--- Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 2005, at 11:07 PM, Tyler Turner wrote: > > > > Discussing the merits of the feature from a > > functionality standpoint isn't really what's > needed > > here. The justification for the feature was that > > people wanted it. It was in high demand both > before > > and after sounds were included with Finale. > > > > Regards, > > Tyler > > > > AM I BELIEVING WHAT I JUST READ?! > > This astounding comment goes a long way to > explaining some bewildering > decisions about the features and implementation > thereof in Finale > recently, if indeed the comment reflects MakeMusic's > attitude. (Tyler, > you ARE affiliated with MM, aren't you?) > > Basically what you are saying is that it doesn't > matter how, or even > if, a feature works, as long as you can say "We put > it in there, now > stop asking for it." > > Sheesh. > > Christopher > No, I'm not affiliated with MakeMusic. I'm a former employee - I left a year and a half ago. I do participate in the beta testing. Secondly, you have misunderstood me by quite a bit. My point wasn't that MakeMusic would stick a feature in that didn't work. It was that they could include a feature if it was in high demand, whether or not the merits to the feature were obvious to them or everyone else. Keep this in perspective. We were talking about the mixer feature, and in particular whether or not it made sense to include it back in the days before Finale included its own sounds. It was stated that there was no use for the feature because sounds were not included. For a while this point was argued back and forth. Finally I just basically said, "look, whether or not we personally each see use for the feature is not the point - the point is that other people wanted it." Now if you want to get specific, the reason other people wanted it was because those other people saw a point in it. And quite frankly so did the people at MakeMusic. But when it comes right down to it, the reason to include the feature stems first from the fact that people WANT it. A mixer that didn't work well wouldn't be what everyone WANTED, so that wouldn't have been MakeMusic's strategy. Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times do composers click play as opposed to extracting parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as commonly as some people here believe. It wasn't a frequent topic on the tech support phones or in e-mails. It's not commonly discussed on the forum. When you think about it, if you combine the number of composers who don't get their works performed with the number who are composing for something other than an ensemble (piano, and piano with voice are pretty common), I'm pretty sure you're looking at over 50%. And as for people who commonly work with extraction, that must be a lot fewer. Please don't misunderstand! I'm not saying that linked parts isn't an extremely valuable feature. I just believe that when it comes right down to it, the fact that MakeMusic has just given Finale far and away the best playback is NOT evidence that they are not in tune with their users. I'd be amazed to discover that the number of people who will benefit regularly from linked parts will approach the number that benefit regularly from GPO and HP. After all, even though this is notation software, it's ultimately still about the music (audio), and if it wasn't for the audio people wouldn't be messing with the notation. If 90% of Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal compositions performed by real people, don't you think something like GPO will be more attractive to them than linked parts? I hope that clears up what I've said. Tyler __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
