I don't believe that to be true, else development might as well stop in its tracks right now. (I'm also thinking that 'cost-effective' doesn't precisely describe a product that has no cost at all - but I believe that the substitution of 'commercial' for 'professional' is a much bigger priority to consider.)īecause the phrasing to which you have no personal objection - viz., the comparison of MuseScore to 'professional' programs, with the clear implication that it is not one of them - actually does draw attention to MuseScore's deficiencies rather than focusing on what it does extremely well.Īnd although there are shortcomings in MuseScore's present feature set, it seems inaccurate to suggest that there are also limitations on its 'endeavor' or on the scope of its 'intended design'.
NEW FEATURES IN FINALE 2014.5 PROFESSIONAL
non-restrictive relative clauses.)īut - of more importance - what defines 'professional program' in this context? Even if MuseScore's feature set isn't fully competitive with those of Finale and Sibelius, isn't the critical difference that they cost big bucks while MuseScore is free? For a product to describe itself (even by implication) as not professional isn't exactly a ringing endorsement - so wouldn't 'commercial' be a better word choice than 'professional'? (This is a grammatical issue of restrictive vs.
"MuseScore is a free cross-platform WYSIWYG music notation program, that offers a cost-effective alternative to professional programs such as Sibelius and Finale."įirst, a detail of punctuation: the comma in that sentence doesn't belong there unless you change 'that' to 'which' (in which case the meaning would be altered subtly).