> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Smith > Sent: 04 May 2006 20:53 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Finale] RE: [Olist] Sibelius/Finale question > (Eek,I openeda can of worms) > > > > On May 4, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Owain Sutton wrote: > >>> > >>> The Staff Style stem settings don't let you change the normal stem > >>> length or the stem line thickness. These can only be > done globally, > >>> which I've found to be an issue in the past. > >> > >> The endpoint away from the notehead is the stem length. It can be > >> changed in a Staff Style. > >> > > > > You mean the 'use vertical offset for beam end' option? It doesn't > > appear to modify the normal stem length in the same way as > in Document > > Settings, but rather extends all stems to a particular horizontal > > position. > > > > > Oopsie! My fault for not checking. > > I can't see it being very difficult from a programming point > of view to > include all the stem options in a staff style. Request it, and they > might be able to implement it. > > > > >> It's true that you can't make the stems THINNER, but you can > >> make them > >> thicker by overlaying a note expression or articulation that > >> is set to > >> position automatically. You could even make thin stems by > hiding the > >> stems completely and adding a thin stem line as an expression. Once > >> again, if you set it up carefully to auto position, you could > >> work very > >> quickly from then on. I could see how you could hold down the thick > >> stem articulation metatool, drag over an entire passage, > and when you > >> release the mouse, every note has a thick stem. > >> > > > > The whole point of this exchange is to identify failures in the > > software. Having to jump through these hoops to achieve > something very > > simple, because it can only have one setting per document, > is a failing > > in my eyes. > > > > I dunno, this kind of thing is so rare, don't you think, that > it might > not make much sense to have a feature specifically for it, especially > when a workaround IS relatively simple. > > Stem connections are one thing (these should work properly, in the > expected context) but different stem thicknesses in the same > document?
Remember that 'document' does not necessarily mean 'composition'. Some of these tweaks are related to wanting to put together numerous 'examples' as part of a worksheet or handout, without having to export the graphics and import them into another application (a sure indication that Finale's limits have been reached!) Seriously, though....I've dealt with music where one section was new-complexity-style notation, with lots of beams, in which long stems for crotchets is essential for them to be seen, contrasted with aleatoric sections where normal stem lengths would have been suitable. > There are so many things that don't work that ARE much more common, > like ossias, chord symbol transposition in no-key-sig > transposed parts, > pickup measures, lyric spacing, chord symbol spacing, figured bass, > chord suffix kerning, font embedding in EPS, the list goes on... > Can't deny any of this! (And as of the past few weeks, add me to the "figured bass" cries!) _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
