Thomas, Many thanks for sharing this information: it seems to confirm my hunch, unfortunately. I think of this situation as similar to the one of luthiers if Yamaha started a line of semi-expensive lutes. They would not be happy. Tschuss, Alain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >Dear Alain and others, > >being a programmer by myself I highly appreciate the work and effort put in >programs like Django or Fronimo. I would call both of them professional >products which during the time I followed their development moved far above >the initial purpose to simply enter tabulature and which today stand as >programs which provides us an easy to handle way to enter complete scores. >I've checked other programs as Encore (now incorporated in Finale) and >Finale which in detail may offer a number of features which are not >possible in "our" programs (at the moment - giving the dilligent work will >continue). There seems to be a tendency (as you already deteced) to rather >use expensive programs instead of programs better suited for a certain >purpose. Again I think there are certain habits and prejudices which create >preferences for the one or the other program. One of this prejudices is >"Finale is a mighty program and best suited for professional editions". >This might be true in most cases but not necessarily for every project. >Finale is not made for tabulature editing and it's painfull to enter >tabulature there. >To tell a story: >A while ago I offered to enter some music (modern lute songs - in Fronimo) >for an edition but after finishing it I was told my settings would lack >certain features and the complete project should be re-entered in Finale >(which I didn't want and quit my participation within the project). I was >finishing my work on the project in 2001 and felt happy about this. The >edition in Finale is not made until now. > >Best wishes >Thomas > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > >
