of the

current method. The user provides the desired pitch

and rhythm to the program, and lets the program

decide how to process the input. This is very similar

to the current method. Today's mainstream methods

or languages, such as Nyquist or Super Collider, are

also similar. Enter the instructions and set its

parameters to the desired rhythm and pitch. The

system will generate the desired music, even if it may

not sound good, but the logic is similar. Another

software, such as super collider, is not that easy to

operate in practice. One of the most challenging

aspects of using SuperCollider can be the actual

composition process and choosing how one approach

it. It might be challenging for someone to move from

altering basic models to creating a large-scale work

(Wilson et al., 2011). For example, to compose a

piece of music of about two minutes, it usually needs

one to three functions first to define the instruments

to be used in the main function of the song. Then

define the main function of the song and use the

instructions in the manual to set the music that want

to generate, such as beats, rhythm, and pitch. Finally,

it also needs to organize a play or something similar

to let the music sound, which takes a lot of time to

write and debug. If want to be proficient in using

these languages, it requires a lot of time to practice,

so finding a more convenient method is the current

goal, so that even people with no music or

programming foundation can easily and conveniently

use a special software or platform to make the music

they want.

3 FINALE

One of the most important software on the market

now is Finale. it has a simple and easy-to-use

interface and is fully functional. one can operate it

proficiently without much learning. it saves a lot of

time for arranging music, especially when composing

music with five-line notation. composers do not need

to write down their ideas on paper, and can compose

music anytime and anywhere. because ideas are not

always available, sometimes when they are out and

about, they may suddenly have a good idea at a

certain moment, but they do not have paper and pen

with them. at this time, the role of this software is

highlighted. They only need a computer to write

down their ideas. Like the other composing software,

there will be 5 to 7 options at the top of its interface.

As shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Snap shots of Finale (Photo/Picture credit:

Original).

The first one is to create a new piece of music. After

that, one can choose the score one want to create and

the instrument. If it is a piano or violin, then a treble

clef stave will be generated. If it is a viola, then a tenor

clef stave will be generated. If it is written for an

orchestra, then a full score will be generated. Each

instrument has its own special clef, and so on. The

software will adjust its own clef according to the

actual instrument. Then, one can design how many

bars one need. Even if it is not enough, when one

enter the actual score writing, one can also insert the

desired bars at the back of the score or in the middle

of the score. The other options are all for adjusting the

score, such as adding legato, opening files, and

importing MIDI files or pre-recorded sounds. In

general, all the functions that can think of can all

achieved. One the functions that pretty useful is hide

bars. For example, at the start of a piano vocal score

when the voice is tacet for an introduction, hiding

staves can be chosen for a limited range of systems.

A dashed line will appear in the score for hidden

strays. Once hidden staves have been chosen, they

can be eliminated using the Staff menu's Show

Comparison of Music Composing Software: Finale, GarageBand and Musescore

Hidden Staves option. In this way, when some songs

have a long period of empty beats at the beginning

and the performer is waiting for other instruments,

they can omit their own part and focus on the

accompanist's score. This will allow the performer to

focus more on their own part and turn the time the

ensemble is waiting into preparing their own part.

After finish the composition, if composer want to

change something in the middle, but the work has

already been imported, they can use the function set

up layers. When there are two or more layers in a

single measure, Finale already provides options for

Layers 1 and 2 that regulate the orientation of the

stems and ties. It is necessary to adjust the rest

positions so that the default position better satisfies

the musical expectations (Rudolph & Leonard, 2005).

Finally, when there are no practical problems,

composers can export it and enjoy the music they

made. This software's primary purpose is to compose

music. The benefit of being able to create computer-

generated music is not present. The only difference is

that musescore is simpler to use than it. The analysis

of musescore is provided as following.

4 MUSESCORE

Musescore is also a powerful composition and

arrangement software. Compared with finale, it is

easier to operate and has a simple interface. Its

interface guide is very simple, similar to finale. There

are 8 main options at the top of its interface, each

corresponding to a corresponding operation. If it is

used for the first time, it will display a blank interface,

showing that there is no new work. At this time, one

can create a new project by using the file option at the

top. The instruments can be customized for the track,

etc. If the track is for two pianos or other instruments,

it can also customize one part first, and that part no

matter what, can be as many voices as it could be. The

edit part looks like in Fig. 2.

Figure 2: Snap shots of

Musescore

(Photo/Picture credit:

Original).

The simple usage of this software makes it easy for

music lovers who do not need much musical

foundation to use it. Moreover, this software is

completely free and all its functions can be used

without purchasing additional means. It can also

attract people who have no composing experience at

all. If they want to get started with composing but do

not have the right tools at hand, and because they have

no foundation, they cannot start composing directly

on the staff, then this software will come in handy.

Apart from its software, MuseScore has an expanding

online community with developers, translators, and

fans who contribute to the project. Since then, a large

number of open-source third-party plugins have been

developed to increase MuseScore's capability

(Watson, 2018). If beginners have any questions, they

can go to its community to search or post questions,

and there will be many enthusiastic professionals to

help them. This software is mainly used in

composition, and can even be used in the music

enlightenment of preschool children, so that children

can be exposed to music knowledge as early as

possible and broaden their horizons. This software

also covers many languages, so it can be used fluently

even in countries with relatively small languages.

Utilizing MureScore to integrate the musical and

theoretical concepts. Over the course of six weeks,

the MuseScore software was used to integrate

previously learned concepts linked to music theory.

The program was running version 2.0, which supports

the selection of many languages (Todea, 2015). This

composing software is generally not much different

from finale. The most important thing is that it is free

to download and can use all the functions. Its mainly

use people is wider, that is, people who are not so

professional composers. Grageband is very different

from finale and musescore. It is more like a studio.

The following is an analysis of Grageband.

5 GRAGEBAND

Grageband is a software similar to a music studio. It

is exclusive to iOS clients. Users can download it

through mobile phones, iPads, Macs and other

devices. Unlike Finale and Musescore, it does not

create music like notation software. It synthesizes

sounds by users actively adding different tracks.

There are about 11 options when users first enter its

interface. Take the iPad version as an example. Users

can swipe the screen left and right to choose what

instrument they want to create. The normal order

should be from piano to drums, synthesizers, strings,

and users can also record the sounds they want, and

DAML 2024 - International Conference on Data Analysis and Machine Learning

even import sounds from outside. For example, they

can first write the music on the computer, and then

import it into the iPad or mobile phone. In this way,

producers can adapt the music they have written

anytime, anywhere. Users can also download sounds

shared by others through the sound resource library.

There are also many sounds from famous producers.

Users can create some sounds of their favourite

producers by purchasing these sounds. Even if don’t

purchase any sound resources, one drummer, thirty

Software Instrument sounds, and five hundred loops

are all included in the free version of GarageBand. An

extra 17 drummers, 150 software instrument sounds,

and 1,500 loops are available as part of an optional

one-time GarageBand in-app purchase (Plummer,

2015). This software, or music studio, is basically

used to make music with an electronic style. The

basic process is that the user first decides what a bass

is, usually drums. In garageband, the user can choose

whether to use real drums or electronic drum beats.

After deciding on the base, the next step is to create

the melody, which can be piano, vocal, strings, etc.

The overall format should be A-B-A-C-A or

something like that. On this basis, the user can choose

to create some melody variations in C, change the

style of the base in the repeated A, and decide in B

what the melody and style of the climax of the work

is. In short, if one creates 3 to 4 layers, it will be a

pretty good piece of music. The basic work situation

is shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 3: Snap shots of

Grageband

(Photo/Picture credit:

Original).

Nevertheless, precisely because it is so easy to

create, it also leads to another problem. According to

some professional musicians, they're giving amateurs

too much authority. This is comparable to the release

of desktop publishing by Apple. For the following

two years, every brochure and newsletter appeared

like a ransom note since everyone was using all 22

fonts in every paper. Suring enough, there's a lot of

polished, professionally produced, beautifully

processed, dreck on the websites where individuals

submit their GarageBand compositions (Pogue, 2005).

So basically, this software is mainly used by people

with some professional knowledge to create music.

Of course, beginners can also use it, but they can't

create music that is particularly perfect and following

the rules of composition or music production.

6 LIMITATIONS AND

PROSPECTS

Based on the above analysis of the three-music

software, it can be seen that the current mainstream

music software does not have automatic music

generation or similar functions. In Finale and

Musescore, this two software, as notation software,

can only do basic input through users, and they use

their own built-in players to play the sounds that users

come up with. In GarageBand, users can enrich the

sounds they create by downloading other people's

sound resources, but this is not a unique sound created

by the user. Based on the current technological

development, in the future, similar self-generated

built-in codes or functions can be imported into

notation software, allowing the notation software to

recognize the user's input melody and generate a

complete work based on this melody or motive. It also

needs to follow the most basic music theory and

cannot make any mistakes. Users can also adjust in

the system settings what type of music they want it to

generate, such as classical, romantic, or even modern.

A data transmission function can be added to

musescore or garageband. Users can provide

feedback based on the generated music and return it

to the software company's superiors to see if it meets

the user's requirements. In this way, the superiors can

use the user's feedback to improve the software's

built-in music generation model, so that the software

can better generate the sound that the user wants. As

a paid software, Finale can attract more users to use

this software by introducing a community-like

communication website. These are just assumptions.

The status of composition and the idea of human

unique music are irreplaceable.

7 CONCLUSIONS

To sum up, the comparisons in the study show that, in

terms of notation software, if users are a non-

professional user, Musescore is definitely the best

choice. Finale is more oriented towards professional

composers or musicians, and Garageband is

Comparison of Music Composing Software: Finale, GarageBand and Musescore

equivalent to an integration. Users can first write the

music they want to create in Musescore or Finale, and

then import it into Garageband to enrich the sound

and other operations. The study shows that

Musescore is the easiest notation software to use. It is

free and fully functional. It can do almost all the

functions of Finale. However, if users want more

professional use and long-term use of notation

software, Finale may be a better choice. As

mentioned in limitation, if this notation software can

be added with self-generated functions in the future,

it may open up some ideas for composers, provide

some musical tastes, and help compose more

smoothly. The core purpose of this article is to

compare the three-composition software to see which

one wins and which loses. Finally, it is concluded that

in terms of notation, Musescore may be the best

choice for most people.

REFERENCES

Mayers, S., Lee, M., 2011. GarageBand. In: Learn OS X

Lion. Apress, Berkeley, CA.

Nick, C., Julio, E., 2017. The Cambridge Companion to

Electronic Music. Cambridge University Press.

Peter, M., 2013. Paper templates. Electronic and Computer

Music, 4th edition.

Pell, G., 2023. Survey of models for computer music.

Honors Theses.

Plummer, M., 2015. GarageBand. Pearson Education.

Pogue, D., 2005. GarageBand 2: the missing manual.

O'Reilly Media, Inc.

Purse, B., 2014. The Finale Primer, 2014 Edition:

Mastering the Art of Music Notation with Finale. Alfred

Music.

Rudolph, T. E., Leonard, V. A., 2005. Finale: An easy

guide to music notation. Berklee Press.

Todea, D., 2015. The Use of the MuseScore Software in

Musical E-Learning. Virtual Learn, 88.

Watson, M., 2018. MuseScore. Journal of the Musical Arts

in Africa, 15(1–2), 143–147.

Wilson, S., Cottle, D., Collins, N., 2011. The SuperCollider

Book. The MIT Press.

DAML 2024 - International Conference on Data Analysis and Machine Learning