Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 12:38 PM 1/5/06 -0800, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Seriously, it makes sense where it is. It doesn't make sense at all to
move it somewhere else.
But it makes sense to re-think things that have caused confusion.
In David's thinking, octave doubling is not transposition, and indeed it is
not (even if that's one way to get there). So what is it? It's parallel
motion, quite a different thing even if it looks the same at first glance
and the program has a trick to get there.
I can't see how we can start saying we need to rethink all the interface
because some guy didn't RTFM. Seriously, if you look up doubling, it's
there. So, he misses it. Then starts on the tirade about how it doesn't
make sense where it is. It makes a lot of sense. Going back to the days
when I was taking classes for my MUSIC degree, taking classes in
arranging and what not, we'd use the terms all the time. Maybe Eshelman
would say "why don't you double that up an octave" or "transpose it down
an octave". This was when we were using paper and pencils.
I suppose, if you come from the Fenton school of non-musician, you'd
have no clue to look under Transpose, but, speaking as a professional
musician, it makes perfect sense for an option to preserve notes when
you transpose them.
What do I know. I just do music for a living. And I have Stockholm
syndrome.....
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
