At 9:59 AM 07/14/02, Philip Aker wrote:
>I don't know right now. But it seems to me that if one would
>just be typing nicknames for a match then any old text font will
>do.
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the font in which a
newly created expression would appear. You're right, the usual OS font is
fine for me in the dialog boxes.
I do want to be able to set a default font that new expressions will show
up in so I don't have to select one each time I use type-in-score for a new
expression, but I think this is fairly obvious and we all agree on it.
>> In other words, it sounds to me like you are further blurring
>> the distinction between "note expressions" and "measure
>> expressions", so that they're pretty much the same thing except
>> that they happen to have different assignment attributes. Am I
>> reading that right?
>
>Not quite. Just the positioning options for note expressions.
So your scheme for type-in-score is for note expression only? Or is there
some other way to specify them as measure expressions? My main reasons for
preferring measure expressions to note expressions in most cases is because
I want an absolute V position or I want to be able to put the expression on
more than one staff. If your note expression attributes cover both of
these, then I probably won't mind if I can't use measure expressions
instead.
(I vaguely recall that Michael Good once told me that note expressions and
measure expressions have playback coded in different ways, which in some
cases requires the expression to be one or the other depending on what all
voices you want the playback definition to affect. But I'm not sure if I'm
remembering that right. I myself have little use for playback, and it
pretty much only matters to me when I'm delivering a Finale file to a
client who does care.)
>I think these could be accounted for by a scheme for the measure
>expression options: V(-168EV), H(1536ED) and say IH(-12EV). the
>last one meaning "Independent Horizontal Positioning".
I gather that "ED" is the abbreviation for that unit of time where 4096 of
them equals a whole note, yes? If I have either time or space units
available for the argument of the H item, and I can enter more than one H
on a single expression and have them add together, then yes, I believe that
covers everything I want.
No, I take that back. I'd sort of like to be able specify it as the *beat*
for whatever time signature I'm in. That is, I could define a single
expression to always default its horiz position to the nearest beat, and
then have the program know how to apply that correctly whether the time
signature is 2/4 or 6/8.
>> That being the case, I want to have some sort of mode, within
>> the expression tool, whereby Finale highlights the "current
>> position". I don't need to go into detail about exactly how
>> this might work. The point is that once you're in this mode,
>> you can use the arrow keys to move around from measure to
>> measure, note to note, layer to layer, etc., until you're where
>> you want to be. Then you start typing and the "type in score"
>> happens.
>
>This part makes me think of a "baseline" indicator (like chords
>or lyrics but with only 1 arrow) and Speedy-like score
>navigation keys (or maybe just <Cmd-Arrow>).
Yes, something like that. Maybe your new pencil-cursor can hop around from
measure to measure?
>> One last thought: Is it at all practical to also apply some of
>> these ideas to the articulations?
>
>Hard to say, but I'd think at best, a baseline, insertion point
>which moved to the next entry, and then typing a previously
>assigned metatool might be the max available without putting the
>Articulation structure though open heart surgery.
That's all I really want. The ability to navigate with the arrow keys and
then type in various articulations with single keystrokes and no mouse
click. For the most part, I'm happy enough with the current metatools, but
I could see wanting to switch to the keyboard for a busy measure filled up
with a variety of different articulations. Or maybe it would be a nice
time-saver for a string part that has every upbow and downbow marked.
--
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>Given that Coda will try to compete with other apps on the
>"user-friendliness-award" I don't think the solution of having placement
>coordinates in the bracketed text is really a good one. Is there any reason
>not to combine all this with general autoplacement options like we already
>have for articulations?
I have no real preference on this, so long as the autoplacement works
efficiently one way or another. Philip's idea with all the attached
bracketed codes excites me because it suggests a very flexible and powerful
programmable system, which I wouldn't really expect to get from a
predefined dialog box like we get with articulations (which is pretty good,
but doesn't give enough room for creative uses).
Anyway, it seems to me like all of this bracketed text stuff can be made
invisible to users who don't care to dig into it. Or maybe there's some
compromise. Maybe there's an autoplacement designer dialog that lets you
set some of the basics, like H and V position, staff list, etc., leaving
out the more arcane stuff that would only confuse most users. Using this
dialog just creates all the codes anyway, but they remain invisible until
you use some sort of "reveal codes" command, whereupon you have the ability
to type them in directly if you prefer.
The one drawback I see to this is that it seems to be incompatible with
Philip's original suggestion that the type-in-score goes to the first text
within the angle-brackets. In retrospect, I'm not sure this is such a
great idea anyway, since it would mean most auto-placement-enabled
expressions are going to start with "H(" or "V(". Perhaps a better idea is
to have yet another code for "label", which is a text string that does
nothing except that type-in-score looks there first. If there is no label
command, then it goes to the text of the expression instead.
>I guess if Coda ever manages to construct such an entry method for
>expressions it is a small step to do the same for artics.
>BTW, I personally would very much like to see artics with more than just one
>character. Strictly speaking this is already possible using the shape
>designer, and perhaps with auto-placing expressions it won't be necessary
>any more, but there are lots of situations where I could use them. Ie
>bracketed trills :"(tr.)"
Perhaps I'm repeating myself, but this looks to me like the articulations
and expressions are collapsing into different variations of a single
concept -- sort of like the old "staff expressions" and "score expressions"
have partially done. (Anyone else remember that "what is an expression?"
essay in the old manual...?) It seems to me that there are only a few
discrete differences between note expressions and measure expressions: the
H and V positions are counted from a different place, one can use staff
lists on one but not the other, etc.
Yes, I'm sure that internally one really is attached to the measure and one
is attached to the note, but suppose that attaching an expression to a
measure no longer exists and every measure has to attach to a note. What
all would we lose? For starters, there's the various assignment attributes
that are available in measure-attached mode only, but it sounds like Philip
is suggesting making all of those attributes available to note expressions.
Can't attach to a measure with no note in it? Maybe there's some simple
workaround for that. What else?
Next, what's the real difference between an articulation and a note
expression? An articulation is a single character only, it has a different
collection of rules for placement, and the placement rules go with the
articulation design rather than with the assignment as with expressions.
But the latter is exactly what we're talking about changing with this
autoplacing expressions idea, and now you're talking about allowing
multiple characters for an articulation. It seems to me that about the
only difference remaining is that the articulation allows some more
sophisticated options for setting the placement, but if articulation
placement rules are made available to note expressions and vice versa, then
we've pretty much got a single concept which can be applied differently
depending on what attributes you decide to assign to it.
--
By the way, I think this has come up here before, but so long as your
expressions are a single character, you can use articulations for a
reasonably good facsimile of autoplacing note expressions. Actually
they're even more powerful, because you've got the various vertical
positions functions to play with.
Of course, the big drawback is that you're limited to only a single
character for these. Still, that does give you all the basic dynamics,
plus a couple of others like "sfz", etc.
Try this. Make a new articulation for the character "p" in 24pt Maestro.
Use the main symbol only. Check "always place outside staff" and "center
horizontally". Choose "below note" for the position. Set the default
vertical position to zero, and set the handle positions to H = 0 and V =
-48 evpu. Now copy this articulation for pp, mp, mf, f and ff, and assign
your favorite metatools to them.
Presto. You now have a reasonably functional collection of autoplacing
expressions for your basic dynamics. Another large drawback of this scheme
is that you can't set the playback properly. But if you only care about
the appearance on the page, and you're eager to have that autoplacement,
this works pretty well. (Some of them look a little better with a small
negative value in the H handle position.)
--
For that matter, you can also fake a reasonable facsimile of
"type-in-score" expressions by hijacking the lyrics function. First go
into Options-> Document Settings-> Lyrics, and change "Chorus" to 12 pt
Times italic, and "Section" to 24 pt Maestro. Now go to Lyrics-> Adjust
Baselines to enter some baselines -- maybe -120 evpu for chorus 1, -168 for
chorus two, and +48 for chorus three; sections 1 and 2 to match the
choruses, but +72 instead for the third one.
Now you can select Lyrics-> Type in Score, and you've got a clumsy but
workable system for typing what behave sort of like note-attached
expressions into your score. With Lyrics-> Adjust Syllables you can drag
them around or use the alignment functions. Lyrics-> Specify Current Lyric
lets you switch between different default fonts and vertical positions.
Finale gives you three different varieties of lyric which translates into
three different default fonts, and you've got a zillion verses in each one
for as many default baselines as you can keep track of.
Of course there are some pitfalls. You'll have to be sure lyrics are
turned off under Music Spacing Options. You definitely need to steer clear
of Shift Lyrics, and I'd advise against doing much in the Edit Lyrics
dialog, since you'd be liable to foul up all of them. I imagine it would be
pretty much impossible to use this and real lyrics simultaneously, so it's
only a system for people doing non-vocal music.
Any time you get creative with the program like this there's the
possibility of unintended consequences, but on first reflection I don't see
any serious problems with this scheme except that it's limited in its
abilities. I'd be curious to hear from someone who wants type-in-score
expressions and has tried using this as a way to achieve it.
--
And if I might change the subject for one brief comment. The possibility of
clever little schemes like these is the best demonstration of Finale's
superiority over other engraving tools. New users often complain that it's
too hard or it's too complicated or it doesn't do xyz like I want it to. In
a narrow, rigid application, the program is only able to do exactly what it
was designed to do. In an application like Finale, it's the openness and
enormous flexibility of the program that opens the door finding creative
solutions to problems that the designers might not have even anticipated.
mdl
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
