> > Much as I have to coment on regarding MIDI in Finale, I like the fact that I > > *can* assign a patch change to a pizz. indication if I so please, but that I > > have several other options available to me as well, such as switching > > channels, tranposition, etc. One only has to set up the MIDI meaning once, > > then it is effectively automatic, so what you have just mentioned is > > perfectly possible. Again, what I like is that Finale doesn't just assume > > things.
> You have to set up the expressions. Once, then they're there when you need them. > You then have to place them in the score before and after. I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean to switch back from pizz to arco, then wouldn't you be putting another indication in anyway? > And in the expression list, there's no way to tell the difference between > "arco" (violin), "arco" (viola), "arco" (cello) and "arco" (bass). Actually there is. If you notice the "do not print text in angle brackets" option, you can type in something like "arco<cello>" and only the "arco" will display in printout, thus allowing you to assign different patches to each. This works regardless of the font (even Maestro). > The system in Sibelius where what you put in the score automatically gets > interpreted intelligently without having to set up anything in the first > place makes perfect sense. It does (up to a point). I'm not denying that. Neither am I denying that there are things regarding MIDI that Finale could learn from Sibelius. > It does crescendos and diminuendos automatically, right? True, and it would be very nice if Finale also did this. Though it is worth noting that in terms of automatic hairpins, Sibelius will only do velocity-based ones. If you put a whole note in a bar with a hairpin below it, nothing happens. > Now, if you're saying that Sibelius doesn't offer as much flexibility of > definition as Finale, well, that's a valid criticism of Sibelius, but my > suggestion that this kind of behavior would be very handy in Finale in no > way implies that Finale's present flexibility should be *removed* from > Finale. I didn't think you were suggesting that for a moment. I don't think we disagree quite as much as you think. > In short, you sound like you're simply defending the "Finale way" for no > other reason than that you're accustomed to it. I won't deny that I am very accustomed to using Finale. But my main point was that while some users desire a great deal of automation, others prefer for applications not just to assume things (anyone who uses any amount of Microsoft applications will know exactly what I mean by that-"you look like you're about to type a letter"), thus allowing them to make choices about the effect a certain expression or whatever has, and that I am one of those users, and if taking a few extra steps means that I have more flexibility, then much as automation is desirable, I'd take those extra few steps (or dialog boxes!). > It seems blazingly obvious that the Sibelius way for playback is vastly > superior, at least in terms of basic playback. I see what you're getting at but I have a problem with this kind of statement. One could just as easily say "It seems blazingly obvious that the Sibelius way for notation is vastly superior, at least in terms of basic notation", but such a statement doesn't say much about either Sibelius or Finale; one ends up wondering whether this is a plus point or not.. Yes the automatic nature of the Sibelius playback system is streets ahead of anything in Finale, and Coda would do well IMO to re-consider the Finale midi UI. But try getting into Sibelius to make some more detailed change (which anyone working with MIDI at a more than basic level will want to do) and it becomes more tricky. Perhaps Sibelius makes it > difficult to control playback to any great degree, but that's something > Finale doesn't make particularly easy, either. True, it's not particularly intuitive to the beginner, but how much more difficult is it than the rest of Finale? This brings us back to an earlier discussion about the distinction between easy to learn and easy to use. My point was that all of what was mentioned regarding playback can be achieved in Finale, and no it's not automatic, but most of it can be set up in such a way that it only has to be set up once. This is what libraries and templates are for. I'll stop now, as the Sibelius/Finale conversations almost inevitably end up going round in circles. Colin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- Colin Broom, composer e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.inventionensemble.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
