Re: [Finale] OT: Shareware Multitrack Audio App for Mac?
Thanks, Don. Audacity was *exactly* what I was looking for. On a related note, though, I was surprised how much tempo drift there was between the two audio tracks I recorded. I know GPO sometimes drops frames when it gets overloaded (resulting in an accel. effect), so I tried splitting the orchestra in four to avoid taxing my poor Mac mini, but that was even worse. I had imagined that if I just got the *beginning* of both files aligned, they would stay aligned for the entire piece, but that was absolutely not the case. In fact, I had to hand-align practically every entrance. (It's almost like Human Playback is a little *too* human when it comes to counting multimeasure rests.) Long story short, it was an incredible PITA to get everything aligned, and required hours of trial-and-error hand-tweaking. So I'm *really* hoping NI get their act together on the Mac side, because this is just ridiculous. (Unfortunately, the move to MacIntel doesn't exactly give them a lot of incentive to optimize their PPC code. Sigh.) - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 24 Jun 2005, at 12:06 AM, Don Hart wrote: Darcy, If I have an accurate understanding of what you need and what this program will do, Audacity is what you're looking for. I haven't yet needed to do what you're doing, but in my time with the program it was very intuitive. My experience observing guys use ProTools seemed to help me get around Audacity. Anyway, you can check it out: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ I was really impressed; I hope it helps. Don Hart on 6/23/05 10:17 PM, Darcy James Argue at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, it's that time... I need to make an audio demo of an orchestration I've written. As those of you who have GPO for Mac know only too well, my 1.42 GHz Mac mini doesn't have nearly enough horsepower to drive GPO through a large orchestral score ( / 4331 / Timp+Perc / Harp / Solo Vln / Strings). I've done all my usual GPO tricks (*drastically* reduce polyphony on percussion and harp, bypass reverb, set sample rate to 22.05 KHz), but I can still only really get half the orchestra to play back reliably at any given time. So that's exactly what I did -- soloed half the orchestra and recorded that to audio file; then soloed the other half and did the same thing. Now I need to combine the two audio files in a basic multitrack audio editor. But I don't currently own a basic multitrack audio editor. So -- suggestions? Cheap and simple are best -- my needs are very modest, I just need to line up these two files and join them. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Shareware Multitrack Audio App for Mac?
Actually, it occurs to me that the other possibility (even if Native Instruments can't work out how to get their software to run acceptably on PPC machines) would be if _Finale_ included an option to freeze tracks (i.e., bounce to audio). I know everyone always complains about sequencer features creeping into Finale, but for my part, I have no interest in learning a separate sequencer and importing MIDI, etc -- what I need is a way to make reasonable-sounding demos directly from Finale. So anything Coda can to do make that process easier is welcome, at least by me. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Shareware Multitrack Audio App for Mac?
Glad Audacity worked for you - sorry to hear about the other problems. Seems like the barline would be the perfect point of reference to keep that sort of thing from happening. If I had to vote, I'd choose Human Playback as the culprit over GPO. Sometimes, when I play back a section of a file several times consecutively and re-humanize it each time, I wonder if I'm not noticing little differences from playback to playback. If that is what I'm hearing, while not actually looking for discrepancies, it seems the magnitude of those differences would easily be capable of making the mess you had to deal with. Seems like a cumulative problem that gets worse over longer, busier passages. Did you try lining up sections of shorter length? Don Hart on 6/24/05 1:35 AM, Darcy James Argue at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Don. Audacity was *exactly* what I was looking for. On a related note, though, I was surprised how much tempo drift there was between the two audio tracks I recorded. I know GPO sometimes drops frames when it gets overloaded (resulting in an accel. effect), so I tried splitting the orchestra in four to avoid taxing my poor Mac mini, but that was even worse. I had imagined that if I just got the *beginning* of both files aligned, they would stay aligned for the entire piece, but that was absolutely not the case. In fact, I had to hand-align practically every entrance. (It's almost like Human Playback is a little *too* human when it comes to counting multimeasure rests.) Long story short, it was an incredible PITA to get everything aligned, and required hours of trial-and-error hand-tweaking. So I'm *really* hoping NI get their act together on the Mac side, because this is just ridiculous. (Unfortunately, the move to MacIntel doesn't exactly give them a lot of incentive to optimize their PPC code. Sigh.) - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 24 Jun 2005, at 12:06 AM, Don Hart wrote: Darcy, If I have an accurate understanding of what you need and what this program will do, Audacity is what you're looking for. I haven't yet needed to do what you're doing, but in my time with the program it was very intuitive. My experience observing guys use ProTools seemed to help me get around Audacity. Anyway, you can check it out: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ I was really impressed; I hope it helps. Don Hart on 6/23/05 10:17 PM, Darcy James Argue at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, it's that time... I need to make an audio demo of an orchestration I've written. As those of you who have GPO for Mac know only too well, my 1.42 GHz Mac mini doesn't have nearly enough horsepower to drive GPO through a large orchestral score ( / 4331 / Timp+Perc / Harp / Solo Vln / Strings). I've done all my usual GPO tricks (*drastically* reduce polyphony on percussion and harp, bypass reverb, set sample rate to 22.05 KHz), but I can still only really get half the orchestra to play back reliably at any given time. So that's exactly what I did -- soloed half the orchestra and recorded that to audio file; then soloed the other half and did the same thing. Now I need to combine the two audio files in a basic multitrack audio editor. But I don't currently own a basic multitrack audio editor. So -- suggestions? Cheap and simple are best -- my needs are very modest, I just need to line up these two files and join them. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Shareware Multitrack Audio App for Mac?
Hi Don, When I saved to audio in four passes (i.e., ww's, brass, perc, and strings) and tried to align them, the tempo drift seemed to happen almost exclusively during long rests -- i.e., the percussion would come in several beats too early. (I'm telling you, it's just like real life!) Luckily, there was no noticeable tempo drift when the GPO instruments were actually playing -- so it was really just a matter of lining up the initial entrances after every (sectional) multi-measure rest. What I'm wondering is whether HP takes into account muted (or non-soloed) instruments when playing back -- especially when it comes to fermattas, etc. If HP only looks at the instruments that have been soloed in the Instrument List, that would explain all those bad entrances! On the one hand, it makes sense for HP to ignore muted/non-soloed instruments -- after all, why take into account staves that aren't set for playback. On the other hand, the lack of a consistent tempo between takes makes aligning multiple passes an incredible chore. I'm going to CC Robert Piéchaud on this -- perhaps he can shed some light on this issue. I really think that HP should abide by a consistent master tempo map no matter which instruments have been soloed or muted. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 24 Jun 2005, at 3:38 AM, Don Hart wrote: Glad Audacity worked for you - sorry to hear about the other problems. Seems like the barline would be the perfect point of reference to keep that sort of thing from happening. If I had to vote, I'd choose Human Playback as the culprit over GPO. Sometimes, when I play back a section of a file several times consecutively and re-humanize it each time, I wonder if I'm not noticing little differences from playback to playback. If that is what I'm hearing, while not actually looking for discrepancies, it seems the magnitude of those differences would easily be capable of making the mess you had to deal with. Seems like a cumulative problem that gets worse over longer, busier passages. Did you try lining up sections of shorter length? Don Hart on 6/24/05 1:35 AM, Darcy James Argue at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Don. Audacity was *exactly* what I was looking for. On a related note, though, I was surprised how much tempo drift there was between the two audio tracks I recorded. I know GPO sometimes drops frames when it gets overloaded (resulting in an accel. effect), so I tried splitting the orchestra in four to avoid taxing my poor Mac mini, but that was even worse. I had imagined that if I just got the *beginning* of both files aligned, they would stay aligned for the entire piece, but that was absolutely not the case. In fact, I had to hand-align practically every entrance. (It's almost like Human Playback is a little *too* human when it comes to counting multimeasure rests.) Long story short, it was an incredible PITA to get everything aligned, and required hours of trial-and-error hand-tweaking. So I'm *really* hoping NI get their act together on the Mac side, because this is just ridiculous. (Unfortunately, the move to MacIntel doesn't exactly give them a lot of incentive to optimize their PPC code. Sigh.) - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 24 Jun 2005, at 12:06 AM, Don Hart wrote: Darcy, If I have an accurate understanding of what you need and what this program will do, Audacity is what you're looking for. I haven't yet needed to do what you're doing, but in my time with the program it was very intuitive. My experience observing guys use ProTools seemed to help me get around Audacity. Anyway, you can check it out: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ I was really impressed; I hope it helps. Don Hart on 6/23/05 10:17 PM, Darcy James Argue at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, it's that time... I need to make an audio demo of an orchestration I've written. As those of you who have GPO for Mac know only too well, my 1.42 GHz Mac mini doesn't have nearly enough horsepower to drive GPO through a large orchestral score ( / 4331 / Timp+Perc / Harp / Solo Vln / Strings). I've done all my usual GPO tricks (*drastically* reduce polyphony on percussion and harp, bypass reverb, set sample rate to 22.05 KHz), but I can still only really get half the orchestra to play back reliably at any given time. So that's exactly what I did -- soloed half the orchestra and recorded that to audio file; then soloed the other half and did the same thing. Now I need to combine the two audio files in a basic multitrack audio editor. But I don't currently own a basic multitrack audio editor. So -- suggestions? Cheap and simple are best -- my needs are very modest, I just need to line up these two files and join them. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
Richard Yates wrote: We do not have the list of fixed issues yet, as the program is not yet finished. That list will not be available until the program is shipping. Wouldn't you think that fixes would come before features in a development cycle? Not necessarily. Program code isn't a huge bunch of discreet routines that never impact each other. The modules are called over and over again by different routines, and this process introduces some new bugs when the various modules are used in never-before-used combinations and sequences. Sometimes previously squashed bugs reappear from such things. The new features are often new modules which are easier to write than the bugs are to fix. And then there are the long-standing issues such as EPS export on the Windows side of things. If the developers haven't been able to fix it in the previous how many versions, what makes you think they've learned how for this version? No, we who use Finale intensively are not the ones that MakeMusic cares about -- it's the new user, the casual user, the one who will buy it and then maybe use it or not but at least it's another full-price new-user sale, that MakeMusic cares about. If they can satisfy us in the process, terrific. But the squashing of bugs, especially long-standing bugs, is a lot harder than introducing new features. And with enough new features, some users will never get into the program deeply enough to find the bugs. Of course, if they want to penetrate the educational market all they have to do is to give the program free to the teachers, give those teachers free training seminars, get them to understand the program and buy site-licenses for their schools, then give the school students deep discounts to capture them as Finale users. But I guess the powers that be at MakeMusic feel it's more financially safe to simply keep on turning Finale into Sibelius and hope somebody in the educational world notices. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2006
Eric Dussault wrote: Does anybody have a clue on what EMBEDDED GRAPHICS: efforlessly transport files with graphics means? I see no explanation anywhere. Previously, graphics were inserted as pointers in Finale files. So whenever you sent the Finale file to someone else, they had to have the graphics file right next to the Finale file. And even then the pointers in the file didn't always point correctly, if the graphics file's location in the file-tree wasn't the same on the recipient's computer as on the sender's computer. Embedding the graphics means that the entire graphics file will now become part of the finale file, so when you send a Finale file which includes graphics to someone else, you won't have to also send any necessary graphics files. Of course, this means that the Finale file which has graphics will be much larger (by the amount of the combined file sizes of all the graphics you have included in the file), but it will be much easier to share Finale files which include graphics. As to your interchange with Brian at macsupport, you never did ask him (or if you did, it isn't in what you quote here) if there would be a checkbox whereby you could tell Finale not to display that warning box again. Maybe if you asked that question directly he could give you a direct answer. David H. Bailey By the way here is part of an exchange I've had with Brian fo MM's Macsupport. It makes me afraid that the eps font warning might still be there if the fonts are not embedded in the eps (which I need). Question: In addition of supporting truetype and opentype in the eps created, will I get the annoying font warning dialog box that is still present in the 2005b release? Answer: Hello, This will go away as the truetype font is now embedded, and therefore there is no such thing as Finale not being able to embed any kind of font unless it is not truetype, opentype, or postscript. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance! Brian Customer Support Representative MakeMusic!, Inc. Re-question: But the question is : If I do not embed fonts (smaller file size), will it work as you described? Re-answer: If you chose not to include the fonts, then it would still warn you that the fonts will need to be kept with the document. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance! Brian Customer Support Representative MakeMusic!, Inc. After two years (2k4 until now), they have not been able to implement a small tiny checkbox to let the font warning not show again! I got the feeling in the whole correspondance with Brian that he wasn't sure of that, so I really hope it will make its way through the final version. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
At 6/23/2005 08:33 PM, Richard Yates wrote: We do not have the list of fixed issues yet, as the program is not yet finished. That list will not be available until the program is shipping. Wouldn't you think that fixes would come before features in a development cycle? No, because adding new features might break existing stuff. Then you would be making fixes twice. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO Jazz + B. Clarinet
At 3:09 PM -0400 6/23/05, Andrew Stiller wrote: On Jun 23, 2005, at 6:47 AM, Ken Durling wrote: An Electric Piano I think technically has to have reeds and hammers, or even strings like those stubby little grands made by Yamaha. Well the terminology may have changed, but back in pre-Moog times there were undoubted electric pianos that produced their sound by purely electronic means. Significantly, these were considered inferior to the electroacoustic kind. Let's see. Bob Moog did his developmental work in the 1960s. The Wurlitzer electric piano came out in the late 1950s, and my Air Force combo lugged one all over Japan on tour. The Rhodes, I think, was developed at about the same time as the original Moog. So no, I can't recall any purely electronic piano pre-Moog. The technololgy didn't exist. What Bob did was take the room full of vacuum tubes that was the primitive RCA Mark II and shrink it down into portable modules. And BTW, does the subcontrabass saxophone even exist? As an actual instrument? I think I've seen a picture of it, but there may well only be one (or a handfull) in the entire world. The bass sax, on the other hand, should be considered and used as a legitimate member of the sax section. (I may be prejudiced because one of the members of our community band owns and plays one!) John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO Jazz + B. Clarinet
And BTW, does the subcontrabass saxophone even exist? As an actual instrument? http://images.google.com/images?biw=q=%22subcontrabass+saxophone%22hl=enbtnG=Search+Images ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2006
Well in fact I did suggest the addition of this checkbox in one of the e-mails. It seems to me that it's the easiest way to solve this, but I am not a programmer so there may be other considerations. But I was glad to read Tyler's e-mail with Carla's affirmation that no font warning will show up in Tiger. Le 05-06-24 à 06:08, dhbailey a écrit : As to your interchange with Brian at macsupport, you never did ask him (or if you did, it isn't in what you quote here) if there would be a checkbox whereby you could tell Finale not to display that warning box again. Maybe if you asked that question directly he could give you a direct answer. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO Jazz + B. Clarinet
John Howell wrote: [snip] I think I've seen a picture of it, but there may well only be one (or a handfull) in the entire world. The bass sax, on the other hand, should be considered and used as a legitimate member of the sax section. (I may be prejudiced because one of the members of our community band owns and plays one!) On the other hand, given the huge expense of owning a bass sax, composers/arrangers should think twice about giving a bass sax it's own, important part if they want the music performed by a wide number of groups. :-) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Shareware Multitrack Audio App for Mac?
Hi Darcy, I think that to solve your problem, you may have to learn a few more software programs. I think that HP is responsible for your differences in takes. Audio drift would be much more subtle (phasing maybe, but not off by whole beats). I would recommend that you first get a MIDI file of one HP take. Then put it into a sequencer and divide up your audio lode from there. Because the split audio parts would be based on the same HP take, they should line up better. Many sequencing programs handle the MIDI and the Audio making the job easier (Logic Express, Digital Performer), but if you want a free, open source sequencer, you could try PlayerPro: http://sourceforge.net/projects/playerpro Good luck with this. -Randolph Peters At 2:35 AM -0400 6/24/05, Darcy James Argue wrote: Thanks, Don. Audacity was *exactly* what I was looking for. On a related note, though, I was surprised how much tempo drift there was between the two audio tracks I recorded. I know GPO sometimes drops frames when it gets overloaded (resulting in an accel. effect), so I tried splitting the orchestra in four to avoid taxing my poor Mac mini, but that was even worse. I had imagined that if I just got the *beginning* of both files aligned, they would stay aligned for the entire piece, but that was absolutely not the case. In fact, I had to hand-align practically every entrance. (It's almost like Human Playback is a little *too* human when it comes to counting multimeasure rests.) Long story short, it was an incredible PITA to get everything aligned, and required hours of trial-and-error hand-tweaking. So I'm *really* hoping NI get their act together on the Mac side, because this is just ridiculous. (Unfortunately, the move to MacIntel doesn't exactly give them a lot of incentive to optimize their PPC code. Sigh.) - Darcy ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Doubling a Melodic Line one Octave
Carissimo, Use Transposition under Mass Edit and check Preserve Original Notes. I'll contact you again off-list soon...!! Ciao, Hans Giovanni Andreani wrote: Hello I was wondering if there's a plugin that automatically doubles a melodic line one octave higher or lower in the same staff. Is there eventually another solution? Thank you Giovanni Andreani ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Copy Artics Only
2004 on W98 Let's say I have the cellos articulated and I want the same articulation on the same rhythm/different notes on the basses. I can easily set it to copy entry items for just articulations, and drag and drop. Now let's say I want it on the bassoons. I can't see the staff, and the screen won't scroll, so I can't drag and drop. If I copy and paste, the entries undesirably come along (even though I did not check Entries in the dialog! Triple-checked. Copy Everything is off, Copy Entries dialog has Entries unchecked, yet there are the notes). How can I override this, or is there a better method to transfer just articulations to a staff you can't see? Neal Schermerhorn ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] system nonsense
This may have been discussed before and I missed it, but I'm having a problem I haven't had before (macFin 2004c). It just began and I am baffled. I've used Finale since the 80s in every version up to 2004, and have not seen this problem, unless I forget to update layout: I am trying to print out a piano/vocal score created from a fuller score (two string parts). I made a new file, deleting the other parts, so there are no hidden staves. Of course, having deleted the other two staves, I can get the piano/vocal score on fewer pages. But two things have happened: 1) Many of the pages have duplicate systems. For example, system 3 might appear on page 1, but it recurs at the top of page 2, and so on. It doesn't ALWAYS happen, so it's even more baffling. 2) There are now empty pages, sometimes two or three, at the end of the score. Updating the layout does NOTHING. The duplicate staves and the extra blank pages remain stuck. This problem has begun happening on other files as well, so it's causing me innumerable problems. I thought it might be because I had optimized the staves on a few of those files, but some are not optimized, and they still result in extra blank pages and duplicated systems from one system to another (never duplicated on the same page.) The only thing that is consistent is that all these problem files have been created from fuller scores, with some of the original staves removed. Do I have something turned on that should be off, or the other way 'round? Or is this a monstrous bug in the program? Help! Linda Worsley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Copy Artics Only
In Mass Edit, you can scroll to the bassoons and opt-shift-click (Mac), which does the same thing as dragging but allows access to mutually inaccessible areas of the score. (Win has a similar key combo but I've forgotten it.) However, if you do a lot of this kind of thing, my Mass Copy plugin beats just about anything Mass Edit can do hands down. Neal Schermerhorn wrote: 2004 on W98 Let's say I have the cellos articulated and I want the same articulation on the same rhythm/different notes on the basses. I can easily set it to copy entry items for just articulations, and drag and drop. Now let's say I want it on the bassoons. I can't see the staff, and the screen won't scroll, so I can't drag and drop. If I copy and paste, the entries undesirably come along (even though I did not check Entries in the dialog! Triple-checked. Copy Everything is off, Copy Entries dialog has Entries unchecked, yet there are the notes). How can I override this, or is there a better method to transfer just articulations to a staff you can't see? Neal Schermerhorn ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] system nonsense
- Original Message - From: Linda Worsley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 4:15 PM Subject: [Finale] system nonsense This may have been discussed before and I missed it, but I'm having a problem I haven't had before (macFin 2004c). It just began and I am baffled. I've used Finale since the 80s in every version up to 2004, and have not seen this problem, unless I forget to update layout: I am trying to print out a piano/vocal score created from a fuller score (two string parts). I made a new file, deleting the other parts, so there are no hidden staves. Of course, having deleted the other two staves, I can get the piano/vocal score on fewer pages. But two things have happened: 1) Many of the pages have duplicate systems. For example, system 3 might appear on page 1, but it recurs at the top of page 2, and so on. It doesn't ALWAYS happen, so it's even more baffling. 2) There are now empty pages, sometimes two or three, at the end of the score. Updating the layout does NOTHING. The duplicate staves and the extra blank pages remain stuck. This problem has begun happening on other files as well, so it's causing me innumerable problems. I thought it might be because I had optimized the staves on a few of those files, but some are not optimized, and they still result in extra blank pages and duplicated systems from one system to another (never duplicated on the same page.) The only thing that is consistent is that all these problem files have been created from fuller scores, with some of the original staves removed. Do I have something turned on that should be off, or the other way 'round? Or is this a monstrous bug in the program? Help! Linda Worsley I don't understand if you have tried to optimize the full new score you created or not. Have you tried to create a new file from the old one, select the linear view and do the delete staff and reposition on the staves you don't want to see anymore? Sorry if I did not understand if you already tried these solutions. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] OT: OSX mass print to PDF
is there a way to do this in one shot? i have 85 parts to print to PDF, and haven't found a way other than doing it one by one. jef -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: OT: OSX mass print to PDF
yes there is! finale script. At 10:40 -0400 6/24/05, shirling neueweise wrote: is there a way to do this in one shot? i have 85 parts to print to PDF, and haven't found a way other than doing it one by one. jef -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] system nonsense
Linda, This sounds like exactly the kind of thing that is SUPPOSED to be solved with Update Layout. I have occasionally had Finale (on Mac) bug out on me in a way that keyboard commands stop working. This may be an example of that. Try Update Layout from the menu. Make sure you are on Page 1 when you do it, because Update Layout only applies from the page you are on, to the end of the file. Have you quit Finale and opened it again? If the problem persists, have you rebooted OSX? These are the first things to do (though I must admit, they are MUCH less needed in OSX now! Yay!) Here is a non-helpful question: Is the score you are editing created in a previous version of Finale? By far and away, most of the file corruption problems I have seen in Finale come from old files; the older the worse. Christopher On Jun 24, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Linda Worsley wrote: This may have been discussed before and I missed it, but I'm having a problem I haven't had before (macFin 2004c). It just began and I am baffled. I've used Finale since the 80s in every version up to 2004, and have not seen this problem, unless I forget to update layout: I am trying to print out a piano/vocal score created from a fuller score (two string parts). I made a new file, deleting the other parts, so there are no hidden staves. Of course, having deleted the other two staves, I can get the piano/vocal score on fewer pages. But two things have happened: 1) Many of the pages have duplicate systems. For example, system 3 might appear on page 1, but it recurs at the top of page 2, and so on. It doesn't ALWAYS happen, so it's even more baffling. 2) There are now empty pages, sometimes two or three, at the end of the score. Updating the layout does NOTHING. The duplicate staves and the extra blank pages remain stuck. This problem has begun happening on other files as well, so it's causing me innumerable problems. I thought it might be because I had optimized the staves on a few of those files, but some are not optimized, and they still result in extra blank pages and duplicated systems from one system to another (never duplicated on the same page.) The only thing that is consistent is that all these problem files have been created from fuller scores, with some of the original staves removed. Do I have something turned on that should be off, or the other way 'round? Or is this a monstrous bug in the program? Help! Linda Worsley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] system nonsense
Christopher Smith wrote (helpfully) Try Update Layout from the menu. Make sure you are on Page 1 when you do it, because Update Layout only applies from the page you are on, to the end of the file. Did. Nada Have you quit Finale and opened it again? Yes. Nada. Here is a non-helpful question: Is the score you are editing created in a previous version of Finale? By far and away, most of the file corruption problems I have seen in Finale come from old files; the older the worse. One was imported from Encore, so I thought that was the problem. (Don't get me started on encore, which one of my clients INSISTS on using). But then a score I created from scratch, in the current version of Finale, did exactly the same thing. Also I've rebooted a couple of times in an effort to job Finale's memory. Nada. Wahhh But thanks for trying to help! Linda ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] finale script: define destination folder?
does anyone know of a finale script command to set a destination folder for batch printing? the default is the desktop. jef -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] system nonsense
Linda, I think you've been around Finale long enough to know about this but I haven't seen it mentioned yet: If any measures have been locked a simple update layout won't do the unlocking. Hold the shift key (Mac) down and choose update layout from the edit menu. Sort of hard to miss locked measures with the icons now but I thought it was worth mentioning. I hope it's that easy to fix. Don Hart on 6/24/05 10:15 AM, Linda Worsley at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christopher Smith wrote (helpfully) Try Update Layout from the menu. Make sure you are on Page 1 when you do it, because Update Layout only applies from the page you are on, to the end of the file. Did. Nada Have you quit Finale and opened it again? Yes. Nada. Here is a non-helpful question: Is the score you are editing created in a previous version of Finale? By far and away, most of the file corruption problems I have seen in Finale come from old files; the older the worse. One was imported from Encore, so I thought that was the problem. (Don't get me started on encore, which one of my clients INSISTS on using). But then a score I created from scratch, in the current version of Finale, did exactly the same thing. Also I've rebooted a couple of times in an effort to job Finale's memory. Nada. Wahhh But thanks for trying to help! Linda ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] finale script: define destination folder?
Hi Jef, I asked about this when I was doing a bunch of batch file conversions and IIRC I don't think it's possible to specify a destination folder in FinaleScript. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 24 Jun 2005, at 11:31 AM, shirling neueweise wrote: does anyone know of a finale script command to set a destination folder for batch printing? the default is the desktop. jef -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Mac EPS pop-up resolved
Title: Mac EPS pop-up resolved Hello All, MakeMusic has finally said that there will be no font pop-up dialog boxes when creating EPS when only in Tiger for the 2006 version. You will still see them in Panther or below. Check out the Forums for more details. Good news! Steve -sorry if this has been sent twice. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Shareware Multitrack Audio App for Mac?
On 24 Jun 2005, at 9:10 AM, Randolph Peters wrote: Hi Darcy, I think that to solve your problem, you may have to learn a few more software programs. I think that HP is responsible for your differences in takes. Audio drift would be much more subtle (phasing maybe, but not off by whole beats). Randolph, Audio drift in GPO is, unfortunately, *not* subtle -- like I said, when GPO gets overloaded, it drops *lots* of frames -- often entire beats, sometimes entire bars. So I think it's possible that even with the vastly reduced workload (22.05 KHz, 8 instruments at a time), it's still dropping enough frames to make a difference. But I agree that HP is also a likely culprit I would recommend that you first get a MIDI file of one HP take. Then put it into a sequencer and divide up your audio lode from there. Because the split audio parts would be based on the same HP take, they should line up better. Many sequencing programs handle the MIDI and the Audio making the job easier (Logic Express, Digital Performer), but if you want a free, open source sequencer, you could try PlayerPro: http://sourceforge.net/projects/playerpro Thanks for the advice, Randolph, but I *really* don't want to start messing around with sequencers. (In the long run, I suppose I may not have a choice, but for now, I'd rather just line things up in Audacity.) It occurs to me that I might possibly get better results by *not* muting/soloing any tracks in Finale, but instead playing back the full file through several different GPO studio setups (i.e., one that contains only ww's, one that contains only brass, etc). That way, HP should still (theoretically) take into account all staves, and I should get identical (or close-to-identical) renditions even on multiple takes. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Shareware Multitrack Audio App for Mac?
At 11:56 AM 6/24/05 -0400, Darcy James Argue wrote: Audio drift in GPO is, unfortunately, *not* subtle -- like I said, when GPO gets overloaded, it drops *lots* of frames -- often entire beats Does this same problem occur when you send the entire document to an audio file? I know that the studio software I use has a live mode and a file-save mode. The live mode can choke, but the file-save mode works out of real time, and doesn't lose info. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Shareware Multitrack Audio App for Mac?
On 24 Jun 2005, at 12:16 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 11:56 AM 6/24/05 -0400, Darcy James Argue wrote: Audio drift in GPO is, unfortunately, *not* subtle -- like I said, when GPO gets overloaded, it drops *lots* of frames -- often entire beats Does this same problem occur when you send the entire document to an audio file? I know that the studio software I use has a live mode and a file-save mode. The live mode can choke, but the file-save mode works out of real time, and doesn't lose info. Hi Dennis, The save as audio in GPO Studio works in real time (i.e., you still have to play back the file in Finale). The results are actually a little better than you'd expect from listening to the playback you're recording -- for some reason, some of the pops and clicks audible during playback don't get saved to the audio file -- but when GPO trips up badly (usually due to too much polyphony), the audio file is definitely affected. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Shareware Multitrack Audio App for Mac?
At 6/24/2005 12:40 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 24 Jun 2005, at 12:16 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 11:56 AM 6/24/05 -0400, Darcy James Argue wrote: Audio drift in GPO is, unfortunately, *not* subtle -- like I said, when GPO gets overloaded, it drops *lots* of frames -- often entire beats Does this same problem occur when you send the entire document to an audio file? I know that the studio software I use has a live mode and a file-save mode. The live mode can choke, but the file-save mode works out of real time, and doesn't lose info. Hi Dennis, The save as audio in GPO Studio works in real time (i.e., you still have to play back the file in Finale). The results are actually a little better than you'd expect from listening to the playback you're recording -- for some reason, some of the pops and clicks audible during playback don't get saved to the audio file -- but when GPO trips up badly (usually due to too much polyphony), the audio file is definitely affected. This is interesting. Maybe the processor is not that good at switching between processes, or interleaving with disk access? It sounds like the tasks are being starved of processing time. Maybe that's why Apple is switching to Intel? Just a thought. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] system nonsense
And most importantly, remember to go back to page 1 before updating the layout. David H. Bailey Eric Dussault wrote: Why not just try to update layout (or checking automatically update layout in the edit menu), it may help. Éric Le 05-06-24 à 10:15, Linda Worsley a écrit : I am trying to print out a piano/vocal score created from a fuller score (two string parts). I made a new file, deleting the other parts, so there are no hidden staves. Of course, having deleted the other two staves, I can get the piano/vocal score on fewer pages. But two things have happened: 1) Many of the pages have duplicate systems. For example, system 3 might appear on page 1, but it recurs at the top of page 2, and so on. It doesn't ALWAYS happen, so it's even more baffling. 2) There are now empty pages, sometimes two or three, at the end of the score. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
On 24 Jun 2005 at 14:23, d. collins wrote: dhbailey écrit: And then there are the long-standing issues such as EPS export on the Windows side of things. If the developers haven't been able to fix it in the previous how many versions, what makes you think they've learned how for this version? I don't think it's a question of being able to fix it or not, but a question of priorities. MM probably figures that textured paper will bring them more new clients than they will lose with their broken EPS. But textured paper is incredibly easy to implement (you just change the background of your main editing windows to use an image instead of a color), while EPS export is dependent on factors outside Finale. If Sibelius, and many other Windows programs, manage to export EPS, certainly this can't be out of reach of MM's developers if they had any intention of doing so in the past five or six years. As Robert and others pointed out, we're unfortunately not their main concern. I don't mean to defend the decision to leave EPS broken -- it baffles me, too. But comparing it to a throwaway feature like textured paper, which I would actually use (because I'm currently experiencing eye-strain and having a non-white background would be helpful for that) is not really fair. In programming there are some things that are basically cosmetic features and that makes them easy to implement. But cosmetics do have a role to play in both usability and in setting the impression that users take away from the program. How many times have I noticed the difference in commitment of clients to my projects for them when I've done two different things: 1. for the first demo, used the program as is, in its half-completed state, OR 2. taken #1 and added on a few cosmetics, like an attractive graphical splash screen, and put up something of a Potemkin village UI in front of the components that have already been created. In the case of #1, they often doubt whether they're getting what they paid for, whereas with #2, they are often enthusiastic. Of course, the downside of #2 is that they sometimes think that the job is done at that point and can't understand why it's taking me so long to get the thing finished. Nonetheless, appearance is very important, even if it doesn't really matter to those of us concentrating on functionality. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO Jazz + B. Clarinet
The subcontrabass saxophone does indeed exist -- it's sometimes also called the tubax. It is a relatively new and extremely rare instrument. Photos and more info here: http://www.jayeaston.com/galleries/sax_family/subcontrabass_sax.html - Darcy Server couldn't be found. Oh well, I'll google it someother day. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Doubling a Melodic Line one Octave
On 24 Jun 2005 at 9:41, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 09:28 AM 06/24/2005, Giovanni Andreani wrote: I was wondering if there's a plugin that automatically doubles a melodic line one octave higher or lower in the same staff. No plugin needed -- Finale will do this for you. Select the measures with the Mass Edit tool. Then select Mass Edit | Transpose. Set the transposition for up one octave, and check the box that says 'Preserve Original Notes'. Oh, man, I feel so stupid for never noticing that one! I have a cheap MIDI keyboard that is 5 octaves C to C (instead of down a 5th, F to F, which would fit a lot more music), and I'm always needing to fill in lower octaves in piano left hand parts. This would have saved me much annoyance had I known about it! Just goes to show that you can use a program for 15 years and still miss out on significant features. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Doubling a Melodic Line one Octave
Even more useful are the Mass Edit programmable metatools for transposition (number keys 6 thru 9). I have 6 and 7 defined as up and down an octave, respectively, and 8 and 9 up and down an octave while keeping the original notes. You can define these four keys by pressing Shift and a number while in Mass Edit, then selecting which transposition you want. To invoke the metatool, simply select a region and press the key. I find this a huge time saver and would hate to do without it. Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com On 24 Jun 2005 at 9:41, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 09:28 AM 06/24/2005, Giovanni Andreani wrote: I was wondering if there's a plugin that automatically doubles a melodic line one octave higher or lower in the same staff. No plugin needed -- Finale will do this for you. Select the measures with the Mass Edit tool. Then select Mass Edit | Transpose. Set the transposition for up one octave, and check the box that says 'Preserve Original Notes'. Oh, man, I feel so stupid for never noticing that one! I have a cheap MIDI keyboard that is 5 octaves C to C (instead of down a 5th, F to F, which would fit a lot more music), and I'm always needing to fill in lower octaves in piano left hand parts. This would have saved me much annoyance had I known about it! Just goes to show that you can use a program for 15 years and still miss out on significant features. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO Jazz + B. Clarinet
At 8:52 AM -0400 6/24/05, dhbailey wrote: John Howell wrote: [snip] I think I've seen a picture of it, but there may well only be one (or a handfull) in the entire world. The bass sax, on the other hand, should be considered and used as a legitimate member of the sax section. (I may be prejudiced because one of the members of our community band owns and plays one!) On the other hand, given the huge expense of owning a bass sax, composers/arrangers should think twice about giving a bass sax it's own, important part if they want the music performed by a wide number of groups. Well of course that's a given, and it's forced on us by the lack of a standard instrumentation for concert bands. When I compose or arrange for our community band, I do write a bass sax part, but it's always treated as sweetening: something that won't be missed if it isn't there, but will add if it is there. We are forced to treat low clarinets--meaning from alto on down to BBb contrabass--in the same tentative way. Our band currently has 2 (or 3) alto clarinets, 1 (or 2) bass clarinets, but nothing lower. Our university wind ensemble does have the contra clarinets and uses them when a score calls for them. For the record, the bass sax player in our community band found his instrument on top of a trash pile, put some money into having it overhauled and buying a good bag for it, and had it in playing condition for only a few hundred dollars. How lucky can ya get?!!! John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT: OSX mass print to PDF
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:15:51 +0200, d. collins wrote: shirling neueweise �crit: yes there is! finale script. Was going to mention it, that or TGTools. I'm not finding the commands to batch print to PDF in either FinaleScript *or* TGTools. How, exactly, is this accomplished? -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Life would be so much easier if only (3/2)^12=(2/1)^7. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
Regarding EPS, my hope is that when they're tearing things apart to get ready for Longhorn that this will be something that needs to get addressed. It's probably going to be a nightmarish year for them with two large platform changes arriving (Longhorn and Mac Intel), and there might be some deep level stuff being redone. Regards, Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Whole measure rests
One way would be to create a tuplet for 2 half notes in the time of 3 eighth notes. Select no number or bracket to show, and then enter a half note into the score, back up via the arrow key, and change it to a whole rest. It's a bit of a kludge, but I've done it many times to force a whole rest to show in just these situations. BTW, add this to layer 2. HTH. J.D. Thomas ThomaStudios On Jun 24, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Andrew Levin wrote: I have a question about parts and scores. I know the long way to fix this, but I'm wondering if there is a short way. Specifically, I'm writing an orchestral score that has, of course, two parts per woodwind line. There are times when it alternates between one part playing and two, so I keep the parts separate. For example, the first part may play continuously, but the second part may play only every other measure. For this I'd keep the first part stems up, but the difficulty lies in the second part where there is nothing in the measure. I'd like to show the whole measure rest in the second part. But this part of the music is in 3/8 time. That means forcing a whole measure rest (and dealing with the annoying dialog box reminding me that I've put too many beats there). Then, of course, extracting parts (first with TGTools) is problemmatic, since I now have real rests instead of the Finale make-believe rests (I forgot what they're called), which botches up multi-measure rests. I know that if I could just deal with a score with no rest in the second part, or alternate putting in a 1. designating the solo part, my problem is solved, but that's not the way scores are done (I'm speaking of fairly rapid alternations of solo and duet parts, not when a solo part plays for longer stretches). If I put in real whole measure rests, then I must find them all when it's time to prepare individual parts. Am I missing something? Is there a way with Finale itself or a plug-in that will help me here? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
On 24 Jun 2005 at 11:31, Tyler Turner wrote: Regarding EPS, my hope is that when they're tearing things apart to get ready for Longhorn that this will be something that needs to get addressed. It's probably going to be a nightmarish year for them with two large platform changes arriving (Longhorn and Mac Intel), and there might be some deep level stuff being redone. Longhorn is *not* going to make their lives simpler, because MS is implementing a competitor to PDF in Longhorn, and perhaps this new standard will go beyond that towards doing what EPS does. MM is going to have to decide if they will support that in Longhorn, as well as deciding if they're going to fix EPS, which probably won't be made any easier in Longhorn (it may very well be no harder, either). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
--- David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Longhorn is *not* going to make their lives simpler, because MS is implementing a competitor to PDF in Longhorn, and perhaps this new standard will go beyond that towards doing what EPS does. MM is going to have to decide if they will support that in Longhorn, as well as deciding if they're going to fix EPS, which probably won't be made any easier in Longhorn (it may very well be no harder, either). My point wasn't that it would make their lives simpler but that it could be the type of change that forces them to work with that area of the program. I didn't mention it, but I also was thinking about the special PDF competitor that Microsoft is including. If MakeMusic chooses to support that, the work they do there might very well spill over into EPS. Who knows how related the technologies will be. I would actually be somewhat surprised if working on one didn't help with the other. Tyler __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Whole measure rests
On Jun 24, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Andrew Levin wrote: I have a question about parts and scores. I know the long way to fix this, but I'm wondering if there is a short way. Specifically, I'm writing an orchestral score that has, of course, two parts per woodwind line. There are times when it alternates between one part playing and two, so I keep the parts separate. For example, the first part may play continuously, but the second part may play only every other measure. For this I'd keep the first part stems up, but the difficulty lies in the second part where there is nothing in the measure. I'd like to show the whole measure rest in the second part. But this part of the music is in 3/8 time. That means forcing a whole measure rest (and dealing with the annoying dialog box reminding me that I've put too many beats there). Then, of course, extracting parts (first with TGTools) is problemmatic, since I now have real rests instead of the Finale make-believe rests (I forgot what they're called), which botches up multi-measure rests. I know that if I could just deal with a score with no rest in the second part, or alternate putting in a 1. designating the solo part, my problem is solved, but that's not the way scores are done (I'm speaking of fairly rapid alternations of solo and duet parts, not when a solo part plays for longer stretches). If I put in real whole measure rests, then I must find them all when it's time to prepare individual parts. Am I missing something? Is there a way with Finale itself or a plug-in that will help me here? Thanks. Andrew Levin TG Tools (at least, the pro version) removes entered rests when the measure contains nothing but rests, so that problem is solved. It can also cause problems, for instance, if you have a measure with nothing in it but a whole rest with a fermata on it, the measure will not have the fermata after TG Tools gets through with it, and multimeasure rests will not be broken at that measure (unless you set it in Measure Attributes). In any case, in Finale's included plugins there is one under Note Beam and Rest Editing called Change to Default Whole Rests which will take care of any entered whole rests. Run it on the second part once it is split. To turn off the annoying warning, in the Speedy menu uncheck the option Check for Extra Notes. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Whole measure rests
From your description I assume you're using the standard technique of using TGTools Smart Explosion of multi-part staves to separate the wind parts in a copy of the score file, then extracting parts from that. Before extracting, you could just use Mass Edit to select the entire part and run the standard plug-in Change to Default Whole Rests. This will work as long you don't have anything attached to the real whole rests (e.g., like fermatas). Since I spend a lot of time tweaking parts, I don't find it particularly burdensome to correct this problem after the part is extracted. It's easy to spot the rogue real whole rests, convert them back, and recreate multimeasure rests on the whole part at once. But I agree that it is kind of annoying that multimeasure rests aren't a wee bit smarter to include whole rests to which nothing is attached. Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Levin I have a question about parts and scores. I know the long way to fix this, but I'm wondering if there is a short way. Specifically, I'm writing an orchestral score that has, of course, two parts per woodwind line. There are times when it alternates between one part playing and two, so I keep the parts separate. For example, the first part may play continuously, but the second part may play only every other measure. For this I'd keep the first part stems up, but the difficulty lies in the second part where there is nothing in the measure. I'd like to show the whole measure rest in the second part. But this part of the music is in 3/8 time. That means forcing a whole measure rest (and dealing with the annoying dialog box reminding me that I've put too many beats there). Then, of course, extracting parts (first with TGTools) is problemmatic, since I now have real rests instead of the Finale make-believe rests (I forgot what they're called), which botches up multi-measure rests. I know that if I could just deal with a score with no rest in the second part, or alternate putting in a 1. designating the solo part, my problem is solved, but that's not the way scores are done (I'm speaking of fairly rapid alternations of solo and duet parts, not when a solo part plays for longer stretches). If I put in real whole measure rests, then I must find them all when it's time to prepare individual parts. Am I missing something? Is there a way with Finale itself or a plug-in that will help me here? Thanks. Andrew Levin ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Shareware Multitrack Audio App for Mac?
At 11:56 AM -0400 6/24/05, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 24 Jun 2005, at 9:10 AM, Randolph Peters wrote: Hi Darcy, I think that to solve your problem, you may have to learn a few more software programs. I think that HP is responsible for your differences in takes. Audio drift would be much more subtle (phasing maybe, but not off by whole beats). Randolph, Audio drift in GPO is, unfortunately, *not* subtle -- like I said, when GPO gets overloaded, it drops *lots* of frames -- often entire beats, sometimes entire bars. So I think it's possible that even with the vastly reduced workload (22.05 KHz, 8 instruments at a time), it's still dropping enough frames to make a difference. I see your problem. I was talking about a different kind of audio drift. (Freewheeling sync as opposed to sample lock.) -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Doubling a Melodic Line one Octave
I too use the metatools 6--9 to exclusion- but really wish that there were more available. Why not have 1 thru 9 or 0 available? I would love to have tone up, t down, 3 up, 3 down etc etc right thru to 8ves. I find 'Keep original notes' is no hassle to 'tickabox' in or out. Keith Helgesen. Director of Music, Canberra City Band. Ph: (02) 62910787. Band Mob. 0439-620587 Private Mob 0417-042171 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee Actor Sent: Saturday, 25 June 2005 3:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; finale@shsu.edu Subject: RE: [Finale] Doubling a Melodic Line one Octave Even more useful are the Mass Edit programmable metatools for transposition (number keys 6 thru 9). I have 6 and 7 defined as up and down an octave, respectively, and 8 and 9 up and down an octave while keeping the original notes. You can define these four keys by pressing Shift and a number while in Mass Edit, then selecting which transposition you want. To invoke the metatool, simply select a region and press the key. I find this a huge time saver and would hate to do without it. Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com On 24 Jun 2005 at 9:41, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 09:28 AM 06/24/2005, Giovanni Andreani wrote: I was wondering if there's a plugin that automatically doubles a melodic line one octave higher or lower in the same staff. No plugin needed -- Finale will do this for you. Select the measures with the Mass Edit tool. Then select Mass Edit | Transpose. Set the transposition for up one octave, and check the box that says 'Preserve Original Notes'. Oh, man, I feel so stupid for never noticing that one! I have a cheap MIDI keyboard that is 5 octaves C to C (instead of down a 5th, F to F, which would fit a lot more music), and I'm always needing to fill in lower octaves in piano left hand parts. This would have saved me much annoyance had I known about it! Just goes to show that you can use a program for 15 years and still miss out on significant features. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 23/06/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 23/06/2005 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Plug-ins.
Regularly in answer to queries on-list we are told “TG tools etc will solve this problem” Firstly, let’s get it clear, I am totally in awe of people like Tobias and others with the ability to programme things, but why won’t the System (Finale) work without them? TG, Patterson etc *should* be paid handsomely for their work- but by Finale, not the great unwashed. As a retiree, and a dedicated long-time dabbler in Finale I cannot justify the cost of annual updates. (My wife and I go without food every five years or so to get an update.) I’m currently using 2001, so I guess we start a diet soon, but why must I pay $Xhundred for the basic, plus $Xty to add the essentials? Someone compared it to buying a car, and buying the extras like heated seats, powered sunroof etc, etc. The point is the car runs beautifully without those, whereas- according to the list, TG Tools etc are essential ‘top-ups’ to the system. More like, buy the car, then extra for the steering system! I reiterate, Tobias et al deserve every cent they get for their genius, but the current system really lets Finale off the hook. Cheers, Keith in OZ Keith Helgesen. Director of Music, Canberra City Band. Ph: (02) 62910787. Band Mob. 0439-620587 Private Mob 0417-042171 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 23/06/2005 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Doubling a Melodic Line one Octave
I wish there were more, too, but there are also seven predefined metatools: 1-5, 'I', and 'E', and the only one I use with regularity is 5 (Elasped Time). Some may not be aware that the TGTools keyboard remapper allows you to assign a key to any key or menu command in Finale, which I use for one-key access for all the major tools and my favorite commands and plug-ins. Can't quite do what a Mass Edit metatool can, though. -Lee I too use the metatools 6--9 to exclusion- but really wish that there were more available. Why not have 1 thru 9 or 0 available? I would love to have tone up, t down, 3 up, 3 down etc etc right thru to 8ves. I find 'Keep original notes' is no hassle to 'tickabox' in or out. Keith Helgesen. Director of Music, Canberra City Band. Ph: (02) 62910787. Band Mob. 0439-620587 Private Mob 0417-042171 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee Actor Sent: Saturday, 25 June 2005 3:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; finale@shsu.edu Subject: RE: [Finale] Doubling a Melodic Line one Octave Even more useful are the Mass Edit programmable metatools for transposition (number keys 6 thru 9). I have 6 and 7 defined as up and down an octave, respectively, and 8 and 9 up and down an octave while keeping the original notes. You can define these four keys by pressing Shift and a number while in Mass Edit, then selecting which transposition you want. To invoke the metatool, simply select a region and press the key. I find this a huge time saver and would hate to do without it. Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com On 24 Jun 2005 at 9:41, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 09:28 AM 06/24/2005, Giovanni Andreani wrote: I was wondering if there's a plugin that automatically doubles a melodic line one octave higher or lower in the same staff. No plugin needed -- Finale will do this for you. Select the measures with the Mass Edit tool. Then select Mass Edit | Transpose. Set the transposition for up one octave, and check the box that says 'Preserve Original Notes'. Oh, man, I feel so stupid for never noticing that one! I have a cheap MIDI keyboard that is 5 octaves C to C (instead of down a 5th, F to F, which would fit a lot more music), and I'm always needing to fill in lower octaves in piano left hand parts. This would have saved me much annoyance had I known about it! Just goes to show that you can use a program for 15 years and still miss out on significant features. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Doubling a Melodic Line one Octave
On Jun 24, 2005, at 5:02 PM, keith helgesen wrote: I too use the metatools 6--9 to exclusion- but really wish that there were more available. Why not have 1 thru 9 or 0 available? I would love to have tone up, t down, 3 up, 3 down etc etc right thru to 8ves. I find 'Keep original notes' is no hassle to 'tickabox' in or out. Except that you can't toggle it when you use the metatool. That's the only inconvenience. You would have to define the metatool with it on, then redefine it to turn it off. I find the Mass Edit metatools so convenient where they are that I would hate to move them. 1 is implode, 2 is explode, 3 is beat spacing (for scores) 4 is note spacing (for everything else), 5 is elapsed time (clients mostly need it, I couldn't care less most of the time), then 6 through 9 are for transpositions. I use 6 for 8ve down 7 for 8ve up 8 and 9 for diatonic step down and up respectively. It is no problem to hit 8 twice to get a diatonic 3rd down, or more as necessary. I can redefine the transpositions with Shift-6 whenever I need to for a particular problem, but I always change them back because they are so darn useful the way I default them to. Now, if the metatools could expand to include the alphabetical keys, too, now THAT would be something! I would LOVE to have say, Retranscribe or Change... Noteheads under a single key. Perhaps PCers already have that capability, but on Mac, we are sadly lacking in keyboard equivelants. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
On 24 Jun 2005 at 13:10, Tyler Turner wrote: --- David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Longhorn is *not* going to make their lives simpler, because MS is implementing a competitor to PDF in Longhorn, and perhaps this new standard will go beyond that towards doing what EPS does. MM is going to have to decide if they will support that in Longhorn, as well as deciding if they're going to fix EPS, which probably won't be made any easier in Longhorn (it may very well be no harder, either). My point wasn't that it would make their lives simpler but that it could be the type of change that forces them to work with that area of the program. I didn't mention it, but I also was thinking about the special PDF competitor that Microsoft is including. If MakeMusic chooses to support that, the work they do there might very well spill over into EPS. Who knows how related the technologies will be. I would actually be somewhat surprised if working on one didn't help with the other. Well, as a programmer, I'd be surprised if supporting the new proprietary MS technology did not make supporting PostScript and EPS more difficult. There certainly is unlikely to be any overlap in the codebase for handling the two. The whole reason WinFin does poorly with EPS is because Windows just doesn't provide any help for PostScript at all -- it's not a basic part of the OS as it is on the Mac. MS's new proprietary competitor for PDF/PostScript will not bring Windows any closer to the Mac in its support for PostScript formats. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Plug-ins.
On Jun 24, 2005, at 5:33 PM, keith helgesen wrote: x-tad-biggerRegularly in answer to queries on-list we are told “TG tools etc will solve this problem”/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger x-tad-biggerFirstly, let’s get it clear, I am totally in awe of people like Tobias and others with the ability to programme things, but why won’t the System (Finale) work without them?/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger x-tad-biggerTG, Patterson etc */x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggershould/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger* be paid handsomely for their work- but by Finale, not the great unwashed./x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger x-tad-biggerAs a retiree, and a dedicated long-time dabbler in Finale I cannot justify the cost of annual updates. (My wife and I go without food every five years or so to get an update.) I’m currently using 2001, so I guess we start a diet soon, but why must I pay $Xhundred for the basic, plus $Xty to add the essentials?/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger x-tad-biggerSomeone compared it to buying a car, and buying the extras like heated seats, powered sunroof etc, etc. The point is the car runs beautifully without those, whereas- according to the list, TG Tools etc are essential ‘top-ups’ to the system. More like, buy the car, then extra for the steering system!/x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger x-tad-biggerI reiterate, Tobias et al deserve every cent they get for their genius, but the current system really lets Finale off the hook./x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger I completely agree, but I am fearful about what might happen to the tools if Finale is responsible for the feature set and keeping them up-to-date, streamlined and powerful. I am reminded of the JazzFont, which basically stopped dead once Finale got a hold of it, when it showed so much promise before. Perhaps it is better to let market-driven programming geniuses like Tobias, Robert and Jari take care of what they do so well... Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Doubling a Melodic Line one Octave
Again, you mention TG- (see my other post to the list at this time!) Since neither you nor I, and presumably others, use all the 'predefined metas, why can we not re-define those we don't use? Cheers K Keith Helgesen. Director of Music, Canberra City Band. Ph: (02) 62910787. Band Mob. 0439-620587 Private Mob 0417-042171 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee Actor Sent: Saturday, 25 June 2005 7:33 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: RE: [Finale] Doubling a Melodic Line one Octave I wish there were more, too, but there are also seven predefined metatools: 1-5, 'I', and 'E', and the only one I use with regularity is 5 (Elasped Time). Some may not be aware that the TGTools keyboard remapper allows you to assign a key to any key or menu command in Finale, which I use for one-key access for all the major tools and my favorite commands and plug-ins. Can't quite do what a Mass Edit metatool can, though. -Lee I too use the metatools 6--9 to exclusion- but really wish that there were more available. Why not have 1 thru 9 or 0 available? I would love to have tone up, t down, 3 up, 3 down etc etc right thru to 8ves. I find 'Keep original notes' is no hassle to 'tickabox' in or out. Keith Helgesen. Director of Music, Canberra City Band. Ph: (02) 62910787. Band Mob. 0439-620587 Private Mob 0417-042171 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee Actor Sent: Saturday, 25 June 2005 3:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; finale@shsu.edu Subject: RE: [Finale] Doubling a Melodic Line one Octave Even more useful are the Mass Edit programmable metatools for transposition (number keys 6 thru 9). I have 6 and 7 defined as up and down an octave, respectively, and 8 and 9 up and down an octave while keeping the original notes. You can define these four keys by pressing Shift and a number while in Mass Edit, then selecting which transposition you want. To invoke the metatool, simply select a region and press the key. I find this a huge time saver and would hate to do without it. Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com On 24 Jun 2005 at 9:41, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 09:28 AM 06/24/2005, Giovanni Andreani wrote: I was wondering if there's a plugin that automatically doubles a melodic line one octave higher or lower in the same staff. No plugin needed -- Finale will do this for you. Select the measures with the Mass Edit tool. Then select Mass Edit | Transpose. Set the transposition for up one octave, and check the box that says 'Preserve Original Notes'. Oh, man, I feel so stupid for never noticing that one! I have a cheap MIDI keyboard that is 5 octaves C to C (instead of down a 5th, F to F, which would fit a lot more music), and I'm always needing to fill in lower octaves in piano left hand parts. This would have saved me much annoyance had I known about it! Just goes to show that you can use a program for 15 years and still miss out on significant features. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 23/06/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 23/06/2005 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Doubling a Melodic Line one Octave
Agree- a toggle would be great, but is there some hi-tech reason why alpha keys cannot be used for metas? Or- as another thought, Could not, for example, 8 be octave up and Shift8 (or Ctrl 8 or ??) be for 'keep original notes'. Cheers, K in OZ Keith Helgesen. Director of Music, Canberra City Band. Ph: (02) 62910787. Band Mob. 0439-620587 Private Mob 0417-042171 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Smith Sent: Saturday, 25 June 2005 7:42 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Doubling a Melodic Line one Octave On Jun 24, 2005, at 5:02 PM, keith helgesen wrote: I too use the metatools 6--9 to exclusion- but really wish that there were more available. Why not have 1 thru 9 or 0 available? I would love to have tone up, t down, 3 up, 3 down etc etc right thru to 8ves. I find 'Keep original notes' is no hassle to 'tickabox' in or out. Except that you can't toggle it when you use the metatool. That's the only inconvenience. You would have to define the metatool with it on, then redefine it to turn it off. I find the Mass Edit metatools so convenient where they are that I would hate to move them. 1 is implode, 2 is explode, 3 is beat spacing (for scores) 4 is note spacing (for everything else), 5 is elapsed time (clients mostly need it, I couldn't care less most of the time), then 6 through 9 are for transpositions. I use 6 for 8ve down 7 for 8ve up 8 and 9 for diatonic step down and up respectively. It is no problem to hit 8 twice to get a diatonic 3rd down, or more as necessary. I can redefine the transpositions with Shift-6 whenever I need to for a particular problem, but I always change them back because they are so darn useful the way I default them to. Now, if the metatools could expand to include the alphabetical keys, too, now THAT would be something! I would LOVE to have say, Retranscribe or Change... Noteheads under a single key. Perhaps PCers already have that capability, but on Mac, we are sadly lacking in keyboard equivelants. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 23/06/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 23/06/2005 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] GPO and Finale 2006
Title: GPO and Finale 2006 Here's what Gary Garritan says: I am pleased to announce that MakeMusic! has chosen to bundle a Finale edition of Garritan Personal Orchestra with all versions of Finale 2006. Finale 2006 will integrate the Native Instruments Kontakt Player and include the popular and award-winning sounds of Personal Orchestra. Having a computer notation program automatically realize great-sounding orchestral sounds has long been a dream of many musicians. GPO was the first sample library to make a commitment to notation users and was specifically designed to work with notation programs (See Keyboard Magazine article, February 2005 Have Your Own Orchestra-in-Residence: Turning your orchestral scores into demos with Garritan Personal Orchestra). The revolutionary GPO Studio, combined with 'scalable' ensemble building and linear staff-friendly programming, bridges the gap between notation programs and sample libraries. Thousands of notation users are amazed when they hear their orchestral scores brought to life for the first time. MakeMusic! recognized Garritan's advances in notation/sampler technology and the choice was obvious. Working with Finale technicians, Native Instruments and Human Playback, a special library was developed that is integrated and optimized for Finale 2006. In Finale 2006 the autoload feature will automatically load the instrument on the Finale score into the Native Instruments Kontakt Player (direct access and no MIDI routing or GPO Studio required). Finale Human Playback is an important part of this integrated package (Finale users may have already noticed GPO-specific menu items within Finale 2005's Human Playback menus). Human Playback imparts feeling, phrasing and nuance to a notation performance - even if notes were entered with a mouse. Human Playback has been enhanced further in Finale 2006 to provide optimization and special techniques for GPO (including legato and techniques for the various instruments). It is also able to run the updated full version of Garritan Personal Orchestra and the upcoming Jazz and Big Band library. Here is a complete list of the GPO instruments bundled in Finale 2006: http://www.finalemusic.com/finale/features/new/garritan.aspx Gary Garritan Later, he says, We'll have a free update available for download that will enable existing users to use GPO in Finale 2006. He doesn't say, however, if users of FinMac2k6 will find a great improvement in memory and speed handling. However, it should help to have loading and playback within Finale. Hal -- Harold Owen 2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at: http://uoregon.edu/~hjowen FAX: (509) 461-3608 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Plug-ins.
Two points WRT your comment, Keith: Regularly in answer to queries on-list we are told “TG tools etc will solve this problem” Firstly, let’s get it clear, I am totally in awe of people like Tobias and others with the ability to programme things, but why won’t the System (Finale) work without them? 1) Finale _will_ work without TG tools and Patterson plug-ins; they add convenience, but not functionality, that is to say, that anything that can be accomplished with one of the plug-ins could be accomplished without it, though it might be more time consuming to accomplish. 2) I don't know for sure about Tobias' offering, as I don't use it, but Robert Patterson's set of plug-ins is a one-time only payment, and does not (or did not a year or so ago, when I acquired) require an annual fee. The version of Robert's plug in available separately also works with all versions of Finale. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Shareware Multitrack Audio App for Mac?
A quick brainstorming-type suggestion, Darcy -- if the saving of audio in the four passes and moving it to Audacity worked, and you just want the multimeasure rests to get out of the way, is it possible for you to configure each pass with one or two instruments from each family playing in combination, rather than families at a time? Then you should come close to having at least one instrument playing at all times within each pass. -- Mike On 6/24/05 3:53 AM, Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Don, When I saved to audio in four passes (i.e., ww's, brass, perc, and strings) and tried to align them, the tempo drift seemed to happen almost exclusively during long rests -- i.e., the percussion would come in several beats too early. (I'm telling you, it's just like real life!) Luckily, there was no noticeable tempo drift when the GPO instruments were actually playing -- so it was really just a matter of lining up the initial entrances after every (sectional) multi-measure rest. What I'm wondering is whether HP takes into account muted (or non-soloed) instruments when playing back -- especially when it comes to fermattas, etc. If HP only looks at the instruments that have been soloed in the Instrument List, that would explain all those bad entrances! On the one hand, it makes sense for HP to ignore muted/non-soloed instruments -- after all, why take into account staves that aren't set for playback. On the other hand, the lack of a consistent tempo between takes makes aligning multiple passes an incredible chore. I'm going to CC Robert Piéchaud on this -- perhaps he can shed some light on this issue. I really think that HP should abide by a consistent master tempo map no matter which instruments have been soloed or muted. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 24 Jun 2005, at 3:38 AM, Don Hart wrote: Glad Audacity worked for you - sorry to hear about the other problems. Seems like the barline would be the perfect point of reference to keep that sort of thing from happening. If I had to vote, I'd choose Human Playback as the culprit over GPO. Sometimes, when I play back a section of a file several times consecutively and re-humanize it each time, I wonder if I'm not noticing little differences from playback to playback. If that is what I'm hearing, while not actually looking for discrepancies, it seems the magnitude of those differences would easily be capable of making the mess you had to deal with. Seems like a cumulative problem that gets worse over longer, busier passages. Did you try lining up sections of shorter length? Don Hart on 6/24/05 1:35 AM, Darcy James Argue at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Don. Audacity was *exactly* what I was looking for. On a related note, though, I was surprised how much tempo drift there was between the two audio tracks I recorded. I know GPO sometimes drops frames when it gets overloaded (resulting in an accel. effect), so I tried splitting the orchestra in four to avoid taxing my poor Mac mini, but that was even worse. I had imagined that if I just got the *beginning* of both files aligned, they would stay aligned for the entire piece, but that was absolutely not the case. In fact, I had to hand-align practically every entrance. (It's almost like Human Playback is a little *too* human when it comes to counting multimeasure rests.) Long story short, it was an incredible PITA to get everything aligned, and required hours of trial-and-error hand-tweaking. So I'm *really* hoping NI get their act together on the Mac side, because this is just ridiculous. (Unfortunately, the move to MacIntel doesn't exactly give them a lot of incentive to optimize their PPC code. Sigh.) - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 24 Jun 2005, at 12:06 AM, Don Hart wrote: Darcy, If I have an accurate understanding of what you need and what this program will do, Audacity is what you're looking for. I haven't yet needed to do what you're doing, but in my time with the program it was very intuitive. My experience observing guys use ProTools seemed to help me get around Audacity. Anyway, you can check it out: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ I was really impressed; I hope it helps. Don Hart on 6/23/05 10:17 PM, Darcy James Argue at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, it's that time... I need to make an audio demo of an orchestration I've written. As those of you who have GPO for Mac know only too well, my 1.42 GHz Mac mini doesn't have nearly enough horsepower to drive GPO through a large orchestral score ( / 4331 / Timp+Perc / Harp / Solo Vln / Strings). I've done all my usual GPO tricks (*drastically* reduce polyphony on percussion and harp, bypass reverb, set sample rate to 22.05 KHz), but I can still only really get half the orchestra to play back reliably at any given time. So that's exactly what
Re: [Finale] Plug-ins.
keith helgesen wrote: TG, Patterson etc *should* be paid handsomely for their work- but by Finale, not the great unwashed. A few comments about this. First, MM has paid me and also a number of other well-known plugin developers. That's the reason you get Patterson Beams and Beam Over Barlines included. I didn't just give away the Lite version. Second, I would much rather someone else had done all the work that went into my plugins, but I needed their functionality and I didn't see anyone stepping up to do it. MM certainly would not have done it. Third, despite the shareware fees, no one is getting rich from writing Finale plugins. If you divided the hours I spent on them into the amount of money I've received, it might be little more than minimum wage. The primary motivation for me is in the utility they provide me as a user, not the money. Finally, no one has to use them. These plugins are an add-on. Most of their regular users feel the modest registration fee is more than compensated for by the additional automation they offer, but ymmv. You can do just about everything any plugin does using native Finale. My basic reaction to this post is, yeah I agree. It would be nice if lunches were free, but unfortunately they aren't. A passing thought: some users have opted to buy plugins rather than upgrade Finale during a particular year. If you make heavy use of notation features, a year with few notation enhancements may be a good year to forgo upgrading in favor of buying plugins. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
I'm actually kind of skeptical about that. I think that PDF is too well-established as a universal standard at this point. I think MS's attempt to impose their own proprietary alternative to PDF will go about as well as their attempt to impose WMA as an alternative to MP3 (i.e., not a complete failure, but far, far short of MS's goals). - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 24 Jun 2005, at 7:42 PM, Richard Yates wrote: My point wasn't that it would make their lives simpler but that it could be the type of change that forces them to work with that area of the program. I didn't mention it, but I also was thinking about the special PDF competitor that Microsoft is including. If MakeMusic chooses to support that, the work they do there might very well spill over into EPS. Who knows how related the technologies will be. I would actually be somewhat surprised if working on one didn't help with the other. Tyler I am not as optimistic as you about Longhorn forcing any 'spill over' into EPS. However, if Microsoft decides to produce a competitor format to EPS then it may quickly overtake Adobe, and then the new format will be a common enough standard to _replace_ EPS purposes for us FinWin users. Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Shareware Multitrack Audio App for Mac?
Hey Mike, That's also a pretty good idea. I may try that next time. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 24 Jun 2005, at 9:15 PM, Michael L. Meyer wrote: A quick brainstorming-type suggestion, Darcy -- if the saving of audio in the four passes and moving it to Audacity worked, and you just want the multimeasure rests to get out of the way, is it possible for you to configure each pass with one or two instruments from each family playing in combination, rather than families at a time? Then you should come close to having at least one instrument playing at all times within each pass. -- Mike On 6/24/05 3:53 AM, Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Don, When I saved to audio in four passes (i.e., ww's, brass, perc, and strings) and tried to align them, the tempo drift seemed to happen almost exclusively during long rests -- i.e., the percussion would come in several beats too early. (I'm telling you, it's just like real life!) Luckily, there was no noticeable tempo drift when the GPO instruments were actually playing -- so it was really just a matter of lining up the initial entrances after every (sectional) multi-measure rest. What I'm wondering is whether HP takes into account muted (or non-soloed) instruments when playing back -- especially when it comes to fermattas, etc. If HP only looks at the instruments that have been soloed in the Instrument List, that would explain all those bad entrances! On the one hand, it makes sense for HP to ignore muted/non-soloed instruments -- after all, why take into account staves that aren't set for playback. On the other hand, the lack of a consistent tempo between takes makes aligning multiple passes an incredible chore. I'm going to CC Robert Piéchaud on this -- perhaps he can shed some light on this issue. I really think that HP should abide by a consistent master tempo map no matter which instruments have been soloed or muted. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 24 Jun 2005, at 3:38 AM, Don Hart wrote: Glad Audacity worked for you - sorry to hear about the other problems. Seems like the barline would be the perfect point of reference to keep that sort of thing from happening. If I had to vote, I'd choose Human Playback as the culprit over GPO. Sometimes, when I play back a section of a file several times consecutively and re-humanize it each time, I wonder if I'm not noticing little differences from playback to playback. If that is what I'm hearing, while not actually looking for discrepancies, it seems the magnitude of those differences would easily be capable of making the mess you had to deal with. Seems like a cumulative problem that gets worse over longer, busier passages. Did you try lining up sections of shorter length? Don Hart on 6/24/05 1:35 AM, Darcy James Argue at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Don. Audacity was *exactly* what I was looking for. On a related note, though, I was surprised how much tempo drift there was between the two audio tracks I recorded. I know GPO sometimes drops frames when it gets overloaded (resulting in an accel. effect), so I tried splitting the orchestra in four to avoid taxing my poor Mac mini, but that was even worse. I had imagined that if I just got the *beginning* of both files aligned, they would stay aligned for the entire piece, but that was absolutely not the case. In fact, I had to hand-align practically every entrance. (It's almost like Human Playback is a little *too* human when it comes to counting multimeasure rests.) Long story short, it was an incredible PITA to get everything aligned, and required hours of trial-and-error hand-tweaking. So I'm *really* hoping NI get their act together on the Mac side, because this is just ridiculous. (Unfortunately, the move to MacIntel doesn't exactly give them a lot of incentive to optimize their PPC code. Sigh.) - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 24 Jun 2005, at 12:06 AM, Don Hart wrote: Darcy, If I have an accurate understanding of what you need and what this program will do, Audacity is what you're looking for. I haven't yet needed to do what you're doing, but in my time with the program it was very intuitive. My experience observing guys use ProTools seemed to help me get around Audacity. Anyway, you can check it out: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ I was really impressed; I hope it helps. Don Hart on 6/23/05 10:17 PM, Darcy James Argue at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, it's that time... I need to make an audio demo of an orchestration I've written. As those of you who have GPO for Mac know only too well, my 1.42 GHz Mac mini doesn't have nearly enough horsepower to drive GPO through a large orchestral score ( / 4331 / Timp+Perc / Harp / Solo Vln / Strings). I've done all my usual GPO tricks (*drastically* reduce polyphony on percussion and harp, bypass reverb, set sample rate to 22.05 KHz), but I can still only really get
Re: [Finale] Plug-ins.
Hi Robert, (This is a question you may not feel like answering publicly, but your comments seem to invite it... ) If Finale offered integrated, automatic Patterson Beams -- let's say Finale's Beam Options looked like the Patterson Beams dialog box. Would you see that as a good thing? Or would you be upset that Finale was rendering one of your plugins obsolete? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 24 Jun 2005, at 10:33 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: keith helgesen wrote: TG, Patterson etc *should* be paid handsomely for their work- but by Finale, not the great unwashed. A few comments about this. First, MM has paid me and also a number of other well-known plugin developers. That's the reason you get Patterson Beams and Beam Over Barlines included. I didn't just give away the Lite version. Second, I would much rather someone else had done all the work that went into my plugins, but I needed their functionality and I didn't see anyone stepping up to do it. MM certainly would not have done it. Third, despite the shareware fees, no one is getting rich from writing Finale plugins. If you divided the hours I spent on them into the amount of money I've received, it might be little more than minimum wage. The primary motivation for me is in the utility they provide me as a user, not the money. Finally, no one has to use them. These plugins are an add-on. Most of their regular users feel the modest registration fee is more than compensated for by the additional automation they offer, but ymmv. You can do just about everything any plugin does using native Finale. My basic reaction to this post is, yeah I agree. It would be nice if lunches were free, but unfortunately they aren't. A passing thought: some users have opted to buy plugins rather than upgrade Finale during a particular year. If you make heavy use of notation features, a year with few notation enhancements may be a good year to forgo upgrading in favor of buying plugins. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
