The discussion these days seems to center very much "wouldn't it be nice if Finale did it this way" for many things which I doubt will actually make things better, at least for me. In the past we have seen such half-hearted improvements make it into Finale too often, while those areas which would probably be easy to fix never got the development time.
Just one example: It is still not possible to have clefs after the barline appear after the key sig if they appear at the beginning of a system. The amount of time I waste to work around this problem to create properly formatted cue notes (which typically appear at the beginning of a system) is almost unbelievable. Beams? Why? They work fine.
Need I mention EPS files?
Johannes
Darcy James Argue wrote:
Johannes,
Surely you wouldn't mind if Finale's default beam placement were better? For instance, if Finale did Henle-style beams by default? No one is talking about taking away the plugin -- you could still run the Patterson Beams plugins on selected measures as required. But I really think Finale's default beam placement ought to be improved.
- Darcy ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY
On 04 Mar 2005, at 3:54 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
1) If you do not see a difference you probably don't know much about proper beam placement. Finale's default beam placement (not beaming as such) is dreadful.
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
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
-- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
