NAMM 2026: An interview with Sam Butler and Joe Plazak

Comments

1. 

   Ehsan Tavakkol

   March 1, 2026 at 10:08 AM

   I am writing this letter as a professional composer who has used Sibelius continuously since Version 5. I do so out of long-term commitment, not hostility.
   It is increasingly evident that under the current leadership, Sibelius is suffering from systematic technical degradation, creative stagnation, and a profound lack of strategic vision. What was once a pioneering notation platform has been reduced to a stagnant tool, disconnected from the realities of 21st-century music.
   As of 2026, Sibelius continues to exhibit critical failures that remain unresolved.
   1. Audio Engine, Mixer, and VST Infrastructure Crisis
   Plugin Scan Failures
   A significant number of modern third-party plugins either fail to scan or cause crashes during detection. This reflects an outdated and unstable audio architecture.
   Dysfunctional Mixer Architecture
   The Sibelius Mixer is archaic and unreliable. Managing multiple independent VST instances within a single project frequently results in crashes, instability, or unacceptable latency.
   Dependence on NotePerformer
   If Sibelius is still usable today for professional audio preview, it is largely thanks to NotePerformer. The quality and intelligence of what NotePerformer provides are what effectively keep the software functional. By contrast, Sibelius’s internal sound library—despite its considerable size of approximately 60 GB—not only falls far short of NotePerformer in terms of quality, but has also been left without any meaningful development, updates, or improvement for years.
   2. Fundamental Notation and Musical Logic Failures
   Tonal Rigidity
   Sibelius does not allow the free definition of custom Key Signatures and provides no meaningful support for microtonal, Persian, Arabic, or non-Western tonal systems. This renders the software obsolete for a vast portion of contemporary and global composers.
   Absence of Polymeter Support
   The lack of independent Time Signatures per staff is indefensible in modern notation software. This limitation alone disqualifies Sibelius from serious contemporary compositional work.
   3. Contemporary Technique and Extended Performance Neglect
   No Support for Multiphonics in Woodwinds
   Sibelius provides no native mechanism for representing or executing multiphonic notes in woodwind instruments.
   No Fingering for Multiphonics
   There is no system for specifying multiphonic fingerings—an essential requirement for contemporary woodwind writing. All solutions must be improvised through artificial symbols, external software, or extremely complex workarounds.
   As a result, it is no longer the creativity of the software that enables modern composition, but solely the creativity and endurance of composers attempting to bypass its limitations.
   This is not progress.
   It is survival.
   4. Abandoned Subsystems and Neglected Tools
   PhotoScore Stagnation
   PhotoScore—long associated with the Sibelius ecosystem—has received no meaningful updates for over a decade. It remains frozen in time, despite advances in optical recognition, machine learning, and notation technology elsewhere.
   This abandonment reflects a broader pattern: tools are not evolved, they are merely kept alive.
   5. Severe Limitations in Graphics and Avant-Garde Engraving
   Sibelius offers extremely limited graphical freedom for 21st-century and avant-garde composers. Control over notation layout, symbol behavior, and custom graphical logic is far behind current compositional needs.
   Many features introduced in recent updates should have been implemented ten years ago, not presented now as innovation.
   Dark Mode is not innovation.
   It was standard in professional software a decade ago.
   Presenting such features as major progress suggests a profound disconnect between management and professional users.
   6. Managerial Apathy and Misplaced Priorities
   While a significant number of professional users have migrated to Dorico in recent years, Avid appears indifferent—continuing to focus on cosmetic changes such as color schemes and branding rather than architectural reform.
   This pattern conveys a troubling message:
   that users are being underestimated, or worse, assumed to be naïve.
   I cannot avoid the impression that current management either:
   does not meaningfully engage with composers, or
   understands music only within a 19th-century framework.
   Neither position is acceptable for a company stewarding a flagship notation platform.
   I am making this critique precisely because I care deeply about Sibelius. I have relied on it for years, trusted it, and benefited from it.
   But in recent years, there has been no visible commitment to the real needs of composers—only superficial maintenance and cosmetic distraction.
   Sibelius is not failing because of competition.
   It is failing because of managerial indifference and creative exhaustion.
   Sincerely,

   • Reply
2. 

   Andrew

   March 1, 2026 at 2:07 PM

   This seems to be the same interview as in the podcast “An avid Sibelius discussion with Sam Butler and Joe Plazak”, released in 31 January.

   • Reply
   1. 

      Philip Rothman

      March 1, 2026 at 6:07 PM

      Yes, that is correct. We do this for all of the in-depth NAMM interviews. The videos are released in unedited form ASAP; then, we edit them for the podcast and release one per week in the podcast feed.

      • Reply