>> > On 18 Jul 2002, at 1:08, Harold Steinhardt wrote: > >> What set me off, was my perceived insistence of others who feel, in > >> the composing process, that a complete midi playback with every element > >> accounted for is needed for their proofing purposes. > > > > Well, no one in this discussion, so far as I have read, has advocated > > anything of the sort. > > > > What set you off was all in the baggage you brought to the discussion. > > Maybe not so far as *you* have read, but that's exactly the > impression I got > too. And this is something I find very irksome about this list. > Some people > are incredibly snippy and condescending to others and then accuse them of > bringing *baggage* to a discussion. A little civility would go a > long way on > this list. > Unruffling my feathers, > Doug
At the risk of reruffling your feathers, I would point out that Harold's statement contains a huge straw-man assumption, that others have expressed the need for "complete" MIDI playback for "proofing purposes". Now really, nobody has said anything like that. Most of the comments have pertained to making the MIDI features easier to access and use that Finale already has. If, like Harold, you start with the assumption that MIDI in Finale is only used for proofing, then I'm not surprised if the arguments for improving its implementation seem irrelevant to you. However, I (and apparently many others) find much value beyond "proofing purposes" in Finale's MIDI capabilities, and would heartily welcome improvements in this weakest and longest-unimproved area of Finale. This is simply because it would improve my productivity as I currently use the software. If using MIDI in Finale were easier, it would improve a lot of people's productivity, including some who don't presently realize it, and others who would purchase Finale because it was finally competitive in this area. -Lee _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
