I think if something looks bad it is always the fault of the copyist!
I don't think a program will ever exist that will not need serious
tweaking to every bar to produce
publishable output. Improvements could be made still, for instance
giving up white-space at the end of the bar if the last beat bar is
full of hemi-demis!
I think we're fairly close to decent auto-output for sessions,
although I realise that still involves needed
tweaks to layout that I'm excluding from my criteria arbitrarily.
Steve P.
On 1 Feb 2011, at 13:13, Andrew Moschou wrote:
Interestingly, Together in Song, also known as the Australian Hymn
Book II,
was done with Graphire Music Press and it is without a doubt one of
the
poorest examples of music engraving I've seen published. Some errors
were
the fault of the engraver but still, quite a lot were the fault of the
program. The examples on the Graphire website are very fine.
Andrew
On 1 February 2011 23:07, Steve Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
I would agree as well with putting Graphire up there.
The closest immediate output (in quality) to something like a Peter's
edition.
Steve P.
On 1 Feb 2011, at 12:15, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
To continue this, I'd put Graphire Music Press up there for sheer
looks
out of
the box, and for the fastest input via computer keyboard, with
auto-update
and
reflow and objects that moved out of each others' way
automatically. A
beautiful but expensive piece of software.
Of course, it's also dead -- dead for 10 years as of yesterday.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
