On 2 Aug 2006 at 10:48, dhbailey wrote: > A notation package should remain that, a notation package. A > sequencer should remain that, a sequencer.
I'm sorry, but I simply disagree with this. Any notation package should provide decent tools for controlling playback. That's important for proofreading, of course, but also for producing any output. It makes no sense whatsoever to fork your playback file from your notation file, especially if you're a composer, since revisions to the notation file means you have to revise a second time in the MIDI file, redoing all the tweaks you've done in your sequencer. Most of my work is not composing, but the few times I do things in a sequencer that can't be done well in Finale (such as controlling sustain pedal on/off precisely), it makes for more work. Now, the sequencer in Finale doesn't have to be as capable as a standalone sequencer (just as a sequencer should have notation capability, but doesn't need to provide as much layout control as a notation program), but it ought to be better than it is. And the market definitely seems to me to demand integration of sequencing into Finale, just as it demands the capability of producing sound files from Finale (WAV, MP3, etc.). There are a lot more people who want the whole shebang in one package than need the kinds of high-end notational control that most of this on this list require. And it's only those broader masses that will sustain Finale as a product so that the notational capabilities can continue be developed and extended. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
