I didn't really mean that as an exact date or even a comment specifically about Finale. What I should have said is "the 1980s way of doing things."
All of the notation products of that generation (Encore, Overture, Finale, etc) can reasonably be called "note paint programs". That is to say, they all provided ways to paint notes, rests, and other musical markings onto a canvas. Once painted, much of this was static. There was some ability to "float" items, say, by inserting measures. But basically, what you painted remained as it was painted until you explicitly painted something different. Along the way, some clever people produced some powerful plug-ins that allowed certain re-painting operations in bulk. It worked OK, and still does for many people. But this static painting/re-paining approach has some fundamental limitations, especially in the area of layout. There have been some attempts in Finale to automate the layout and collision avoidance. Despite all the effort, I consider that mostly a failure because part editing remains a very tedious process that often requires 30% of the project time. And some of that just doesn't work. I am a stickler for cautionary accidentals. IMHO, the only way to do this reliably in Finale is by hand, painstakingly checking every single note. There is a plug-in that is supposed to apply cautionary accidentals, but it isn't reliable and often does more damage than it corrects. Moreover, it is always a batch process. If you add new passages, they don't get cautionary accidentals automatically. The same can be said for many operations in Finale. (e.g. multi-measure rests.) These are batch processes, not real time. Today's way of doing things separates the idea of "music entry" (as opposed to "note entry") from the process of presenting the score and parts. The layout is governed by rules, and these rules are applied in real time to all current AND FUTURE material in the score. I have very limited usage of Dorico at this stage, but everything I have seen tells me it works very well and reliably. I would compare this to the first generation of WAV editors like CoolEdit and Audacity. You could use these tools to make transformations to a sound file, such as applying compression, normalizing, or equalizing. But it is always a batch process. You have to do the transformation manually, then go back and listen to know if the results were as intended. Today, anybody serious about sound sculpting uses a DAW (Cubase, StudioOne, Cakewalk, Protools, etc). With any DAW, you operate on the material in real time -- even while the sound files are playing -- to dial in the results you want.A person can use Audacity, and some people still do. But the world has mostly moved on to real time. On 4/20/2018 1:04 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: >> the 1985 way > In fairness, the 1985 way was ProCo. If you mean the 1989 way, it was this > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/f2d6ftebwxzsyu0/Screen%20Shot%202018-04-20%20at%2011.54.54%20AM.png?dl=0> > . > > While I'm the first to recognize Finale's limitations, I think you a being > overly harsh. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: [email protected]
