shirling & neueweise wrote:
[snip]> you thought wrong, if you are talking about anything other than
score,
whose mandate from the start -- whether they have achieved it or not is
another question -- was to replicate traditional engraving values.
[snip]
Oh, come on -- you sound as if all hand-engraved music was of a equally
super-high quality that computer notation programs can't touch, and
nothing could be further from the truth.
There is a lot of hand-engraved music which is ugly as sin, with poor
spacing and lousy sizes for the different elements and bad page turns
and all the other things that computer notation programs are accused of
producing.
SOME hand-engraved music is very elegant and beautiful and of the
highest quality. The same is true of SOME computer-notation-software
output.
"traditional engraving values" -- where can one look those up in a book?
You sound as if there was a commonly agreed upon set of principles
that all hand-engravers adhered to. Just as with notation software
there were hacks who worked cheaply for cheap publishers and produced
awful output by hand that made it into commercial releases.
Sure Finale and Sibelius may need a lot of hand-tweaking to come close
to reproducing the most elegant of hand-engraved music, but they need
nothing to be better than the worst of the hand-engraved music I've
seen. Just as having a set of hand-engraver's tools and dies doesn't
guarantee high quality engraved music, so, too, having a computer
notation program doesn't guarantee high quality printed output.
It's the user, not the tools, who adds that level of elegance.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
