At 8:47 PM 09/19/02, David W. Fenton wrote: >That's not a viable debate tactic with me -- don't impute to me >arguments I have no made.
OK, but I'm not viewing this as a tactical debate. I'm participating because I think we're discussing interesting issue, not to be the winner in a debate. >That is, I would not be calling for a removal of any functionality >that is presently there, just a completely revision of how it is >implemented. Good enough for me. >> OK, but I'm sure the same function exists with a different keystroke. > >I don't know what function you are speaking of. Does it have a name? >What does it do? It assigns several lyric syllables at once. In the manual it just appears under "Click Assign lyrics all at once". Depending on the music, and on your planning, it sometimes requires shifting to get everything right, but on the whole I find it a big time-saver. For excessively melismatic music, I often won't use it. Or for a very long melisma within a part which is otherwise relatively unmelismatic, I'll typically clear out the assignments and start again after the melisma. >Yes, but it compresses everything into a syllabic assignment, >removing any melismas in what is to the right of the shifted >syllable. Hmm, I'm still not sure I understand. Maybe this is something that doesn't occur for me since I do all my shifting from left to right, and I do it all at once rather than going back for repairs later. Thus, I never do a shift when the syllables to the right of the shift are already spaced out. Perhaps Shift Lyrics is a tool which is less powerful when it isn't used according to the certain pattern that I'm accustomed to. >NO ONE IS CALLING FOR ANYTHING THAT WOULD "FOUL UP" EXISTING >FEATURES. > >Geez. I get so tired of people arguing on the assumption that those >who want the problems fixed are advocating the removal of features. OK, OK, I get it now. I was misled by your statements like, "TYPE IN SCORE is ... the only proper way for a graphical program to enter lyrics." >After my first day with Finale, I've never touched Simple Entry. If >it were gone, I'd never miss it. Yeah, me too. But I recognize that other people prefer it, just as I recognize that other people prefer Type in Score for lyrics. >Like a WordPerfect user and VIEW CODES mode, you are arguing that a >flaw in the original implementation is now something you cannot work >without. Could be. Maybe I don't consider it a flaw. I used to work as a typesetter on Compugraphic machines, so I'm accustomed to seeing codes instead of wysiwyg (or, more often, wysiNwyg). In general, I tend to prefer seeing a representation that's a little closer to the underlying data. That's probably also why I prefer to place an element by entering its positioning coordinates directly rather than dragging it on the screen. >It think the order is chosen by the order of entry in time -- the >voice that has lyrics first is first in the canonical stream. That >would explain my file. I think we've resolved this elsewhere. Apparently it orders the voices according to the order of input, but orders all the syllables within the voice according to position in the score. If you're asking for it to order the voices according to their position on the staff list, that makes sense to me. From my point of view it's a trivial matter, not very relevant to the rest of the debate here, but if it's important to others, I respect that. >But they aren't really different verses, so why would one do that? >Yes, I know, it's a workaround that helps you manage your text >streams, but it *is* a workaround, one that would not be necessary if >the UI and data store were better connected. Do we have any problem here if verses are simply renamed "sections"? I think it's extremely logical to group separate lyric texts into separate sections rather than string them end to end. It's not simply a workaround. The grouping matters with respect to shifting lyrics, making baseline or text style changes to an entire section at once, and consecutiveness of syllables in case of hyphens. Having the ability to group the text streams into discrete sections is a very useful feature, and the power of many functions depends on it. I still don't see what's so logical or intuitive about having all the text in a single stream. How does the first word the alto sings follow naturally after the last word the soprano sings? >A good example, and one that I have been thinking of. To fix it, all >you have to do is change the meter, stick in an appropriate note >value to shift things and it will rebar itself back to the original. >Certain things are volatile and will be lost (such as beam breaks), >yes, but the basic underlying structure is not lost, as with lyrics. You know, I just now tried to duplicate the problem I had before, and I can't. Perhaps it worked differently on an earlier version of the progam. What happened was something like this: I wanted to change the time signature to just a few bars, but I accidentally changed it for all the bars until the end of the piece. Instead of using "undo" as I should have, I figured I'd save a step by selecting all the bars after the intended time signature change, and for those bars I changed the time signature back to what it had been before. This should have worked fine -- and indeed, when I try it now on Fin 2002 it does work (though potentially losing tie and beam info, as you noted) -- but at the time the "rebar" worked in one direction only and I ended up with all my music having rests interposed at regular intervals. At that point I still would have been fine if I had noticed it and done a few "undo"s, but of course I didn't notice it, and that was the problem. When I try the same thing now, I don't get the same problem. Presumably your answer to this is that the "rebar" function of time signature was indeed broken in the previous version and now it's fixed. OK, I'll buy that. mdl _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
