Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: [snip]
You know -- and this is another topic -- that the limitations of tools often contribute to corresponding limitations of the art in the hands of those without vision or determination. My problem with the software is not so much my problem, but my problem with the implications to future composition. Scoring programs, conservative as they are, lead younger composers to conservative conceptualization; on the other hand, there's much imagination in areas where open-ended sound tools are used. Who will write staggered barlines, simple as they are, if the software doesn't offer the option? (On the other hand, the sound tools are often 12TET-based, leading to a different kind of limitation, and iTunish stuff has a limitation of quality, such that portability and intimacy have taken preference over fidelity for what could be an entire generation.)
I definitely agree with your sentiments in this paragraph and the next one as well.
If I had my way no music students would be allowed near notation software (unless there were physical handicaps which prevented the use of pen or pencil, and for those student I would make an exception) until after they had completed their bachelor's degree. The very limitations of ANY technology severely limits many people's ability to see beyond the limitations. And once working with software, they wouldn't be allowed to use a midi keyboard for input until they had shown the ability to accurately engrave some major work such as a Tchaikowsky symphony or Beethoven's 9th.
The technology used definitely limits people, just as people who only play piano often write orchestral music which sounds like piano music, and people who only play trumpet write music which is mostly flourishes and fanfares.
The best composers move way beyond the limitations of their own abilities to play what they want to hear and only use their native instrument as a small crutch, if at all.
So I don't feel that the current limitations in Finale are any worse to the future advancement of composition or music in general than are so many other limitations which box people in. And yes, I know that just because it isn't any worse doesn't mean it shouldn't be better. I agree with you there, witness my feature requests.
Regarding that midi discussion of the past few days, I view that as a midi fault, not a notational fault, of finale's. I didn't say there aren't huge black holes in Finale which need attention. I was just discussing the notational stuff. Once it knows what to notate, with the exceptions we've already discussed, it does a very good job.
Witness your ability to use Finale for all but one of your recent projects, albeit with kludges and workarounds. Yes it could be better, but much of that is in the User Interface, not the notational capabilities.
[snip]
You did say, "the notation aspects of Finale are very mature and there isn't all that much room for improvement" -- which I take to mean that it's okay for the programmers to have ignored a large swath of the significant compositions of the past 75 years (and plainchant, too).
As in many things, the final 10% of accomplishment or improvement takes at least as much time and effort as the first 90% required, and quite often a good deal more.
But that doesn't negate the fact that when 90% is reached there is, comparatively speaking, not all that much room for additional improvement. And while the swath of the past 75 years (and the first couple hundred) may be large, it is by no means the largest part of notational needs. Again, it's a matter of comparative amounts.
I will readily admit that for someone standing squarely in that swath, it seems as if Finale might be totally useless (Sibelius, Score, Graphire, Igor, Mozart, as well) and hopelessly hidebound so that it will never fill the needs of those in that swath which you mention.
But the fact that the vast majority of Finale users do not have a need for those things you are clamoring for shows what a small amount of Finale users need those things, getting back to my statement of "not all that much." :-)
It's fun to argue semantics with you, Dennis. Peace, David -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
