At 10:00 AM 3/13/2004, you wrote:
I've spoken to a number of musicians recently, including a noted
orchestral
conductor, and several composers who all seem to feel that the dynamic
'mezzo piano' is basically a meaningless dynamic, and they think it should
never be used.
Hard to see how they
It seems that something got hosed in the F2004b updates. I installed
the upgrade, then I created a new composition. Mostly things work
well, but the placement of notes is lousy. The first note in each
staff is way too close to the clef sign.. I suppose there is some
setting somewhere I can
At 09:43 PM 2/9/2004, Don Hart wrote:
I would think that proofing by playback, at least in most cases, would
make
95% accuracy work pretty well, as opposed to reentering
everything. Even if
both methods were a wash timewise, scanning would break the routine, and
that can sometimes be its own
At 03:19 AM 1/30/2004, David H. Bailey wrote:
I've never tried refilling my own laser cartridges, but my wife did
buy one of the refills from a national refill company and it wasn't
very good. Not nearly as good quality toner and not as well working a
cartridge, so she went back to purchasing
At 01:35 PM 12/4/2003, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 04 Dec 2003, at 08:29 AM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
At 6:26 PM -0500 12/03/03, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I don't mean to pile on, but this struck me as odd as well. While I
know a number of people who are able to circular breathe on
At 11:08 AM 10/31/2003, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
Well, if you're going (for instance) from 2/4 to 4/4, just change the
time signature (without rebarring the music) and then double durations
(again without rebarring). This will not allow notes to spill over
into other measures. You'll still have
Is there an easy way to expand all of the measures in a piece?
By expand, I mean, double the number of measures and turn all the 1/8
notes into 1/4 notes, all the 1/4 into 1/2 and so on.
Band-in-a-box has this exact feature as a one-button click. It is
quite useful in BIAB, but could also
Last week I mentioned that when using Speedy tool on F2004, I am
frequently getting cases where measures are getting transposed down an
octave.
Well, now it has happened to me on F2002, so apparently there is some
long-standing bug out there.
Here is the situation. I believe it has only
At 01:56 PM 10/19/2003, David H. Bailey wrote:
I've never run into this on anything other than percussion staves and
not with those for several versions.
But if you are running into it using normal speedy entry, with more
than one version of Finale and you never ran into it before with
At 11:08 AM 10/18/2003, Harold Owen wrote:
Craig Parmerlee writes:
More often than not, I put the darned thing into a loop when I'm
trying to do playback with anything other than the simplest repeats.
The first ending and second ending concepts are implemented
differently for reasons that make
At 02:27 PM 10/18/2003, David H. Bailey wrote:
And let's hope they don't add any more useless features like:
ThoughtNotator(tm) --
-or-
EngraverCoffeeStains(tm) --
-or-
IncrediblySmartShapes(tm) --
-or-
SuperRealisticPlayback(tm) --
ROTFL! Please, let's not give MM any ideas. :)
At 03:22 PM 10/17/2003, helgesen wrote:
Ain't life strange! Many times I consider myself 'thick as a
brick' because
most folks find some things easy which I don't grasp! Things like speedy
entry, page layout, drum playback etc.
But repeats - no problem. Using basic tools, i.e. no plug-ins, I
At 04:07 AM 10/16/2003, David H. Bailey wrote:
What happens if you go back into that measure in speedy and without
changing anything, exit again. Does it remain an octave low or does
it jump back to where it was?
Yes, it remains permanently changed an octave low. If it is a tuba
part, that is
At 01:31 PM 10/16/2003, Phil Daley wrote:
At 10/16/2003 01:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you set the repeat tool (end repeat measure) to always repeat it
will go into an infinite loop when you try to play it.
I must be missing something. Isn't this what you told it to do?
Not exactly.
I wonder if anybody else has noticed this untoward behavior under
F2004. I'm working on a score about 200 measures and 18 staves -- a
pretty big score. I am touching up notes here and there using speedy
tool. Occasionally (about 1 time in 20) after I edit a measure, the
whole measure is
to layer 1.
Then use MassEdit/Utilities/ImplodeMusic to put all the appropriate
staves together into one original staff.
Craig Parmerlee wrote:
I have music I scanned with SharpEye. It is in pretty good shape
except that Sharp thinks it is doing me favors by shoving notes into
different layers
I have music I scanned with SharpEye. It is in pretty good shape
except that Sharp thinks it is doing me favors by shoving notes into
different layers. I want to get everything to layer 1.
I would have thought this would be easy, but I don't see any way to do
it. There is a mass edit
At 06:34 AM 10/10/2003, Peter Younghusband wrote:
From: D. Keneth Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Finale] Playback glitches
I am using Finale 2004 with Windows 98. Had no problems until I started
playing back files that originated in 2001 or 2003 and were transferred
2004. When I play
At 08:32 PM 10/10/2003, Stanford Chong wrote:
1) Is it common that the music I played in the keyboard, end up to be
inaccurate in the finale score? The thing is that there are slurs,
triplets
and dotted quaver notes appearing here and there, even when I am not
playing
that. Do I need to adjust
At 07:17 AM 10/9/2003, you wrote:
Hello,
I've just purchased a midi keyboard and tried to use finale's hyperscribe.
But when I tried to transcribe by playing, the notes appeared in
thirds when
I actually played separately one after another. Is there anything I could
do to avoid this problem?
Go
At 10:17 AM 9/29/2003 -0700, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
If you copy a section, both the original and the copy will then be
pointing to the same location in the Edit Lyrics dialog box. Thus,
changing the word in the copy changes that location in the underlying
lyrics. By extension, then, this will
At 07:49 PM 9/26/2003 -0400, Ronald M. Krentzman wrote:
However, Sibelius now has a feature called focus on staves which works
somewhat like staff sets in Finale. This makes it much easier to enter
notes
without all the jumping around. There is a work-around in Sibelius
where you
can set the
At 01:00 PM 9/26/2003 +1000, Matthew Hindson Fastmail Acct wrote:
There is still no scroll view. You realise how good it is to be able to
enter notes without page layout constantly taking place when, for example,
the bar you're working on suddenly jumps off the screen because it's been
pushed to
At 06:31 AM 9/23/2003 -0500, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
I had one concern after the information on the Ricoh AP 2610. Somone
had told me that sometimes these inexpensive laser printers use a
counter in the toner cartridge, so that when it is advertised that the
cartridge is good for some number
At 06:48 AM 9/21/2003 -0400, David H. Bailey wrote:
At the risk of tempting fate, this morning was the first time in a
couple of weeks that I was able to download my email and not have any
infected with a virus.
I think that one wave or another will be with us for some time to
come, simply
I just received my Ricoh AP2610 large format laser printer. My hat is
off to whoever made the original recommendation. This printer is
unbelievable.
My trusty HP 6P finally died the week before my birthday. I knew that
Providence intended for me to have this Ricoh. Other than the toner
At 04:10 PM 9/15/2003 -0500, Richard Huggins wrote:
Or at least an option that might say something such as, Add to Same
Library
in Default Document? So that next time you open your default
document, that
whatever has been added. Good idea.
As long as we're doing some open-ended thinking here,
At 07:45 AM 9/13/2003 -0400, David H. Bailey wrote:
So tell me then why it is okay to mispronounce Greenwich as gren-itch?
If some mispronunciation is alright in the English language, why is it
alright to come down so hard on other mispronunciation?
We're going through a period where a very
I've used Finale for a very long time, mostly as a casual user. I find
myself doing more projects these days, and I feel like I am not using
some of the capabilities intelligently. In particularl, I don't think
I am taking advantage of libraries as I should. I'd appreciate advice
on this.
At 06:08 AM 9/12/2003 -0700, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
Mark D. Lew wrote:
Same goes for those who kvetch about pronouncing nuclear
like nucular.
There's a logical explanation for nucular? If it truly exists, I
would love to hear it.
Yes. It's called stupidity.
Anybody who can't pronounce nuclear
My HP laser printer just decided to cash in its chips after a long,
productive life. The Ricoh seems like a very good option for replacing
that printer. I have a couple of questions for anybody who has taken
the plunge.
I see that the printer can handle a variety of paper sizes including
At 05:47 PM 9/12/2003 -0800, Mark D. Lew wrote:
At 10:02 AM 09/12/03, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Also circular, muscular, crepuscular, avuncular, testicular, and no doubt
more than we're both forgetting.
When Popeye mispronounces muscles as mus-kulls, it is a good
laugh. I don't find it at all funny,
At 09:46 PM 9/12/2003 -0400, Tim Thompson wrote:
We have Ricoh Aficio 3200 and 1035p units, both of which will handle
up to 12x18, and duplex the large paper as well. I don't know how the
options were purchased, but I can tell you that it all works just fine.
For anybody who is interested,
OK, I must be completely dense. I am trying to understand how the
automatic placement of expressions works.
I created a new expression and I gave it completely different
attributes for note-attached versus measure-attached. For example,
note-attached is below baseline, aligned with the
At 01:33 AM 8/30/2003 +, Robert Patterson Finale wrote:
Check the metatool setting in the Expression Menu. Also, turn on
colors. Then you can tell immediately if you've put in a note-attached
or meas-attached exp.
Yes, colors are on. They are all dark green = measure-attached. No
matter
To follow on my earlier post, I can't get note-attached expressions to
work. If I use expression metatools (hold down a qwerty key while I
click a note), I can get a note-attached expression, no problem. But
when I do it the regular way -- double-click a note, then select the
expression from
At 07:22 AM 8/30/2003 -0400, David H. Bailey wrote:
I find the same behavior as you do -- using the normal selection
method the radio button for measure attached is highlighted, even when
the cursor indicates it should be a note-attached expression.
However, once you change the radio button to
At 03:24 PM 8/30/2003 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 30.08.2003 13:22 Uhr, David H. Bailey wrote
I find the same behavior as you do -- using the normal selection method
the radio button for measure attached is highlighted, even when the
cursor indicates it should be a note-attached
At 06:06 PM 8/29/2003 +0200, Jari Williamsson wrote:
FWIW, Forza! will soon be able to transfer Fin2004 expressions between
files, complete with descriptions and positioning. [I just have to
finish a
composition this weekend.] Then you just make the changes in one file
and directly transfer the
There is something that has been driving me nuts. Finale 2002 had a
peculiar behavior (OK, I think it is a bug). I never used 2003 and
assumed it was fixed there, but I see it is still wrong in 2004.
I want to use mass edit to drag a whole piece of music onto another MUS
file. The music
, then it ought to be disabled altogether.
At 11:29 PM 8/28/2003 -0500, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
There is something that has been driving me nuts. Finale 2002 had a
peculiar behavior (OK, I think it is a bug). I never used 2003 and
assumed it was fixed there, but I see it is still wrong in 2004.
I
At 12:13 PM 8/27/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Okay...anyone EXCEPT for Robert?
(:)
I haven't spent any time on it, but I did spend my lunch hour studying
Chapter 15 of the documentation. I suggest you print off that chapter
and study it in detail. There is going to be a learning curve with
this
At 02:35 PM 8/27/2003 -0400, Aaron Sherber wrote:
Perhaps most annoyingly, the display system is unacceptably slow.
Moving almost any item (articulation, expression, smart shape, etc.)
results in an unacceptable amount of latency before the screen shows
the move I've just made. This makes
At 04:18 PM 8/27/2003 -0400, David H. Bailey wrote:
Did you really mean minutes!?!? FIVE MINUTES to load? heck, even
Windows98 doesn't take that long to load!
No. 5 TIMES as long. Most other programs load inside 3 or 4
seconds. F2004 seems to take 30 seconds to load on my machine.
I am getting some strange results from Human Playback. A F2002 score
that I upgraded to 2004 seems to die on the last measure. The rest of
the score plays beautifully, but the tempo drops to about quarter = 15
in the last measure when using 21st Century playback. It isn't bad
on some of the
At 10:39 PM 8/25/2003 -0500, Williams, Jim wrote:
Hi, Craig...
That appears to be an option. In the playback window, choose a
custom playback. Look at the dropdown list take settings from...
and choose the 21st century. Unless I miss my guess, last measure
will be checked. Just uncheck it.
Yes,
At 01:53 PM 8/21/2003 -0400, Phil Daley wrote:
At 8/21/2003 01:42 PM, Carlberg Jones wrote:
MTNA = Music Teachers National Association
http://www.mtna.org/home.htm
An how does joining that group certify that my wife is a music teacher
more than giving 30+ years of piano lessons to 50+ students
At 05:34 PM 8/19/2003 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
As a software developer who has also been stolen from, I support
Dennis's position. Honest customers will be honest no matter what.
Dishonest ones, likewise, will not generate any more income for you.
All you do with copy protection schemes is
At 02:26 PM 8/13/2003 -0500, Richard Huggins wrote:
Maybe I'm not getting something, but ...
You mentioned that you have everything on separate staves at the moment--why
wouldn't you extract those into parts before combining them? If you did,
then you're only dealing with the implosion issue
At 10:39 AM 8/8/2003 +0200, Jari Williamsson wrote:
I noticed that the MakeMusic! marketing material for Finale 2004 only
seem to compare the SoftSynth output with normal MIDI output. No
example how a printed page would sound with human playback. So I
created such an example, which is now linked
At 10:38 AM 8/8/2003 -0400, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Within days, if not hours, of the new version being out, there will be
cracks available.
Don't be so sure. There were multiple cracks for every version of software
I produced. I had a very primitive protection system that was easy to
Yes, I was thinking mainly of wind parts. I've seen so many horrendous
combined parts that I cringe when I see them. I understand that a string
section is managed differently, and when there are divisi parts in cello,
e.g., that is almost always vertical i.e. same rhythms, harmonized
notes.
This may be a message mainly for Tobias, as part of it seems to relate to
TGTools Smart Explosion. But I'd appreciate hearing ideas from across the
board.
I want to know how others approach organizing the instruments on their
scores. I have done mainly small ensembles in the past. In that
I interpret that statement to be EXACTLY the opposite. The way I read it,
when you get your new computer, you run a procedure which exports the
print/save capability (in the form of a number or file or something). You
install F2004 on the new machine and then import this code/file and you are
I'd be interested in hearing the range of options in use for using more
than 16 MIDI channels. Technically it is possible, but it seems that 16 is
easy and common while 16 is quite unusual and sometimes a bit
tedious. As much as the technology has progressed on so many fronts, it is
I believe the answer is this:
1) MM will provide a maintenance release that will allow you to transfer
the license from old computer to new computer with absolutely no contact
with MM, internet or otherwise.
2) If anything should go wrong with this procedure, you could still license
the new
.
There are several hardware modules which allow 32 or 64 channels of use
simultaneously.
Craig Parmerlee wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing the range of options in use for using more
than 16 MIDI channels. Technically it is possible, but it seems that 16
is easy and common while 16 is quite
At 06:11 PM 8/6/2003 -0400, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 02:19 PM 8/6/03 -0400, Tim wrote:
I'm a little bothered that the web site is haphazard
The website is *idiotic*. Handicapped-hostile to start with, but beyond
that it doesn't recognize the Opera browser correctly, and the order page
won't
At 11:11 AM 8/6/2003 -0400, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
This really is me talking, for some reason my emailer thinks it's a quote:
I prefer 2nd X only rather than 2x only, as it won't be confused with
Two times only, and Tacet 1st X is a negative, which seems to take
more brain power to
As a software author myself, one who has been victimized by piracy and
cracks (just like everyone else), I must disagree with the sentiments you
expressed. I find the new Finale policy quite reasonable. Anybody who
intended to live honestly by the license should have little difficulty with
At 03:53 PM 8/6/2003 -0400, Tim Thompson wrote:
Ties across barlines is an option in Hyperscribe, which you probably have
unchecked. It is very useful to have this as an option at times.
D'oh.
Thanks.
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:04 PM 8/9/2003 +1000, RockyRoad wrote:
PS: The system is acceptable to me. I am a veteran of dongles (Logic),
keydisks (Soundiver) and other arcane systems. Of course the potential
demise of MakeMusic is a concern but the greater issue their would be
whether the last Finale would
At 11:36 PM 8/8/2003 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 08.08.2003 18:59 Uhr, Tobias Giesen wrote
I have had personal (albeit mostly via email) contact with many Coda
employees, and I am deeply convinced that if there is one company that you
can trust, it's them.
Many Coda employees,
One of the little nuisances in older Finale releases is that hyperscribe
would never tie notes across bar lines. So if you were wanting to show
jump beats, you had to strike the keyboard twice (once for an 8th note on
the and of 4 and again for the downbeat of the next measure), then go back
At 06:27 AM 6/11/2003 -0400, David H. Bailey wrote:
Tim Thompson wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I do this (1.) sometimes too, and have up M2 transposition
programmed as metatool 8, and up P5 as metatool 9 (6 and 7 are octave
transpositions). And, of course, the reason for doing it like this is to
hear
I think the point is that you should hear the PLAYED pitch regardless
whether you are viewing in transposed or concert pitch. When you do
playback, the notes all come out in played pitch even when viewing in
transposed mode -- exactly as it should be. Yet when you enter from a MIDI
keyboard
I bought a copy of Sibelius about 3 years ago when I desperately wanted to
find some kind of decent scanning solution. With all Sibelius' bragging
about superiority (include re: music scanning), I thought I'd better try it.
It was a dismal failure, of course. Scanning was completely
At 07:55 PM 6/8/2003 -0400, Dan Carno wrote:
Hi gang!
What version of Sibelius are you guys talking about? For example,
articulations can be easily grabbed moved *vertically*. Sibelius does
not let you move them horizontally from their centered position, but why
would you want to?
I don't
I guess I've owned 6 or 7 releases of Finale. I can't recall all the
release numbers. It certainly isn't a requirement to go back 7
releases. But it is normal for a software product -- especially one that
could be used in a collaborative work environment -- to provide n-2 through
n+2
At 03:07 PM 6/7/2003 +0200, Jari Williamsson wrote:
Craig Parmerlee writes:
As I suggested earlier, when using an object based storage approach (which
apparently Finale doesn't) the normal practice would be to store multiple
versions of the objects so that back level releases would be able
him.
Regards,
Craig
At 06:43 PM 6/7/2003 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 7 Jun 2003 at 17:31, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
At 03:58 PM 6/7/2003 -0400, you wrote:
On 7 Jun 2003 at 0:35, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
It is no different with Word, Excel or any other end-user application.
Really, would
This came up last week, so I thought I'd add a bit of info.
I didn't see enough useful function in 2003 to warrant an upgrade in my
circumstances. I continue to receive all sorts of emails and snail mail
flyers encouraging me to send in 100 bucks for a 2003 upgrade I don't
really want. With
At 04:07 PM 6/5/2003 -0400, Darcy James Argue wrote:
You're right that the fact that they're still trying to sell people on
Fin2003 upgrades probably suggests that Fin2004 will be somewhat
delayed. (My heart sank when I got yet another ad for Fin2003 in my inbox
at this late date.) Also, I
At 01:43 PM 6/6/2003 +0200, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote:
Adding to all that has been said (and even perhaps this was brought up, if
so, sorry):
From a business point of view, MakeMusic most likely keeps selling many of
its new versions exactly because of the impossibility of backwards
At 11:19 AM 6/6/2003 -0400, Eddy Wilson wrote:
Hey, everyone, In light of the discussion, I would like your
opinions:
I'm still on Finale 2002. Are the annual upgrades really worth it?
Yes and no.
Yes, if you have the money and you don't have a need for collaboration with
other Finale
At 07:50 AM 6/6/2003 -0400, David H. Bailey wrote:
Notation is still a growing field and has yet to mature, as Coda's
developers learn how to include more aspects of notation control, which
constantly changes the data structure.
Eventually (soon?) Finale will reach maturity and will be able to
I was going to snip sections of the Johannes' post to make this email more
brief, but I was afraid that I would get his points out of context, so I
included the whole thing for reference.
Yes, definitely Finale fits into that second category apps that use their
own format. If the app is alive
At 07:11 PM 6/6/2003 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Jun 2003 at 23:19, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
Coda is possibly the only vendor of a
major software product that does not provide backwards compatibility.
It depends on the product category. It is very common with database
programs
At 09:06 AM 6/7/2003 +1000, Matthew Hindson wrote:
By the way, has Makemusic/Codamusic _ever_ made a profit?
I don't know about ever but apparently not recently.
They face a tough confluence of circumstances.
1) They are selling a software product. That isn't easy at this stage of
the
At 05:51 PM 6/5/2003 -0400, Aaron Sherber wrote:
I admit that many of Finale's new features have looked like
marketing-driven things to help sell the product to new users. And I, like
many other users, have my own personal list of thing I wish Coda would fix
or improve instead of giving us
At 12:37 AM 6/6/2003 -0400, Darcy James Argue wrote:
That is stupid programming.
No it isn't.
I've developed software professionally since 1972, being paid to produce
products in COBOL, PL/1, 370 assembler, Intel assembler, Pascal, C, C++,
C++Builder, REXX, Visual Basic, VBA, SAS and loads of
SAVE THAT CARTRIDGE
Don't throw it away. Refill it. It is cheap and easy. See
tonerrefillkits.com. For about $12 you can refill a cartridge you would
otherwise spend $80 for. I've refilled my HP cartridges 4 or 5 times
before they really wear out.
Best of luck,
Craig
At 12:58 AM
At 04:35 PM 5/30/2003 -0400, Andrew Stiller wrote:
In my (fairly extensive) experience, recycled cartridges do not produce
reliably publication-quality output. In fact, I have reluctantly come to
conclude that even off-brand new cartridges cannot be relied on, and now
buy strictly OEM
At 07:15 PM 5/30/2003 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 06:43 PM, One of the McKays wrote:
I have been getting my inkjet cartridges for my Canon BJC 6500 refilled by
Cartridge World for about half the price of a new cartridge. I can't detect
any difference in the
At 04:09 PM 5/30/2003 -0800, Mark D. Lew wrote:
One respondent tells me the instrument is probably from the 1960s, not the
1970s. Could be. I got it used in 1983.
I'd think the 70s would be far more likely. They certainly were in new
production throughout most of the 1970s if not the entire
At 08:15 AM 6/16/2002 -0400, David H. Bailey wrote:
You can't open an OfficeXP word-processing document in Word3, I would
bet. There is a point where backward compatibility is an issue even for
Micro$oft.
Well, perhaps that is true, but they do go back to Word 4 and they also
provide a
style to either 1-bar repeat or 2-bar repeat style
And of course, it would be nice for the plug-in also to be able to wipe out
all of the above changes so that we could edit the repeated measures
easily, then re-apply the plug-in.
Does any such plug-in already exist?
Thanks,
Craig Parmerlee
At 09:13 AM 6/1/2002 -0400, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 07:01 AM 06/01/02, David H. Bailey wrote:
They have supposedly improved the scanning ability (I'll believe that
when I see it!) but in reading their impartial comparison, they admit
they skewed the results -- they used b/w line art for the
At 02:06 PM 6/1/2002 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 1 Jun 2002, at 13:09, David H. Bailey wrote:
And I still think it is a skewed comparison. I also don't think 5
errors in a 12-fame, perfect original is anything to be bragging about
-- there should be ZERO errors given such a perfect
At 07:44 PM 6/1/2002 -0500, Robert Patterson wrote:
Thanks, Jari, for the excellent summary of new features. One or two of
the new Staff options, plus Group Optimization and the new Engraver
Slurs are 100 times more valuable to me than the bells whistles that
Coda touts. Strange that Coda's
90 matches
Mail list logo
