Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: Just be careful with those characters. Some applications crash when trying to open files other than alphanumeric characters; it's a common bug in applications whose heritage dates from 8.3 filenames. Thanks for the tip, but I my use of long filenames is almost entirely for folders, so I don't anticipate a problem. You can reset the desktop any way you like. Right-click on the desktop and uncheck Arrange Icons | Auto Arrange Ah! Thanks so much, this makes me very happy. I'm relatively new to Windows, so I haven't yet discovered all the tricks. Is there a way I can remove the My Computer and Neighborhood Network icons from the Desktop. I figured out how to get rid of My Documents, even though I could trash it directly, but the same trick isn't working for these other two. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
David W. Fenton wrote: [snip] I read his posts as an explanation of some of the things Sibelius does well, posted here as a way of pointing out what Finale might do better. The rush to pounce mystifies me -- it's as if people felt some kind of personal investment in Finale that causes them to view the slightest criticism of Finale as a criticism of themselves. Since it was my post to which Richard replied with his rush to pounce comment, I was just trying to dig deeper into what at first glance appeared to be comments that Sibelius does instrument selections, patch changes such as Arco and Pizzicato far easier than Finale does. Upon further clarification from Richard, it came out that indeed Sibelius does it EXACTLY like Finale does it -- with Sibelius if you want specific sounds to respond to the type into score expressions, you have to define them in a list, just as with Finale expressions. I was merely asking how having to define them in a list was different from having to define them in a list? And then the whole type into score was very overrated, since it really doesn't make anything easier, ultimately. With Sibelius, once the playback has been defined by the user, to get a senza sordino into the score requires 11 keystrokes. With Finale, to achieve the same effect, again once it has been defined by the user, it requires 2 mouse clicks and 1 key stroke, or if metatools aren't used, then it requires a double-click, scroll, double-click, single-click. Ultimately neither one is easier than the other, which is NOT what was being represented initially. A further post from Richard to me indicated that Sibelius does allow keyboard shortcuts to be defined for the placement of expressions. That sound just like metatools to me, although Sibelius users posting on the Finale list have claimed that there isn't the arcane memory required to remember all the metatool assignments possible with Finale, which they find so confusing. So, again, people are saying that using (Sibelius) keyboard shortcuts is easier than using (Finale) keyboard shortcuts. I wasn't pouncing -- I was probing to find if the first-glance total ease of Sibelius was as valid an assessment as is often put forth as a great reason to use Sibelius. As more details are revealed, it turns out that they are both essentially the same. The finer details of doing anything might turn out to be different, with different terminology, but ultimately for the user to get exactly what he/she wants, the level of work and knowledge required is the same. Call it pouncing if you want, I call it digging to find out the real truth. And just as I feel it is unfair for Coda to claim that Finale is easy to learn to use, I feel it is patently unfair for Sibelius users to chant the company mantra that Sibelius is any easier to use. I find Finale extremely easy to use, now that I have learned the program. But I would never tell any non-user asking about the program that it was easy to use at first -- I simply had to work through the tutorials and then practice, practice, practice. It turns out that to get the results that I would want, Sibelius is no better than Finale. What DOES show clearly is that some people find Sibelius' method of making the user work easier to deal with, while others find Finale's method of making the user work. And the reverse is true, as witness the large number of faithful, mostly satisfied Finale users. But ultimately, we ALL have to bend to the mechanics of our chosen notation program. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
At 12:35 AM 7/12/02 -0800, Mark D. Lew wrote: Is there a way I can remove the My Computer and Neighborhood Network icons from the Desktop. I figured out how to get rid of My Documents, even though I could trash it directly, but the same trick isn't working for these other two. Search for a Microsoft utility called TweakUI. I'm not sure if this is for all platforms -- I use it on Win98SE. TweakUI has the additional restricted features, including automatic login, splash screen suppression, icon rebuilding, etc., as well as hiding the reserved icons. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On 12 Jul 2002, at 6:38, David H. Bailey wrote: What DOES show clearly is that some people find Sibelius' method of making the user work easier to deal with, while others find Finale's method of making the user work. And the reverse is true, as witness the large number of faithful, mostly satisfied Finale users. Well, it seems to me that you've entirely missed the point of the discussion. It's quite clear that Sibelius is an unacceptable program for most advanced engraving, because it enforces a single house style. But I thought *this* discussion was about things that Sibelius does that are user-friendly that might be good additions to Finale. The observation that Sibelius's type-in-score takes more keystrokes than meta-tools is irrelevant, because if the feature were added to Finale, it would not be at the expense of meta-tools, but as an addition to them. And for me, the value in type-in-score would be for expressions that are used only a few times in a score, the ones that I wouldn't bother assigning a meta-tool for. But the other reason this would be a good addition to Finale is because it's more intuitive for beginning users. Simple entry is a feature that is also like that, a feature that I have never used since I finished the Finale tutorial the first time back in 1990. But I'm glad it's there, as it is an entry method that some people find easier than Speedy. A type-in-score expression entry mechanism would be useful to me for seldom-used expressions, and also as a way of making the Finale UI easier for beginning users. Of course, it would all depend on how it was implemented, as there are any number of pitfalls to deal with. But just because it's possible to do it *wrong* does not mean it's impossible to do it *right*. So much of the objection to the mere suggestion has been of the nature of pointing out what could be done wrong in implementing such a feature, and often predicated on the implicit assumption that such a feature would require the removal of existing features for the same functionality. Both types of objections are ridiculous, and look like pouncing to me, even if made in the spirit of open discussion to hash out what's valuable and what's not. -- 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
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On 12 Jul 2002, at 7:19, David H. Bailey wrote: You can at least rename them so it seems a lot less kindergarten-ish. They do both have to remain on the desktop, but you can put your bottom row of icons with their names just hidden by the toolbar. I put the ones I never use but can't get rid of down there. The icons show but the names are mostly hidden. The TweakUI tools allow you to get rid of them, I think. And if I'm not mistaken, Win2K and later give you the capability of choosing whether or not they are displayed on the desktop or not. But I don't have Win2K here to check that for certain. -- 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
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
At 9:25 AM 07/12/02, David W. Fenton wrote: Of course, it would all depend on how it was implemented, as there are any number of pitfalls to deal with. But just because it's possible to do it *wrong* does not mean it's impossible to do it *right*. So much of the objection to the mere suggestion has been of the nature of pointing out what could be done wrong in implementing such a feature, and often predicated on the implicit assumption that such a feature would require the removal of existing features for the same functionality. Both types of objections are ridiculous, and look like pouncing to me, even if made in the spirit of open discussion to hash out what's valuable and what's not. They don't look like pouncing to me. Who do you think is objecting to the mere suggestion of type-in-score? Certainly not me. Yes, several of us have discussed what could be done wrong in implementing it. That's just part of the discussion, sort of like your comment that there are any number of pitfalls to deal with. I think the objections you object to are largely in your mind. In answered to my post, you responded to three separate points with I think that's a ridiculous objection. So the objection here is not really relevant. I still don't see the objection. I still don't see the objection either -- because they were never intended as objections in the first place. Just a discussion of the various possibilities and their pros and cons. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
At 01:38 PM 7/12/02 -0800, Mark D. Lew wrote: My current problem is that something is turning the auto-arrange back on. I think maybe it's related to a system freeze up I'm getting from one of my other applications. It seems like it's only after I reboot that the icons have re-aligned themselves. That's right. There are two ways to overcome this. The best way is to figure out what's freezing the system -- usually hardware conflict or video drivers. Updating video drivers is always recommended; some folks say any driver dated earlier than the software you're using could be trouble. The next suggestion depends on your video card. Mine is a Matrox, and its configuration includes a setting to save and restore desktop icons. If you have a Matrox, right-click on the video card control in the system tray and see what options pop up. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
At 10:04 AM 07/10/02, David W. Fenton wrote: 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. Funny, I'm the reverse. I've traditionally used Mac, but I've now added a Windows system and am using both. I'm not sure what you consider extremely long for a filename, but I do like to make short descriptive phrases out of my folder filenames (not so often for the files themselves, but definitely for the folders). I've rarely felt constrained by the Mac's limit of 31 characters, so the longer names allowed by Windows makes little difference to me. What I really hate, however, is that certain punctuation characters which were available to me in Mac filenames are off limits in Windows filenames! The one that really drives me crazy is the question mark. I hadn't realized how frequently I make filenames that are questions until I got on the system that won't allow me. For a slash or an asterisk or a quote mark, I can usually change use something else instead with little loss, but there's no good substitute for a question mark. My folder names usually tell me what files are inside and/or what I want to do with them. Frequently I don't know, so that name has to be a question. In desperation I've started using the upside-down question mark (alt-0191) but I'm not at all happy about it. Petty as it seems, this is probably what I dislike most about Windows. (It used to bother me that the stuff on the desktop insists on lining up from the top left, when I'd rather move some of them over to the bottom right, but I've pretty much gotten over that.) I'm using Win98. Maybe things are different now? mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
At 11:42 AM 07/11/02, Richard Walker wrote: Why the rush to pounce? I think the rush to pounce has something to do with your insistence on coming on to the Finale list and telling us that Sibelius works better than Finale does. If Sibelius is better suited to your needs, that's fine. All of us here acknowledge that Sibelius is a good program and for many users it is a more appropriate tool than Finale is. But those of us on this group have found that, for at least some of our work, Finale is the better choice for us. I know it's probably unintentional, but your posts frequently give the impression that you're trying to persuade us that we've made the wrong choice. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
Richard Walker wrote: on 02.7.11 10:25 AM, David H. Bailey at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And this is being touted as better than the way Finale does it? To get back to regular trumpet you can't type-into-score senza sordino? You have to type arco trumpet and then remember to hide it before printing? Thanks for enlightening us. And Sibelius users have the nerve to complain that Finale is arcane?! Well hush my puppies! Down boy. You can also define your own expressions that will behave in the same way, and Sibelius will read them properly too. A hidden arco is just a lazy means of achieving the same thing when it doesn't matter which particular term is used because no one is going to see it. (I have been known to use it when switching between staccato and ordinary brass samples, for example), and it's an interesting anomaly. Why the rush to pounce? You have just said You can also define your own expressions that will behave in the same way, and Sibelius will read them properly too. which is exactly how Finale does it, yet you have stated that Sibelius is much better in this regard? I'm totally mystified as to how the Sibelius method is easier than Finale, since to get the same result you have to do the same thing. This whole thread began because the point was made that Sibelius was superior to Finale in this regard. Yet when we get down to the nitty-gritty we find that the two solve the same proble in exactly the same manner. Please enlighten me as to how Sibelius is better in this regard? As to typing into the score, I don't see how that is superior, either. With Finale, after I have defined the expression (just as you have described that I would have to define it in Sibelius as well, levelling the comparison between the two in that regard), I can place the expression senza sordino with two mouse clicks and one key press: Click on tool. Press metatool key. Click in score and drag to desired location. With Sibelius I would have to make 13 keypresses while typing it into the score, after I have already defined it. No mention has been made about how easy it is to move that typed-into-score expression, once it has been entered. Can it easily be dragged as Finale expressions can? I'm not pouncing, I am totally amazed that people think that is easier! With Finale, once I get my expressions all defined as I like them, I can export them as a library to import into every document I want, or to import into my default document so I never have to define them again if I don't want to -- does Sibelius work that way? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
At 12:16 AM 7/11/02 -0800, Mark D. Lew wrote: What I really hate, however, is that certain punctuation characters which were available to me in Mac filenames are off limits in Windows filenames! I think this is in keeping with the long tradition of reserved characters. That's why some Mac filenames don't work in URLs. In desperation I've started using the upside-down question mark (alt-0191) but I'm not at all happy about it. Just be careful with those characters. Some applications crash when trying to open files with other than alphanumeric characters; it's a common bug in applications whose heritage dates from 8.3 filenames. (It used to bother me that the stuff on the desktop insists on lining up from the top left, when I'd rather move some of them over to the bottom right, but I've pretty much gotten over that.) You can reset the desktop any way you like. Right-click on the desktop and uncheck Arrange Icons | Auto Arrange Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
Hello Richard, Now, where the real power comes in is that Sibelius has included a reset instruments command, so I can create a file using my preferred patches, and when I send it to you, you can click a button to reset everything to play back on your preferred patches. (Philip, did you read this far? There's a playback trick I don't think you can get Finale to do!) Not quite sure what you're getting at or even it's usefulness (I never share my sounds or scores) but it's possible to load in saved Instrument/Expression Libraries in Finale. One does have to reassign staves or substitute expressions though and that's not 1 click. What you describe in the rest of your post however sounds like it's actually more complicated to do in Sibelius than with Finale libraries. Maybe this is all possible in Finale, but I've never figured out how,... From your description, most likely. But there's also the factor of being able to connect with the whole idiom of an application and if Finale is not your cup of tea, I'd suggest not to bother with it because if you find it's like beating yourself on the head with a hammer, it might be good to stop before you hurt yourself. I just happened to tune in with Finale's printed manuals and going through every page of them (3 full days) has been the key to being able to take advantage of its logical organization features. F**king laughable the knots some folks get tied up in because they haven't deduced how to set up up a score properly in the first place (good business for plugin developers though). Maybe a good test of a music application is it's ability to deal with an orchestral reduction of say an aria (i.e. has lyrics too) that both prints and plays back correctly. I can do this and a lot more with Finale. Just like others have mentioned, a Finale expression can do just about anything you want it to and we're not bound to organize our output or anything else by a default setup. I might use loco to change channels instead of transposing or use any one of the other permutations and combinations possible with such a flexible mechanism. Philip On Wednesday, July 10, 2002, at 02:31 PM, Richard Walker wrote: Here's how Sibelius does the patch-switching trick. Each playback device has its own soundset within Sibelius. This is just a text document that lists every patch on the instrument with all of the bank/patch numbers to locate it in the device. Following the patch list are groups that list which devices appear under which headings in the instrument assignment drop-down within Sibelius. At the the end of the file are best instrument assignments that contain defaults for every imaginable instrument (including that old favorite muted bass bugle in G). When you add instruments to your score, Sibelius consults this list to find what it should play. Within the best instruments list are specializations that define instruments for special effect playback: mute:trumpet in Bb, spiccato:Violin I ... When Sibelius sees mute on a Trumpet in Bb staff, it pulls out the patch assigned here. (Sidebar: Arco isn't a specialization. It's just an internal command that tells Sibelius to revert to the original patch for that staff. I'm not sure I agree with the assumption behind this, but it has its uses--arco trumpets is a fast and dirty way to get back to home base, though the marking has to be hidden before printing!) The neat thing about this is that it is all editable by the user. To be honest, it's not a pretty job, but it is doable. What I did was to load a default set of about 75 patches into my GigaStudio rig, saving them as a performance file for future use. (Yes, it takes a while for everything to load when Giga is turned on, but I'm willing to put up with it.) Then I copied the Sibelius soundset for General MIDI, changed its name, and replaced its list with my Giga instrument assignments, so that instrument 2 is now flute and instrument 4 is Trumpet (jazz). Then I created groups to display instruments the way *I* want to see them, and replaced Sibelius' default assignments with my own. It took some work to set this up, but the result is that I now get exactly what I want in instrument assignments without the tedium of tweaking every damned patch in every damned score, or littering my disk with thousands of templates. It should also be easy to work up several different configurations of this file if I want to, one for big band jazz, one for symphony orchestra, and to go through and change defaults for other devices in other soundset files, so that my Proteus 2000 box gives me my favorite bass guitar and drum kit automatically. I also suspect, though I haven't tried it yet, that I could create bogus devices in FreeMIDI on the same channels as the Giga rig but with different names, a big band giga and a symphony giga, and that Sibelius would find the
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On Thursday, July 11, 2002, at 01:16 AM, Mark D. Lew wrote:
What I really hate, however, is that certain punctuation
characters which were available to me in Mac filenames are off
limits in Windows filenames!
FWIW, when you eventually move to OS X, there are a few
constraints that apply to file name extensions:
12 characters, a-z, A-Z, 0-9, $, %, _ (underscore), or ~
(tilde), and at least one of the characters following the period
must be an upper or lowercase unaccented letter.
I'm mentioning this because you can make up extensions for your
files and then have these custom extensions mapped to be opened
with a particular version of an application.
The above doesn't apply to the file names themselves and the
bonus is that one can use just about any Unicode character
(which adds several thousands to the choice of unusual
characters to use in file names).
However, if you plan on using the Unix-based utilities at all,
it's generally better to omit some characters
like [, ], (, ), {, }, etc.
Philip Aker
http://www.aker.ca
ยง
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On 10.07.2002 16:05 Uhr, Robert Patterson wrote The Sibelius method of understanding what arco means after a pizzicato and automatically switching to the appropriate patch seems so obviously superior Until, as eventually with any automation, its assumptions are not what you want. I think those who are resistant to it are so because they feel that current Finale versions address the need adequately and there are many other things they'd rather see Coda working on. However, I would argue that the current MIDI implementation is actually loosing valuable customers, who will then not buy the upgrades, perhaps even switch to the competition, and thereby loose Coda the money they desperately need to improve the program in other areas. Not that I am all that bothered about playback anyway, but for this reason I definitely do not object to improvement in this area. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
I wouldn't object to improvement in this area, either. Adding a more intuitive interface to the midi area of Finale would certainly make it far more attractive to many people who currently don't like the program. And it wouldn't even require any reworking of the current capabilities! Just a reorganization which would make things like Andrew Stiller's most recent question unnecessary -- he would be able to open a mixer panel which would allow him to do as he wishes volume-wise. Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 10.07.2002 16:05 Uhr, Robert Patterson wrote The Sibelius method of understanding what arco means after a pizzicato and automatically switching to the appropriate patch seems so obviously superior Until, as eventually with any automation, its assumptions are not what you want. I think those who are resistant to it are so because they feel that current Finale versions address the need adequately and there are many other things they'd rather see Coda working on. However, I would argue that the current MIDI implementation is actually loosing valuable customers, who will then not buy the upgrades, perhaps even switch to the competition, and thereby loose Coda the money they desperately need to improve the program in other areas. Not that I am all that bothered about playback anyway, but for this reason I definitely do not object to improvement in this area. Johannes -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On 11 Jul 2002, at 0:33, Mark D. Lew wrote: At 11:42 AM 07/11/02, Richard Walker wrote: Why the rush to pounce? I think the rush to pounce has something to do with your insistence on coming on to the Finale list and telling us that Sibelius works better than Finale does. I have a hard time swallowing that, as I don't read Richard's comments as insisting anything of the sort. If Sibelius is better suited to your needs, that's fine. All of us here acknowledge that Sibelius is a good program and for many users it is a more appropriate tool than Finale is. But those of us on this group have found that, for at least some of our work, Finale is the better choice for us. I know it's probably unintentional, but your posts frequently give the impression that you're trying to persuade us that we've made the wrong choice. I read his posts as an explanation of some of the things Sibelius does well, posted here as a way of pointing out what Finale might do better. The rush to pounce mystifies me -- it's as if people felt some kind of personal investment in Finale that causes them to view the slightest criticism of Finale as a criticism of themselves. -- 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
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
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 arcocello 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
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
Richard Walker writes: easy scripting language that brings expansion within the realm of the ordinary user who has neither the time nor the patience to master C++ before creating plug-ins. OK, go ahead and create a MusicXML exporter or importer by using the built-in macro language! Or the Quick Navigator. Or Keyboard Remapper. Or Patterson Beams. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ICQ #: 78036563 ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On 9 Jul 2002, at 23:10, Philip Aker wrote: On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 05:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: And in the expression list, there's no way to tell the difference between arco (violin), arco (viola), arco (cello) and arco (bass). That is only true in prehistoric versions of Finale. Now we type arcocello and the cello doesn't print. Let's be fair David. We're comparing 2002 releases here. Very well, but it nonetheless requires multiple instances of a single expression. The Sibelius method of understanding what arco means after a pizzicato and automatically switching to the appropriate patch seems so obviously superior that I can't quite comprehend how people could argue against such ease of use. Indeed, all the responses have basically been on the order well, it's not *that* complicated in Finale, which is damning with faint praise. -- 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
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
At 09:41 AM 7/10/02 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote: Very well, but it nonetheless requires multiple instances of a single expression. The Sibelius method of understanding what arco means after a pizzicato and automatically switching to the appropriate patch seems so obviously superior that I can't quite comprehend how people could argue against such ease of use. I'm not sure exactly what Sibelius understands. Does it provide a General Midi output to string orchestra pizzicato and string orchestra arco? Or specific to that instrument? How 'smart' is it? Are these default indications that have hidden contents? Can they be modified? Does it understand 'con sord' or 'col legno'? Does it know to change the patch for horn bells in air? Or if it understands 'con sord' for brass, does it get the different languages, as I often write in English? Will it understand 'mute' vs. 'cup mute'? In other words, as a default condition, it's probably a good idea for quick-and-dirty playback. But my output doesn't always use GM -- for example, I play through Virtual Sampler, and use frequent bank and patch switches. It would be double work if Finale insisted on inserting all its own patches and I had to find them all and change everything back to my preferred set for that piece. It would be nasty if it though the dynamics of an instrument were different from the actual samples in use. I'm not sure how many folks here actually work with Midi output in a big way. Every playable score I create (some are visual/graphic, and can't play back) is turned into a listenable output, and sometimes a final product (such as the film score I just wrote). I'd love a smarter Finale Midi for previewing -- but not too smart, because it can never be smart enough when it's time to do real work. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
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 arcocello 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
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
David W. Fenton wrote: On 9 Jul 2002, at 23:10, Philip Aker wrote: On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 05:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: And in the expression list, there's no way to tell the difference between arco (violin), arco (viola), arco (cello) and arco (bass). That is only true in prehistoric versions of Finale. Now we type arcocello and the cello doesn't print. Let's be fair David. We're comparing 2002 releases here. Very well, but it nonetheless requires multiple instances of a single expression. The Sibelius method of understanding what arco means after a pizzicato and automatically switching to the appropriate patch seems so obviously superior that I can't quite comprehend how people could argue against such ease of use. Indeed, all the responses have basically been on the order well, it's not *that* complicated in Finale, which is damning with faint praise. What is not addressed in the statements from the Sibelius users is what happens to the arco and pizz patch changes if I choose to use a non-GM midi module, or if the arco and pizz patches I prefer are in higher banks than the basic 128 patches of the GM standard? Would I be able to assign my own patch numbers to those type-in-score expressions, or would I be limited to sounds I might not like? At least in Finale I can define my own expressions to give me exactly the sounds I want. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On 9 Jul 2002, at 20:50, Robert Patterson wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: quadrupling the number of metatool keys Gracious. I just can't let this go by. Occasionally I have gone back to Fin97 to avoid re-editing an old doc. It is the SLAG MINES! (Single undo, lotsa bugs that have since been fixed, no staff styles.) And only 9 metatools. Invariably I have upgraded the document. I think David is *determined* to resist change at all cost, if he can figure out a way to pooh-pooh such a useful feature. (I want *more* metatool keys. There's no reason the special chars can't be metatools too.) Well, David, resist away. It is a long, hard struggle that is doomed to fail. I have not found the costs of the upgrades over the past few years justified by the features added. I get everything done that I need to do in WinFin97, and without too much difficulty. Yes, I recognize there are lots of things that are great improvements since then, and I've been intending to upgrade since the beginning of the year. However, I'll have to change computers to do that and need to upgrade the other one to Win2K, and I have to transfer the good sound card to the other computer, and hope it works with Win2K, and I have to transfer the CD writer, etc., etc. It's not that I don't think that it's time to upgrade. It's just that I have to do a lot of things beforehand to be able to use the new version of Finale. As to the number of metatool keys, twice the original number is sufficient, I'd say, as it crosses a threshold of manageability. For most of my work, I seldom use more than 5 or 6 metatools on a regular basis, though I've certainly wished I had more than the 9 available in WinFin97. The problem raised by the comparison to Finale is not in any way solved by having additional metatools (though Sibelius could probably benefit from the incorporation of metatools). Yes, metatools in Finale make it quite easy to place frequently used items in your scores, but type into score for expressions would nonetheless be a fine addition to Finale, I believe. -- 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
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On Wed, 10 July 2002, David W. Fenton wrote It is not a zero-sum game. What is a zero sum game is the amount of developer time available to Coda. If they spend time working on x they cannot spend time working on y. I am simply suggesting that improvements be made, not that existing capabilities be removed for some reason. I have heretofore (mostly) avoided an an hominem attack, but this is really too much. It is all very well for you to suggest improvements, but you have steadfastly disparaged all the considerable and substantive improvements that *have already* been made since your antequated version was released, including many that specifically address the issues involved here. Why should anyone pay attention to your requests for more changes? -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On Wednesday, July 10, 2002, at 06:39 AM, David W. Fenton wrote: However, I most certainly wouldn't want to have the current capabilities gelded just because someone else hasn't read/understood the documentation. This is what bothers me about most discussions like this. There seems to be a tendency on the part of those reacting to criticism to impute motives to the critics that are not there. I wasn't reacting to criticism. I merely qualified my agreement with the notion that it would be beneficial for both users and Coda to have a UI for Midi illiterates by saying that I (and now I see several others) would not want to have that come about at the expense of dropping current features. Features which we have been able to use to our advantage. Philip Aker p h i l i p @ v c n . b c . c a h t t p : / / w w w . a k e r . c a / ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
"If I want to make a string run sound realistic by extending the note durations of each note, the closest I can come quickly is to put a slur over the music. Of course, I can't have separate playback definitions for my slurs, so if I do this, ALL of my slurs will make notes playback at 120% duration." --- Upon reflection, the best way to do this in Sibelius is actually to define a dictionary term for affecting duration. I would have to create a new one for each run though if I wanted them to have different playback effects.Do You Yahoo!? New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free unlimited access
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
What is not addressed in the statements from the Sibelius users is what happens to the arco and pizz patch changes if I choose to use a non-GM midi module, or if the arco and pizz patches I prefer are in higher banks than the basic 128 patches of the GM standard? Would I be able to assign my own patch numbers to those type-in-score expressions, or would I be limited to sounds I might not like? Under the Play menu, there is a dictionary, which allows you to set other patch numbers, or indeed set velocity or volume changes. Ironically enough, I found this window a bit confusing (though admittedly I haven't spent much time with Sibelius, as I don't have it, but just know some folks with it). I can't quite understand the reasoning behind list of patch names it gives you, as it kind of includes GM names but also things such as snap pizzicato (which is not found in GM). I haven't looked into it in any detail as of yet, but my guess is that it still chooses pizzicato even when you select snap pizzicato. Can any Sibelius users enlighten me? At least in Finale I can define my own expressions to give me exactly the sounds I want. Well, I think you can with Sibelius as well. Colin. Colin Broom, composer e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.inventionensemble.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
Here's how Sibelius does the patch-switching trick. Each playback device has its own soundset within Sibelius. This is just a text document that lists every patch on the instrument with all of the bank/patch numbers to locate it in the device. Following the patch list are groups that list which devices appear under which headings in the instrument assignment drop-down within Sibelius. At the the end of the file are best instrument assignments that contain defaults for every imaginable instrument (including that old favorite muted bass bugle in G). When you add instruments to your score, Sibelius consults this list to find what it should play. Within the best instruments list are specializations that define instruments for special effect playback: mute:trumpet in Bb, spiccato:Violin I ... When Sibelius sees mute on a Trumpet in Bb staff, it pulls out the patch assigned here. (Sidebar: Arco isn't a specialization. It's just an internal command that tells Sibelius to revert to the original patch for that staff. I'm not sure I agree with the assumption behind this, but it has its uses--arco trumpets is a fast and dirty way to get back to home base, though the marking has to be hidden before printing!) The neat thing about this is that it is all editable by the user. To be honest, it's not a pretty job, but it is doable. What I did was to load a default set of about 75 patches into my GigaStudio rig, saving them as a performance file for future use. (Yes, it takes a while for everything to load when Giga is turned on, but I'm willing to put up with it.) Then I copied the Sibelius soundset for General MIDI, changed its name, and replaced its list with my Giga instrument assignments, so that instrument 2 is now flute and instrument 4 is Trumpet (jazz). Then I created groups to display instruments the way *I* want to see them, and replaced Sibelius' default assignments with my own. It took some work to set this up, but the result is that I now get exactly what I want in instrument assignments without the tedium of tweaking every damned patch in every damned score, or littering my disk with thousands of templates. It should also be easy to work up several different configurations of this file if I want to, one for big band jazz, one for symphony orchestra, and to go through and change defaults for other devices in other soundset files, so that my Proteus 2000 box gives me my favorite bass guitar and drum kit automatically. I also suspect, though I haven't tried it yet, that I could create bogus devices in FreeMIDI on the same channels as the Giga rig but with different names, a big band giga and a symphony giga, and that Sibelius would find the proper default patches for each without my having to fuss around too much. Now, where the real power comes in is that Sibelius has included a reset instruments command, so I can create a file using my preferred patches, and when I send it to you, you can click a button to reset everything to play back on your preferred patches. (Philip, did you read this far? There's a playback trick I don't think you can get Finale to do!) Maybe this is all possible in Finale, but I've never figured out how, and being able to do it in Sibelius has removed a major source of frustration for me. Richard Walker Yokohama, Japan on 02.7.10 11:28 PM, David H. Bailey at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is not addressed in the statements from the Sibelius users is what happens to the arco and pizz patch changes if I choose to use a non-GM midi module, or if the arco and pizz patches I prefer are in higher banks than the basic 128 patches of the GM standard? Would I be able to assign my own patch numbers to those type-in-score expressions, or would I be limited to sounds I might not like? At least in Finale I can define my own expressions to give me exactly the sounds I want. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
Richard Walker wrote: The neat thing about this is that it is all editable by the user. To behonest, it's not a pretty job, but it is doable. What I did was to load adefault set of about 75 patches into my GigaStudio rig, saving them as aperformance file for future use. (Yes, it takes a while for everything toload when Giga is turned on, but I'm willing to put up with it.) Then Icopied the Sibelius soundset for General MIDI, changed its name, andreplaced its list with my Giga instrument assignments, so that instrument 2is now flute and instrument 4 is Trumpet (jazz). Then I created groupsto display instruments the way *I* want to see them, and replaced Sibelius'default assignments with my own.It took some work to set this up, but the result is that I now get exactlywhat I want in instrument assignments without the tedium of tweaking everydamned patch in every damned score, or littering my disk with thousands oftemplates. And doing this would have been much easier in Finale where creating patch change expressions that can be accessed via metatools is simple. But using GigaStudio via patch changes like this is limiting. I find it is much more convenient to have the various articulations for an instrument be selectable via the mod wheel (or a similar method). So I load 20 or so instruments, each which has been programmed to have all of it's articulations selectable on the mod wheel, and then I can quickly audition through the various styles from my keyboard, and when I find the right one, hold down the corresponding metatool key for that mod setting and click. Done. I've only had to program 8 metatools (that's all I have to remember), the sounds are easy to audition, and inputting them is much faster than typing in a word or even having to select from a contextual menu. For working with GigaStudio, I see no way that Sibelius can perform as quickly as Finale. -- Now, where the real power comes in is that Sibelius has included a resetinstruments command, so I can create a file using my preferred patches, andwhen I send it to you, you can click a button to reset everything to playback on your preferred patches. (Philip, did you read this far? There's aplayback trick I don't think you can get Finale to do!) -- Well, using my method you would just eliminate the mod wheel expressions (in one stroke). Since the instrument list isn't even controlling my GigaStudio patches, nothing has to change inside of it. The MIDI Tool is a big part of my arsenal when making realistic sounding playback files with Finale. It allows me to add huminizing effects that cannot be achieved with ease in Sibelius. Don't get me wrong. I do think Sibelius has a lot of really cool things. There are plenty of things in it that Finale could benefit from. But I can't see any way that it could allow me to work as quickly as Finale with MIDI. __ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
All, Thanks to everyone for a *very* illuminating discussion on how Midi is used within scoring. I learned a great deal about different styles. Being an old event list guy, I find everything else ambiguous or hard to remember. But it's refreshing to learn how many different techniques have developed around Midi implementations. Much to consider! Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
on 02.7.11 10:25 AM, David H. Bailey at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And this is being touted as better than the way Finale does it? To get back to regular trumpet you can't type-into-score senza sordino? You have to type arco trumpet and then remember to hide it before printing? Thanks for enlightening us. And Sibelius users have the nerve to complain that Finale is arcane?! Well hush my puppies! Down boy. You can also define your own expressions that will behave in the same way, and Sibelius will read them properly too. A hidden arco is just a lazy means of achieving the same thing when it doesn't matter which particular term is used because no one is going to see it. (I have been known to use it when switching between staccato and ordinary brass samples, for example), and it's an interesting anomaly. Why the rush to pounce? Richard Walker Yokohama, Japan ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
To tell you the truth, I'm not so sure I should duck for cover. I've been playing with Sibelius, and its MIDI implementation is brilliant. It's more than just the mixer window (which is entertaining for about 2 minutes). Unlike Finale, in Sibelius I've been able to customize default patches for every instrument I use, I can switch between pizzicato, mute, solo, tutti, and arco/nat samples just by typing the words above the staff (no fussy expression dialogs), and crescendos actually, well, crescendo--without having to figure out the obscure drawing tool or do a bunch of MIDI value tweaking. (Just curious: did anyone ever figure out that drawing thing?) And this ain't no plonk General MIDI outfit, and I'm not doing it with a collection of a zillion templates either. I just load my orchestra into GigaStudio, open a new document, choose my weapons, and away I go twiddle-free to create music and listen to a decent approximation of it, using the samples I like. Finale has its good points, but flexible MIDI implementation is not among them. Trying desperately to remember what those good points were, Richard Walker Yokohama, Japan on 02.7.9 5:05 PM, Colin Broom at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - Or you could just buy a copy of Sibelius, which has a handy mixer window to control the MIDI volume setting. Ducking for cover, And so you should! :) Seriously though, the MIDI options in Finale while fairly flexible are not nearly as clearly laid as they could be. Something like a mixer with sliders for volume, pan continuous data which could be adjusted in realtime, then made more permanent by hitting an apply button would be very useful. Given that Coda seem so (understandably) keen on enticing the new user, it's puzzling to me that they have not spent more time looking at how the MIDI tool could be improved, as I would have thought that many potential users would find this essential to their needs (probably more so than scanning ability or micnotator, etc.) ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
Richard Walker writes: I just load my orchestra into GigaStudio, open a new document, choose my weapons, and away I go twiddle-free to create music and listen to a decent approximation of it, using the samples I like. Which is exactly what I can do in Finale as well (appart from the GigaStudio bit). It takes about 2 seconds for a normal-sized score. Although you can't. Yet... Finale has its good points, but flexible MIDI implementation is not among them. The MIDI implementation is very flexible IMO. But (out of the box) it hasn't any automation at all. Trying desperately to remember what those good points were, Notation. Notation. Flexibility. Accuracy. The ability to be expanded. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ICQ #: 78036563 ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 04:50 AM, Richard Walker wrote: (Just curious: did anyone ever figure out that drawing thing?) Yes (1991). Finale has its good points, but flexible MIDI implementation is not among them. It's reasonably flexible, just not user friendly compared to the instantaneous gratification of typical Midi implementations. Once I cottoned on to the fact that playback is both subservient to notation and detachable from it, things started to go schwimingly (not as fast as running you understand). However: ... I can switch between pizzicato, mute, solo, tutti, and arco/nat samples just by typing the words above the staff (no fussy expression dialogs)... is a great request and I think you should send it over to MacSupport. Since we can already type in chords and lyrics, why not be able to type in Expressions if that tool is selected and there's a checkmark on a Type Into Score menu item? Cursor changes to a pencil, click for the location, type, and press Enter when done. Philip Aker http://www.aker.ca ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On 9 Jul 2002, at 13:08, Philip Aker wrote: On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 04:50 AM, Richard Walker wrote: ... I can switch between pizzicato, mute, solo, tutti, and arco/nat samples just by typing the words above the staff (no fussy expression dialogs)... is a great request and I think you should send it over to MacSupport. Since we can already type in chords and lyrics, why not be able to type in Expressions if that tool is selected and there's a checkmark on a Type Into Score menu item? Cursor changes to a pencil, click for the location, type, and press Enter when done. Haven't you missed Richard's point? The point was automatic interpretation of those expressions, so that the strings switch to Pizzicato and back to Arco, just because the expressions are there. Yes, your suggestion is good, too, but it does nothing about the lack of playback sophistication of Finale vs. Sibelius. -- 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
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 04:50 AM, Richard Walker wrote: ... I can switch between pizzicato, mute, solo, tutti, and arco/nat samples just by typing the words above the staff (no fussy expression dialogs)... Without commenting on the main MIDI playback issue, which is one I care little about, I should mention that Richard's comment possibly illustrates a difference we've discussed here before. Being able to type the expressions straight in is a great feature for someone learning the program. Presumably a new Sibelius user can use it to great advantage over the cumbersome expression dlg boxes that confront a new Finale user. BUT Eventually the Finale user figures out that s/he can assign metatools to the most common expressions. Metatools are far more efficient than typing in (or pointing and clicking). Thus while Finale clearly (in this intance) takes longer to learn on the front end, it may be much faster once you understand about metatools. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
You're right that was the main point, but being able to type them directly into the score rather than going through all that bothersome tool-switching and dialog-navigating is also a boon. The really neat thing, however, is that the same pizz entry selects the proper samples for the 1st violins and the cellos just by what staff it's on. You don't need to have different expressions defined for each. Try that in Finale! Richard Walker Yokohama, Japan on 02.7.10 5:36 AM, David W. Fenton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 Jul 2002, at 13:08, Philip Aker wrote: On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 04:50 AM, Richard Walker wrote: ... I can switch between pizzicato, mute, solo, tutti, and arco/nat samples just by typing the words above the staff (no fussy expression dialogs)... is a great request and I think you should send it over to MacSupport. Since we can already type in chords and lyrics, why not be able to type in Expressions if that tool is selected and there's a checkmark on a Type Into Score menu item? Cursor changes to a pencil, click for the location, type, and press Enter when done. Haven't you missed Richard's point? The point was automatic interpretation of those expressions, so that the strings switch to Pizzicato and back to Arco, just because the expressions are there. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On 9 Jul 2002, at 13:56, Robert Patterson wrote: Eventually the Finale user figures out that s/he can assign metatools to the most common expressions. Metatools are far more efficient than typing in (or pointing and clicking). Thus while Finale clearly (in this intance) takes longer to learn on the front end, it may be much faster once you understand about metatools. But who would waste a metatool on pizzicato/arco, when you'd need 1 pizz and an arco for each of the string patches you had in use (assuming they aren't all orchestral)? There simply aren't enough numbers on the keyboard to make metatools work for this kind of thing. In any event, I use metatools for dynamics/articulations, not for tempo markings or the like, and for that, there's not much advantage to the type into score method, especially for articulations, which are self- positioning (do expressions offer default positioning control in recent versions of Finale?). -- 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
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
- Original Message - Haven't you missed Richard's point? The point was automatic interpretation of those expressions, so that the strings switch to Pizzicato and back to Arco, just because the expressions are there. 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. Colin. Tech Support: I need you to boot the computer. Customer: (THUMP! Pause.) No, that didn't help. Colin Broom, composer e-mail: colin.broom@Cb7#9strath.ac.uk (To reply, omit the Cb7#9 chord from the e-mail address) Invention Ensemble: www.inventionensemble.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
on 02.7.9 10:15 PM, Jari Williamsson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Walker writes: I just load my orchestra into GigaStudio, open a new document, choose my weapons, and away I go Which is exactly what I can do in Finale as well Although you can't. Yet... Well, I'm sure you'll enjoy yourself. In the meantime ... The MIDI implementation is very flexible IMO. But (out of the box) it hasn't any automation at all. And MS-DOS was flexible too, but out of the box? Trying desperately to remember what those good points were, Notation. Notation. Flexibility. Accuracy. The ability to be expanded. Notation: I'm not an engraver, I'm a composer. I've heard people carp about the fine points of engraving style in Sibelius, but to tell you the truth, as long as my ideas are communicated accurately to the performers, I'm not sure I care, and I'm not sure there is anything so horribly wrong in Sibelius output that communication would break down. Flexibility/Accuracy: This is debatable, especially the flexibility point. Expandability: Sorry, but Sibelius has been kind enough to include an easy scripting language that brings expansion within the realm of the ordinary user who has neither the time nor the patience to master C++ before creating plug-ins. Finale has a lot of catching up to do, and I say this as one who loves (used to love?) the program. Richard Walker Yokohama, Japan ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 01:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: ... I can switch between pizzicato, mute, solo, tutti, and arco/nat samples just by typing the words above the staff (no fussy expression dialogs)... is a great request and I think you should send it over to MacSupport. Since we can already type in chords and lyrics, why not be able to type in Expressions if that tool is selected and there's a checkmark on a Type Into Score menu item? Cursor changes to a pencil, click for the location, type, and press Enter when done. Haven't you missed Richard's point? I deliberately choose not to comment on some aspects of his post. This doesn't imply that I missed any points that Richard made, but only that I was feeling especially cordial today and thought to bring out one item that seemed to be doable in Finale at the coding level and useful at the user level. The point was automatic interpretation of those expressions, so that the strings switch to Pizzicato and back to Arco, just because the expressions are there. I didn't mention that's what my expressions do because I've set them up that way. I didn't quote the part of Richard's post that went: I've been able to customize default patches for every instrument I use, I didn't mention that it's possible to save instrument and expression libraries in a library, default document, or a template and achieve the same effect in Finale. I didn't mention that it's possible to duplicate an expression and tweak a few values so as to accommodate different instruments. I didn't mention that it's possible to assign meta tool keys to expressions and click them into a score very easily. Although Richard obviously understands Midi usage far better than the majority of the members of this list, I didn't mention quite a few other things involved in setting up a score to be adaptable because it would amount to me telling him how to set up his score playback _my_ way. That might not be of much use to Richard who describes a substantially different Midi setup than I have and most likely has developed different working methods to achieve the desired result. I didn't mention that I agree that Finale's implementation of these features could be made more user friendly (no fussy expression dialogs) because I'm already adept at using them the way they are and I'd rather Coda's development time be spent on Midi support in the forthcoming PDK. Philip ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On 9 Jul 2002, at 14:55, Robert Patterson wrote: David W. Fenton wrote But who would waste a metatool on pizzicato/arco, when you'd need 1 pizz and an arco for each of the string patches you had in use (assuming they aren't all orchestral)? Me, for one. As I said, I don't worry too much about the MIDI playback. Well, if you don't worry about it, then it would just be irrelevant. That's not a reason for the feature to not be added to Finale, just because it's not something you personally would use. I have no use for tab notation, but heavens, I'm certainly happy that the new version of Finale has vastly improved its capabilities there, for the sake of those for whom it *is* important. There simply aren't enough numbers on the keyboard to make metatools work for this kind of thing. I seem to recall you are still on Fin98. In later Finale versions, every alphanumeric key is available to be a metatool. WinFin97, actually. WinFin98 was the version that no one bought because of the copy protection. In any event, quadrupling the number of metatool keys isn't exactly user- friendly, since how in the world could one keep track of so many different shortcuts? And why is it assumed that the suggestion of having the Finale method somehow implies that those who like the idea of it would want metatools removed from Finale? Metatools in their place, type-in-score in its place. -- 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
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
At 08:12 PM 7/9/02 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote: In any event, quadrupling the number of metatool keys isn't exactly user- friendly, since how in the world could one keep track of so many different shortcuts? My own solution is to use only the tools I need for a given score. The ones that are frequent end up assigned to the same keys in every score. Score-specific ones (a lot of contemporary markings, for example, along with such beasties as pizz. and arco) are in the less used positions. (In the bad old days, I used to reassign metatools, saving the work of adding less-frequent articulations and expressions until the main content was entered.) Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On 9 Jul 2002, at 16:30, Philip Aker wrote: I didn't mention that I agree that Finale's implementation of these features could be made more user friendly (no fussy expression dialogs) because I'm already adept at using them the way they are and I'd rather Coda's development time be spent on Midi support in the forthcoming PDK. Well, I'd rather Coda spend the time on things that will help them keep a large user population. Seems to me that improving the whole MIDI substructure of Finale would be a big win for Finale in terms of ease of use for end users who are *not* composers or engravers or people like me who are technically oriented and quite happy to figure out the details. Of course, I still think that it's really counter-intuitive that crescendoes in Finale don't do *something* to the playback. The data are there onscreen. There's no reason there shouldn't be some default interpretation of that (one that one could, naturally, adjust to one's exacting standards). I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing that makes many people scratch their heads when they start using Finale. And that kind of thing if addressed would only serve to make Finale more intuitive and easier to use. Mind you, I would only want these features if one could also control them precisely (and turn them off by default if one chose). I don't want some dumbed-down default playback behavior that can't be tweaked to exacting musical standards. But I think this kind of thing *must* get better or Finale will lose a lot of the people who don't need the massive flexibility that Finale offers. Indeed, from what I've seen about Sibelius in its present form, if I were starting my project now, it would probably have been the best choice. -- 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
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
Concerning pizz and arco David Fenton writes: There simply aren't enough numbers on the keyboard to make metatools work for this kind of thing. Now that it's possible to assign metatools to just about all the keys on the qwerty keyboard, I've used p to enter pizz and a to enter arco for some scores, and I've set up these expressions to affect playback. I've never run out of keys for such assignments. However, Sibelius gives you all this pre-set, so to speak, and the Mixer in Sibelius is really easy to use and does what I'd want it to do. I think the perfect application would give you the easy way to standard needs while giving you complete control over details, should you need alternate solutions. Hal -- Harold Owen 2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~hjowen FAX: (509) 461-3608 ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
David W. Fenton wrote: quadrupling the number of metatool keys Gracious. I just can't let this go by. Occasionally I have gone back to Fin97 to avoid re-editing an old doc. It is the SLAG MINES! (Single undo, lotsa bugs that have since been fixed, no staff styles.) And only 9 metatools. Invariably I have upgraded the document. I think David is *determined* to resist change at all cost, if he can figure out a way to pooh-pooh such a useful feature. (I want *more* metatool keys. There's no reason the special chars can't be metatools too.) Well, David, resist away. It is a long, hard struggle that is doomed to fail. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
Harold Owen wrote: I think the perfect application would give you the easy way to standard needs while giving you complete control over details, should you need alternate solutions. Indeed it would perfect. Have you never wondered why few if any such apps exists? Personally, I would like to see the whole cumbersome MIDI infrastructure ripped out of Finale, except for basics. Instead, I'd like to see Coda partner with a major digital audio vendor. Now that Mosaic is apparently dead, maybe they could cut a deal w/ MOTU. Seamless integration with some real sequencer is the ticket. Not glomming me-too features on. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The S Word [was: Orchestra MIDI]
On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 05:33 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: I didn't mention that I agree that Finale's implementation of these features could be made more user friendly (no fussy expression dialogs) because I'm already adept at using them the way they are and I'd rather Coda's development time be spent on Midi support in the forthcoming PDK. Well, I'd rather Coda spend the time on things that will help them keep a large user population. Seems to me that improving the whole MIDI substructure of Finale would be a big win for Finale in terms of ease of use for end users who are *not* composers or engravers or people like me who are technically oriented and quite happy to figure out the details. I agree that having a better UI for Finale's Midi aspects would improve Coda's user base and marketshare. What is the main difference between Finale's Midi implementation and others is the level of abstraction at which Midi I/O occurs. I agree that most folks don't want to delve into the details. By way of analogy, they'd rather eat at Midi MacDonald's and just put on how much ketchup they like. However, I most certainly wouldn't want to have the current capabilities gelded just because someone else hasn't read/understood the documentation. I equate the complexity of Finale's Midi to the amount of piano chops required to play a 3 part sinfonia or fugue by Bach. The Midi aspects of Finale are incomplete because the full Midi 1.0 specification is not implemented and on Macintosh because it's not possible to do a major context switch when Midi I/O is occurring. Personally, I think that the placement of the playback mechanism is well situated and only lacks the Midi spec extras and UI mentioned above. Mind you, that's a big only in terms of development costs. I have made serious petitions to Coda for Midi I/O APIs in the PDK and disclosure of the Note File format because it will probably be faster for PDK developers to come up with something useful for a specific subset of users rather than have Coda develop for the general case. Cordially, Philip mailto:#112;#104;#105;#108;#105;#112;#64;#118;#99;#110;#46;#98; #99;#46;#99;#97; ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
