On 10 Jul 2002, at 11:13, Colin Broom wrote: > > > > 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.
Well, that's assuming all your scores need the same expressions. If not, then you have to create sets of small libraries with a handful of expressions and then load them bit by bit into a new file/template. If there were some better management tool for libraries (I haven't read anything about that in the documentation about newer versions of Finale), perhaps this would be easier, but for now, you're forced to use file names for this. I imagine that the filename length limits on the Mac make this something of a challenge. Personally, I hate extremely long filenames, because the whole concept of it requires placing meta information in the file's name, which violates my concepts of where such data ought to reside. Actually, I think the whole library structure of Finale documents should be scrapped and replaced with a cascading template structure, but I've been saying that for as long as I've been using Finale. > > 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? Yes, but with the Sibelius approach, you just type the word, and Sibelius takes care of switching back to the appropriate patch after a pizz passage. > > 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). I understand that this is the case in later versions. Nonetheless, you still have to set up all the different ones you need and then place them. I am not arguing that the Finale approach is not OK and pretty easy to use once set up. I am simply suggesting that the Sibelius approach is vastly more intuitive and easier to use. > > 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. Then why are you arguing with me? I never said Finale couldn't do these things. > > 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. Well, if Coda were to implement such a solution, I'd hope they'd give you the option of using velocity or the volume control. However, even if it implemented only velocity-based crescendos, that would be a pretty useful time saver in an awful lot of situations. > > 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. I don't think we disagree at all. That's why I don't understand why everyone is wasting so much effort responding to my posts in the first place. > > 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!). I like the Microsoft approach in terms of the automation offered, but strongly dislike Microsoft's choice of default behaviors. They turn on all their bells and whistles by default, and therefore, they become intrusive and annoying. They do this for marketing purposes, to make cool demos, and because they think people won't notice these nifty features if they aren't enabled by default. On the latter, they are probably right. But the "notice" that ends up being generated is usually of the "Grrr!!! Why is that damned thing doing that!??!!!" A computer program should be intelligent, but the level of automatic behavior should be easily controllable by the user. For the crescendo feature, I would think the obvious way to implemente it would be to have some program options that controlled the way it behaves by default in all documents, and then have a corresponding set of default document options that could override the program options if set differently (or allow you the choice of overriding or not; perhaps you could also have an "ignore all document auto-crescendo settings" in the program options). And then the behavior of each individual instance of a crescendo (or an expression like "pizz" or "arco") could be precisely controlled, itself. I think the "auto crescendoes" should be turned off in converted documents, and turned on in new documents. But with a program option that allows you to turn it off forever with a single checkbox in program options, how could anyone complain? > > 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.. I am talking about one aspect of Sibelius: things that you put in a score that define performance parameters (volume, tempo, etc.), automatically effect the playback accordingly. That has little to do with the limitations on notation that Sibelius places on the user. Indeed, it is not a limitation at all, but frees the user to worry about other things. > 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. I'm not advocating switching to Sibelius. I'm only advocating that Coda incorporate such obvious good ideas into Finale. > 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. Obviously, I've not made myself clear: I'm talking about Finale hear. Sibelius is really of no interest to me, except as a model for some useful features that Finale would benefit from. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
