David W. Fenton wrote:
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.
I agree with this, which was why I made the point about the industry
getting together and coming up with one file format that would work for
both notation (all notation programs) and for sequencers (all midi
applications.) Thus you wouldn't be tweaking two files and trying to
keep them straight, there would be one file that you'd work on sometimes
in a DAW, other times in a more bare-bones sequencer, and other times in
a notation program. I do realize that trying to get the players in the
music application field to actually talk to each other and try to come
up with such a file format has about as much chance of success as having
Microsoft actually make software that isn't bloated. But it's nice to
dream. :-)
But when developers start making their program do the work of two
programs and then three programs and so on (notation becomes notation
and sequencer becomes notation and sequencer and audio production
becomes notation and sequencer and audio production and video becomes
notation and sequencer and audio production and video and audio
integration) without adding developers at each step of the way, the
addition of each new major feature simply dilutes the quality of the
existing features and as we've seen in Finale, new annual upgrades focus
on one aspect with a few bare bones thrown to those who care more about
the other aspects, with no single upgrade being a true upgrade for all
aspects of the program.
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.
That's the problem -- how much better than it is currently? Who's to
decide? Once this slippery slope is started on, there's no end in
sight, just further dilution of development staff and money. When will
Finale's sequencer be "better enough" so they can put "Finished" to that
aspect and leave it to improve other aspects of the program?
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.
But are the notational capabilities truly being developed and extended?
The past few upgrades have basically taken plug-ins and moved them to
other menus. Not since the introduction of Staff Styles has Finale had
any major notational upgrade. We will see soon (whenever they get
Fin2007 out the door) whether the linked scores/parts works as we all
hope it will.
As the audio production capabilities of Finale have been "improved"
we've seen our money go to GPO playback and not to notation.
I agree that more and more people want the whole shebang in one package.
I just don't agree that they should be allowed to try to have it because
I don't think it's possible, and what I see is the failure of a major
notation package.
Do we really have to go down this road until somebody says "Oh, yeah,
they was right! It can't be done!" only to find that there is no
customer base left and no money for getting things back to where they
were and what was once a great notation program sits on the auction
block as the would-be king of the audio-notation-video-midi-DAW
applications?
We all know that Windows has gotten worse as the OS has tried to be
everything to everybody. Shouldn't that alone be lesson enough to stop
trying to make Finale a one-stop application for every musical need of
every sort?
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
