On 7 Jul 2005 at 17:23, Darcy James Argue wrote: > On 07 Jul 2005, at 4:24 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > > > While we are on about it: House styles is another area where > > Sibelius is far superior to Finale. > > > > Several times I have suggested ways how some house style > > functionality could be added to Finale with as I understand very > > limited programming effort (as most of it is already in Finale, just > > not used). > > > > All it needs from my perspective: > > - More fields in the File info, which should all be addable via > > placeholders. - Better handling of default fonts - a description > > field for articulations - a set of plugins which can deal with > > moving the notation data from one template to another, utilizing the > > above (ie distiguishing standard articulations like staccato etc by > > their description field), plus the ability to run certain plugins > > automatically (like Patterson beams). > > > > As far as I can see this would open the way for house styles, in a > > more flexible way than Sibelius offers. > > All of that would be great. Sibelius has had House Styles for some > time now (maybe even since v1.0?) and an alternative solution for > Finale is long overdue.
But aren't Sibelius's house styles the source of at least part of its inflexibility? I'm all for house styles in Finale, but implementing them in a way that retains the flexibility that Finale excels at would require quite a big of re-jiggering, seems to me. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
