2) The immense flexibility of what Patterson beams can do is unlikely to ever be included in Finale's beam options.
3) Most importantly: Patterson beams can be applied with different settings to different regions. This could not be done with built-in beaming options unless the whole concept of how Finale's options work would have to be changed. The only way I could see this be done with default options would be if beaming options became part of staff styles. Unlikely to say the least.
Personally I think the plugin approach has advantages which I would not like to give up.
Johannes
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 4 Mar 2005 at 0:24, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Patterson beams is actually much more flexible than any beam option in Finale could ever be.
How so? Why would that be? The data the plugin uses to make its calculations is obviously there in the file and accessible to Finale. Why couldn't Finale do the same things?
I also don't see what all the excitement is. I know that Finale's default beaming is not very good in many cases (though it's now substantially better than it was even 5 years ago), but whenever I attempt to apply Patterson Beams, I see virtually no difference in the results. Perhaps I don't understand the plugin or am not applying good values (I believe I'm pretty much using just the defaults, which maybe don't do anything at all?).
But I still see absolutely no reason why Finale could not do what the plugin does.
-- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
