Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
Christopher Smith wrote: Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam algorithm. Even now, I often find myself getting ahead of Speedy Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale remembers the numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as you would expect) but DOES NOT remember what MIDI note I was holding down at the time I hit the number key! Well, I do not not expect Finale to remember the MIDI note I was holding when I hit the number key. If Finale is well behaved that is, if it follows the rules and conventions established for the Operating System, what seems to be Finale remembering entries in the numeric keypad, is actually an artifact of Finale getting the next keystroke in the Keyboard buffer of the O.S. I can't say whether it is possible, or rather how difficult it would be, for Finale to implement a shadow MIDI key buffer that could be somehow linked to the OS keyboard buffer, so that when Finale gets the sixteenth item from the keyboard buffer, it also gets the sixteenth item from the MIDI buffer. If Finale has a more complex beaming algorithm than it presently does, no doubt this problem will get worse. I doubt that, as the beaming algorithm is strictly computation and followed by redraw, and the problem you describe, of numeric keypad entries not matching the correct pitches is a hardware / OS problem. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Shameless Self-Promotion
Hi Darcy- top work! Love the lead sheet. How do you get the shadow effect on rehearsal numbers? 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 Darcy James Argue Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2005 3:15 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: [Finale] Shameless Self-Promotion Hey all, I now have a (makeshift) site up advertising my music prep services, including samples of the copying work I've done for Bob Brookmeyer, Maria Schneider, and others. As always, your feedback is most welcome. http://homepage.mac.com/djargon/ - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ 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: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 6/07/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 6/07/2005 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Shameless Self-Promotion
On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:36 AM, keith helgesen wrote: Hi Darcy- top work! Love the lead sheet. How do you get the shadow effect on rehearsal numbers? Thanks, Keith. The drop-shadow rehearsal letters/numbers are done with Bill Duncan's Rehearsal font, available here: http://www.gwmp.com/MusicFontsFrameset.htm - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale
On 6 Jul 2005, at 20:30, Darcy James Argue wrote: There is no New Window menu item on the Mac. Where are you looking? This menu item has been in every version of Finale I've had, from 3.0 to 2005b. It's in the Window menu. Michael Cook ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale
On 07 Jul 2005, at 3:21 AM, Michael Cook wrote: On 6 Jul 2005, at 20:30, Darcy James Argue wrote: There is no New Window menu item on the Mac. Where are you looking? This menu item has been in every version of Finale I've had, from 3.0 to 2005b. It's in the Window menu. I stand corrected! I had been looking in the File menu, but of course, the Window menu is a more logical place for it. I've been using Finale since v3.0 as well, and for some inexplicable reason I never noticed that menu item. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal
On Jul 7, 2005, at 1:10 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote: It just strikes me as potentially confusing to have separate windows for each part (plus the score) when they are not, in fact, separate documents. The name in the title bar is different for each part (obviously), but this really is like opening multiple instances of the same document, and I don't think that's something most Mac users routinely do. I do. It's the only way I know of around the usual computer limitation of not being able to switch back and forth between two score pages. And the fact that anything you do in one window is instantly reflected in the other (they are, after all, just different views of the same document) is comforting to me. I still think Finale should support it -- after all, I can see how people would find the separate windows useful. I just wanted to voice my support for *also* including the option to switch from Score View to Parts View within a single window. Have you downloaded the Sibelius demo and tried this out? No, not yet. I plan on looking into it, though. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
=?iso-8859-1?Q?[Finale]_Hey!_What's_wrong_with_Creston's_12/12??=
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Richard Yates [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote: What does a 12th-note look like? http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg I make that a 3/32 note. -- K C Moore ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Tyler wrote: Now if you want to get specific, the reason other people wanted it was because those other people saw a point in it. And quite frankly so did the people at MakeMusic. But when it comes right down to it, the reason to include the feature stems first from the fact that people WANT it. I requested a mixer in the next version of Finale, but mainly because I was sick of having to create all these non-printing expressions to try to be able to hear certain parts in the score for checking purposes that were rendered quite inaudible by the out-of-tune, unbalanced solo violin patches. So, therefore, to correct an inadequacy in Finale in the first place. Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times do composers click play as opposed to extracting parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as commonly as some people here believe. It wasn't a frequent topic on the tech support phones or in e-mails. It's not commonly discussed on the forum. When you think about it, if you combine the number of composers who don't get their works performed with the number who are composing for something other than an ensemble (piano, and piano with voice are pretty common), I'm pretty sure you're looking at over 50%. And as for people who commonly work with extraction, that must be a lot fewer. Maybe it is - I suppose Makemusic would have those figures from those surveys we have to complete. But the 'part extractors' I would suggest are extremely important in terms of generally occupying high places in places like education, and who will undoubtedly therefore install Sibelius rather than Finale in institutions because of its perceived better features in this area. After all, when it comes down to it, if the *notation* features are better in a *notation* application, then surely that's more desirable? Matthew -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.9/42 - Release Date: 6/07/2005 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] tacet instrument
Paul Hayden schrieb: Two questions about using tacet: 1. An instrument is not used in the first movement of a multi-movement work. Should the instrument be included on the first page of music in the score (and then perhaps deleted on other pages of the first movement)? I was recently editing such a piece, and decided against including all instruments on the first page. There were too many of them which didn't play a note until one of the later movements. Instead we included a full instrument list before the first page of music. 2. When creating the part for that instrument, should I just put I. TACET and then start the second movement directly below on the same page? Yes. If the first movement is short your could also consider notating it as multimeasure rests, but it is not necessary. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
Owain Sutton wrote: Noel Stoutenburg wrote: David W. Fenton opined: part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't preparing any performance materials at all. Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of part extraction: 1) hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and printed in close score, and 2) songs, including pop vocal music, and 3) choral music, where the voice parts are printed in full score, or in the case of larger works, where accompaniment is a larger ensemble, full choral score with keyboard reduction of the accompaniment, and 4) keyboard (piano, organ) music.. Add to that much academic work.i.e. a significant part of the lucrative education-sector market. Which Sibelius seems to be increasingly in control of. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Richard Yates wrote: What does a 12th-note look like? http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg That's a joke, right? I am sure that it will turn up in Finale2007 if enough people ask for it. Apparently only if those people who ask for it aren't currently Finale users -- many of the new features Finale gets are those which are requested by non-users, if I understand some recent posts on this list. After all, MakeMusic is trying to attract new users. So take on an assumed name, tell MakeMusic you're in charge of buying notation software for some fictitious music school with 1000 students who will all have to buy whatever product you suggest, and then start asking for things. It seems our little group of multi-upgrade veterans are not high on MakeMusic's list of people to pay attention to. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale
Mark D Lew wrote: On Jul 6, 2005, at 3:46 AM, dhbailey wrote: And I fail to see how this linked score/parts would not benefit practically every Finale user. Well, it wouldn't benefit me, since I almost never extract parts. My work is about 99% piano-vocal or choral, so there's never any parts to extract. Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to the feature. Obviously it's important to a lot of users. I'm just contesting your implication that it's good for everyone. I do admit that I hadn't considered that piano music and piano/vocal music wouldn't benefit from linked parts. I should change my remark from practically every to a large number. :-) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO?
David W. Fenton wrote: On 6 Jul 2005 at 20:40, Christopher Smith wrote: [re: Human Playback:] Some items, like trills, are surprisingly good, though. How do you control what note it starts on? And are the trills metronomically regular, or do they start slow and then speed up? Can they be made to crescendo? It's not that good. I would hope that MakeMusic, since it seems hell-bent on improving playback at the expense of notational issues, would give us a lot more flexibility in defining/editing human playback. A check-list of items such as you mention concerning trills would be wonderful -- other things such as controlling the rate of ritardando, the length of holds, etc. would be desirable as well. I asked for this stuff a while ago and got a thank you, we'll pass it on to the development team reply which read more like a go away, kid, you bother me message. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
What does a 12th-note look like? http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg I make that a 3/32 note. Maybe we should drop all of this fraction nonsense, join the rest of the world, and go with the metric system. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Richard Yates wrote: What does a 12th-note look like? http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg I make that a 3/32 note. Maybe we should drop all of this fraction nonsense, join the rest of the world, and go with the metric system. I'm trying to learn a Ferneyhough piece at the moment. The metronome marks include things like Q=60.75 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote: Tyler wrote: Now if you want to get specific, the reason other people wanted it was because those other people saw a point in it. And quite frankly so did the people at MakeMusic. But when it comes right down to it, the reason to include the feature stems first from the fact that people WANT it. I requested a mixer in the next version of Finale, but mainly because I was sick of having to create all these non-printing expressions to try to be able to hear certain parts in the score for checking purposes that were rendered quite inaudible by the out-of-tune, unbalanced solo violin patches. So, therefore, to correct an inadequacy in Finale in the first place. The differences in patch volumes are the fault of the soundfonts, or the module or whatever device is actually producing the sounds, not the fault of Finale's notational capability or its playback capability. The mixer just means they'll have even less reason to normalize the patches in their soundfont or to ensure that GPO or other Kontakt-based sample libraries normalize their patches. While it will help solve our immediate problems of trying to get uniform playback volumes, MakeMusic can use it as a means NOT to have to pay extra for better sample programming. The inadequacy has never been in Finale, the notation program. Only in whatever devices we choose to play the files through, whether Finale's provided soundfont, our own soundfonts or soundcards, Kontakt or other soft-synth sample-playback software. Just a kludge to obviate further responsibility on the corporate end of things. [snip] As for the linked parts/score, someone brought up educational usage as an area where it wouldn't be important -- for theory/harmony classes perhaps, but certainly for arranging, orchestrating or composing classes it would be a welcome addition. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Owain Sutton wrote: Richard Yates wrote: What does a 12th-note look like? http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg I make that a 3/32 note. Maybe we should drop all of this fraction nonsense, join the rest of the world, and go with the metric system. I'm trying to learn a Ferneyhough piece at the moment. The metronome marks include things like Q=60.75 As I certain he could hear the difference between that and 60.76, I'd work even harder if I were you! -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Tyler Turner schrieb: If 90% of Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal compositions performed by real people, don't you think something like GPO will be more attractive to them than linked parts? That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Tyler Turner schrieb: Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times do composers click play as opposed to extracting parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as commonly as some people here believe. It wasn't a frequent topic on the tech support phones or in e-mails. It's not commonly discussed on the forum. When you think about it, if you combine the number of composers who don't get their works performed with the number who are composing for something other than an ensemble (piano, and piano with voice are pretty common), I'm pretty sure you're looking at over 50%. And as for people who commonly work with extraction, that must be a lot fewer. A few points to be made here: 1) Sibelius already had better playback including a selection of sampled sounds and the Kontakt player in the last major update, which is a few years old if I am not mistaken. Finale is only catching up on this one. 2) I actually doubt very much that GPO is such a big selling point at all. Those who really depend on this kind of playback already have GPO. Yes they will get slightly better integration, but they will not get any benefit out of the included library. Those who haven't got GPO yet, probably don't give this much about it anyway. I joined the GPO group buy recently, because it meant getting GPO for half the money, but frankly, I haven't used it much at all, simply because playback is not very important to me. Nice to have, but I'd much rather save some time on part extraction. 3) The real point is the direction Finale is heading. Is it going to be purely for some kind of Mass Market (which doesn't exist in this area anyway) or is it going to be a professional engraving tool. Problem is, Sibelius has already taken away a lot of the mass market and I feel Finale is trying to get it back. It won't (because a. Sibelius has managed to get much better product identification than Finale, and b. it is known to be easier to learn - and it is, I am afraid). Instead Finale is soon going to loose the pro market as well, unless some of the decisions are going to be made into a more pro tool. That means bug fixes, engraving improvements, design improvements (including linked score and parts). Anything that saves time. Did I mention bug fixes? Too much time has been spent on completely useless features. MicNotator? Auto-Harmonizer? And on buggy, or only partly functional features. Engraver slurs are great, but they also introduced unreliability in terms of output, requiring all sorts of work arounds which cost time and are frustrating. (On these lines, has anyone ever got proper results out of the smart page turn plugin? I know our hero Tobias programmed it, but for me this is another feature that simply never worked. Perhaps I am wrong.) I am also wondering whether the yearly upgrade cycle is turning out to have disadvantages. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Johannes Gebauer wrote: Tyler Turner schrieb: Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times do composers click play as opposed to extracting parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as commonly as some people here believe. It wasn't a frequent topic on the tech support phones or in e-mails. It's not commonly discussed on the forum. When you think about it, if you combine the number of composers who don't get their works performed with the number who are composing for something other than an ensemble (piano, and piano with voice are pretty common), I'm pretty sure you're looking at over 50%. And as for people who commonly work with extraction, that must be a lot fewer. A few points to be made here: 1) Sibelius already had better playback including a selection of sampled sounds and the Kontakt player in the last major update, which is a few years old if I am not mistaken. Finale is only catching up on this one. 2) I actually doubt very much that GPO is such a big selling point at all. Those who really depend on this kind of playback already have GPO. Yes they will get slightly better integration, but they will not get any benefit out of the included library. Those who haven't got GPO yet, probably don't give this much about it anyway. I joined the GPO group buy recently, because it meant getting GPO for half the money, but frankly, I haven't used it much at all, simply because playback is not very important to me. Nice to have, but I'd much rather save some time on part extraction. 3) The real point is the direction Finale is heading. Is it going to be purely for some kind of Mass Market (which doesn't exist in this area anyway) or is it going to be a professional engraving tool. Problem is, Sibelius has already taken away a lot of the mass market and I feel Finale is trying to get it back. It won't (because a. Sibelius has managed to get much better product identification than Finale, and b. it is known to be easier to learn - and it is, I am afraid). Instead Finale is soon going to loose the pro market as well, unless some of the decisions are going to be made into a more pro tool. That means bug fixes, engraving improvements, design improvements (including linked score and parts). Anything that saves time. Did I mention bug fixes? [snip] One other thing Sibelius is light-years ahead of Finale is that version 3 came with the option to save a file as version 2. Version 4 comes with the ability to save as version 3 or version 2. That means that Sibelius users can share files among themselves as long as they are using versions 2, 3, or 4 (that goes back 4 years, I believe) without resorting to the finale kludges of saving as ETF file and trying to copy a more recent header section to it, or saving in MusicXML and then importing into an older version. Finale has a LOT of catching up to do, if it hopes to regain the lead in the notation software market! GPO integration isn't enough to do it by itself, and that really seems to be the single big improvement in Finale2006 (besides the Textured Paper, that is.) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Johannes Gebauer wrote: Tyler Turner schrieb: If 90% of Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal compositions performed by real people, don't you think something like GPO will be more attractive to them than linked parts? That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%. Johannes Yes, most people who use computer notation software for their own personal compositions rather than sharing with other musicians for performance having already jumped to Sibelius or simply started out with Sibelius due to its better out-of-the-box ease-of-use reputation. :-) Sibelius claims 25,000 Finale users have switched. That's not entirely true, since some of us (I speak for myself) have not switched but merely added Sibelius to our engraving arsenal. So I account for at least one who is still using both, but predominantly using Finale. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Tyler Turner schrieb: If 90% of Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal compositions performed by real people, don't you think something like GPO will be more attractive to them than linked parts? Thinking about this theory even more, why on earth any of these composers who want playback more than output chose Finale in the first place, is am complete mystery to me. And I doubt that even with the latest improvements Finale is going to be the right choice. What they want is a sequencer with notation capability. Not an engraving tool with limited output capability. If Finale is now going to compete with Sequencers I may very well leave the ship quite soon. In fact I may do that anyway, unless we get linked parts and score. I just spent several days revising score, parts and my intermediate score file. It was a nightmare. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale
If a plugin has trouble doing cue notes, why would it be any easier in the native program? If you care how the cue notes look, no automation MM is likely to come up with is like to be good enough. If you don't care, then TGTools is sufficient, although there are a few tweaks that would be helpful. (So help me, I do care, so TGTools provides only a starting point for me.) When I said I thought dynamic parts would be possible within an annual cycle, what I meant was: * Separate Page and System records per part * Separate note spacing per part * Separate Special Part Extraction bits to limit which expressions appear where. * A UI to allow separate Page Views for each part * (Marginally Possible) a way to hide a particular layer in a particular page view (for, e.g., cue notes) Off the table, I suspect, would be separate font settings for titles. Also, if like me you combine parts in a score and split them out in parts, you could not use dynamic parts. (I seriously doubt that Sibelius's new feature provides this capability either.) Of all those bullet points, the one would give me the most heartburn is separate note spacing. It is essential, but I suspect it tears at the heart of Finale and would be extremely risky and painful to implement. The entire picture gives me heartburn as a plugin developer, too. Perhaps this is a case of be careful what you ask for. The more I think about it, the less useful I personally would find it. Automatic vertical spacing seems much more attractive to me. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Tyler Turner schrieb: If 90% of Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal compositions performed by real people, don't you think something like GPO will be more attractive to them than linked parts? Johannes Gebauer wrote: That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%. I don't know what percentage I'm in, but I use Finale only for my compositions, I get my compositions performed by real humans, I welcome the better user interface for playback, AND I want dynamically linked parts and scores. Why can't we have it all? dhbailey wrote: The inadequacy has never been in Finale, the notation program. Only in whatever devices we choose to play the files through, whether Finale's provided soundfont, our own soundfonts or soundcards, Kontakt or other soft-synth sample-playback software. Just a kludge to obviate further responsibility on the corporate end of things. I must disagree here. When you are combining different synths and samplers, soundfonts, patches, and samples from myriad sources, it is unrealistic to think that there is a perfect level that works for all your sounds for all situations. It's not the evil corporations, it's the nature of sound and the unlimited ways of combining it. In other words, you always have to mix at some level. I'm glad that we will get easier control of this within Finale itself. -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Vertical Spacing Algorithms
Yes, that's at the top of my list too: Intelligent vertical spacing for staves within each system and between each system. I can't imagine which users would not benefit from this feature. As a performer, I'm sick of having to use scores where the staves are too far apart: in many cases people seem to have just kept the Finale default spacing, which leaves far too much white space. This happens even with scores from reputable publishers: for an orchestral score the paper will be far too big (A3 is typical in Europe), but the staves and notes will be surprisingly small and hard to read. I think that the use of programs such as Finale has helped to spread the strange idea that a well-made score should have equally spaced staves and systems: this needs to change. Michael Cook On 6 Jul 2005, at 16:31, Randolph Peters wrote: My number 1 new feature request: Vertical Spacing Algorithms Number 2: Dynamic score/parts linking. -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Johannes Gebauer wrote: That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%. I just took a quick mental survey of all the people I personally know who use Finale. Out of the 25 or so users, only 2 use it exclusively for engraving/copying and don't care about playback. The rest are composers who want decent looking scores AND decent MIDI playback/input. That's always been the beauty and promise of Finale since the beginning. Is my informal survey so off from the norm? -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Randolph Peters wrote: Johannes Gebauer wrote: That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%. I just took a quick mental survey of all the people I personally know who use Finale. Out of the 25 or so users, only 2 use it exclusively for engraving/copying and don't care about playback. The rest are composers who want decent looking scores AND decent MIDI playback/input. That's always been the beauty and promise of Finale since the beginning. Is my informal survey so off from the norm? Informal surveys are going to have the problem of skewed samples. I can't think of *anyone* I know who uses either Sibelius and Finale, and isn't mostly or exclusively concerned with engraving. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Randolph Peters schrieb: Johannes Gebauer wrote: That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%. I don't know what percentage I'm in, but I use Finale only for my compositions, I get my compositions performed by real humans, I welcome the better user interface for playback, AND I want dynamically linked parts and scores. Why can't we have it all? Well, at least on the surface, you can. Get Sibelius 4... I know this is going to be jumped upon, but that is what the situation presents itself as at the moment. Yes, I am sure Sibelius has other problems, but it does have a lot of strong points, too. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale
Robert, I don't think you quite understood what I am after. I find the basic concept of how cue notes are included in the first place very short sighted. Simply adding them to a free layer is always going to cause all sorts of problems. What I want is a separate cue notes layer. The reason I am asking for this now is the cue notes-dynamic score and parts link. Cue notes will have to be dealt with when creating dynamic score and parts. Ideally I'd like to see a completely new concept for them, which would make cue notes much easier in the first place. And the new concept would make much more sense when score and part linking is there, too. The specifics of the design are debatable. I know this is whishful thinking, but since we are debating improvements, this is one which would save _me_ lots of hours. The smart cue notes plugin doesn't cut it for me, it causes more trouble than it is worth in my experience. All that said, I actually believe that you are right, and that score and part linking will not be all that easy to include in Finale. However, I wonder whether a new concept of part updating will be possible nonetheless. Even using plugins. Johannes Robert Patterson schrieb: If a plugin has trouble doing cue notes, why would it be any easier in the native program? If you care how the cue notes look, no automation MM is likely to come up with is like to be good enough. If you don't care, then TGTools is sufficient, although there are a few tweaks that would be helpful. (So help me, I do care, so TGTools provides only a starting point for me.) When I said I thought dynamic parts would be possible within an annual cycle, what I meant was: * Separate Page and System records per part * Separate note spacing per part * Separate Special Part Extraction bits to limit which expressions appear where. * A UI to allow separate Page Views for each part * (Marginally Possible) a way to hide a particular layer in a particular page view (for, e.g., cue notes) Off the table, I suspect, would be separate font settings for titles. Also, if like me you combine parts in a score and split them out in parts, you could not use dynamic parts. (I seriously doubt that Sibelius's new feature provides this capability either.) Of all those bullet points, the one would give me the most heartburn is separate note spacing. It is essential, but I suspect it tears at the heart of Finale and would be extremely risky and painful to implement. The entire picture gives me heartburn as a plugin developer, too. Perhaps this is a case of be careful what you ask for. The more I think about it, the less useful I personally would find it. Automatic vertical spacing seems much more attractive to me. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 7/6/05, Tyler Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times do composers click play as opposed to extracting parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as commonly as some people here believe. I've been following this discussion of linked parts versus extracted parts with puzzlement, and wondered where (or whether) to step in with my comments. Before I started using Finale 6-7 years ago I had worked as a programmer for a major wordprocessor (one that is now virtually defunct, thanks to the world's dominant software company ... but I digress.) I have always thought that it is particularly awkward to have to extract parts, yielding multiple instances of the same document. In the word processor world, we had a single document with multiple views. (It is kind of like an HTML editor that lets you look at the same document either showing the HTML tags or hiding them, or ... [pick a variation]) It has always seemed like it would be much more natural if finale would treat the displaying/printing of individual parts (or subsets of parts) as variant views of the one document that constitutes the composition. Yes, there might be issues if you decide (for example) to insert a measure while editing the violin part (in the violin part-only view)--but it would be predictable: when you change to the full score view, you would see a new blank measure in all the other parts (for example) ... and could fill up the other staves. I'm not a big Sibelius fan (I purchased a switchover license several years ago, but coutinue to buy each annual Finale upgrade, and have done no serious composing with Sibelius) and don't know how they have implemented their linked parts, but extracting parts from the the main score is a real drag. A document/view model would seem to make much more sense. My two cents. (I am still an ardent fan of Finale, BTW! ... and have already paid for the 2006 upgrade.) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
On 7/6/05, Aaron Sherber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special view of the score. From a software engineering standpoint, this is the way it should be. Word processors and many other applications have been doing this for years: Store the data (document) only once. Provide multiple views of that single document. (There is no linking taking place.) Just another two cents. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale
I do see what you are after (a cue note layer). I just don't see enough added benefit to enough users that it will happen. That said, from what I've seen starting in Fin04, MM has laid the groundwork for more than 4 layers. Whether they ever implement them remains to be seen. Obviously, you care how cues look, too. I find myself doing alot of copying and pasting of cues, so an entire orch. will get a Flute 1 cue even if that may not always be the best one. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
At 11:51 AM -0600 7/6/05, John Abram wrote: A twelfth note is a triplet eighth note. They are sometimes used in new music (eg Mark-Anthony Turnage has used it frequently I believe) Henry Cowell was way ahead of the game with this sort of thinking. Why is 12/12 not like 12/8? Because 12/8 is not triplets. Yes, I know it sounds like triplets, but it's not. Why is there so much confusion over compound time? Well, perhaps I'm too dense to follow your reasoning, but your two statements above do seem to be mutually contradictory! If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it sounds like triplets, it's triplets. Q.E.D! Its barcarole is worse than its bite! Seems to me that talking about beats compounds (sorry!) the confusion. Yes, 12/8 can indicate 4 beats per bar; that's sort of the default interpretation. At a slower tempo, however, it can indicate 12 beats per bar. I've conducted Bach slow movements that required exactly that. And at a faster tempo it can indicate 2 beats per bar. Young musicians have to learn that ALL time signatures are variable. They may first encounter 6/8 in the context of marches, 2 beats to a bar. And they will be confused the first time they run into 6/8 with six beats to a bar, but that's just one more variable in our notation that they have to master. (And even college-age students are often flumoxed by ties over the barline to the first note of the next bar, especially in compound time; I can't figure out why, but it happens.) I was taught by my mother (a heck of a good theory teacher) to read time signatures as four quarter, three quarter, or six eighth time. The lower number has indicated a note value since the beginning of the common practice period, and there is, in fact, no 12th note in the system. Sorry. Feel free to invent your own notation; just don't expect us old fogey traditionalists to read it. As to the Creston, I don't know the work so I can't comment. But what do I know?!! 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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
John Howell wrote: If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it sounds like triplets, it's triplets. Except if it's not grouped in threes. Feel free to invent your own notation; just don't expect us old fogey traditionalists to read it. We're not inventing it - we're nearly a century late for that. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
At 8:27 PM -0600 7/6/05, John Abram wrote: On 6-Jul-05, at 5:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're really splitting hairs here -- putting 3 evenly spaced notes within one beat sounds like triplets to me, no matter how it's represented in the time signature. Yes it sounds the same, like witch sounds like which and like 4/8 sounds like 4/16 and 4/4. Poor example, I'm afraid, and one that suggests you are not a singer. Which, whoa, and other wh words like where properly start with a phoneme produced by a puff of air blown through pursed lips. Witch, and woe and ware do not. The pronunciation is often confused by young children, rap artists, and some speakers of dialectal English. Fred Waring insisted that his singers pronounce every sound (every phoneme) in every syllable and do so at the same instant, to ensure that the words were clearly intelligible. 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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
At 01:08 PM 7/7/05 -0400, John Howell wrote: Poor example, I'm afraid, and one that suggests you are not a singer. Which, whoa, and other wh words like where properly start with a phoneme produced by a puff of air blown through pursed lips. Witch, and woe and ware do not. The pronunciation is often confused by young children, rap artists, and some speakers of dialectal English. ...and American English dictionaries that abandoned the hw-only rule a generation ago. Hw- is disappearing. My generation still uses it, but it's been years since I've heard anyone under 40 (who isn't in radio, anyway) actually use the hw- sound. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:44 AM, Richard Yates wrote: What does a 12th-note look like? http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg I make that a 3/32 note. Maybe we should drop all of this fraction nonsense, join the rest of the world, and go with the metric system. You've been reading my column in the staff newsletter at my school here in Montreal! I postulated that the new provincial standards in music education outline dropping the old-fashioned 12-note system as forced upon us by the English, in favour of a 10-note metric music system, to agree with the French metric measurement system. The notes G# and Db, being the least-used, would be removed from the school's pianos by government workers with crowbars, and the other keys moved over to fill the gaps. Students would have approximately 16% less chance of hitting a wrong note while playing, and theory scores would improve as well, there being only ten keys instead of twelve, thereby improving student success rates at the college. In the jazz combos, Miles Davis would be known as 1.6 Kilometres Davis, and Frank Loesser's Inchworm will be played as 2.5 Centimetres Worm. Next year, metric clocks! (the column appeared April 1st of last year.) Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Putting the mechanics aside for a moment, could someone please explain what you can do with 12/12 that you CANNOT do using standard meters, or combinations thereof ? There must be a good cause to write something that most accomplished musicians may have difficulty sight reading because of some obscure meter. Richard Bartkus ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:00 AM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: Christopher Smith wrote: Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam algorithm. Even now, I often find myself getting ahead of Speedy Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale remembers the numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as you would expect) but DOES NOT remember what MIDI note I was holding down at the time I hit the number key! Well, I do not not expect Finale to remember the MIDI note I was holding when I hit the number key. Well I do! You appear to be well-informed about computers, and I am not, but the interface I learned (and still expect to have work) in Speedy Entry is: hold down MIDI key, hit number key for rhythm. Repeat as necessary. If the keyboard buffers and the MIDI buffers do not synchronise, that should not be my problem, but rather the programmers' problem. I don't want to have to work around how the computer thinks; it should work around how I think. I'm not actually blaming you the messenger for this, even though it seems like it, but the guys I want to yell at aren't on the list. If Finale is well behaved that is, if it follows the rules and conventions established for the Operating System, what seems to be Finale remembering entries in the numeric keypad, is actually an artifact of Finale getting the next keystroke in the Keyboard buffer of the O.S. I can't say whether it is possible, or rather how difficult it would be, for Finale to implement a shadow MIDI key buffer that could be somehow linked to the OS keyboard buffer, so that when Finale gets the sixteenth item from the keyboard buffer, it also gets the sixteenth item from the MIDI buffer. If Finale has a more complex beaming algorithm than it presently does, no doubt this problem will get worse. I doubt that, as the beaming algorithm is strictly computation and followed by redraw, and the problem you describe, of numeric keypad entries not matching the correct pitches is a hardware / OS problem. If the computer is spending more time on computation/redraw because it is more complicated, wouldn't the mismatching get worse? I confess I don't understand why not. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO?
Hey all, If you have any requests for improving Human Playback, you should send them directly to the guy responsible for the feature, Robert Piéchaud. He's very nice and very responsive. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:30 AM, dhbailey wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: On 6 Jul 2005 at 20:40, Christopher Smith wrote: [re: Human Playback:] Some items, like trills, are surprisingly good, though. How do you control what note it starts on? And are the trills metronomically regular, or do they start slow and then speed up? Can they be made to crescendo? It's not that good. I would hope that MakeMusic, since it seems hell-bent on improving playback at the expense of notational issues, would give us a lot more flexibility in defining/editing human playback. A check-list of items such as you mention concerning trills would be wonderful -- other things such as controlling the rate of ritardando, the length of holds, etc. would be desirable as well. I asked for this stuff a while ago and got a thank you, we'll pass it on to the development team reply which read more like a go away, kid, you bother me message. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
At 5:45 PM +0100 7/7/05, Owain Sutton wrote: John Howell wrote: If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it sounds like triplets, it's triplets. Except if it's not grouped in threes. In which case it doesn't sound like triplets! Feel free to invent your own notation; just don't expect us old fogey traditionalists to read it. We're not inventing it - we're nearly a century late for that. OK, I can't argue with that. The original notation was nothing more than mnemonic aids to help monks (and choirboys) remember chants that they had already memorized. Thanks to Guido, Franco, De Vitry, and a few other forward-looking folks, that turned into a graphical system that, once learned, permitted music one had never before heard to be performed in a new place. There are still musical cultures in the world in which the entire concept of one person telling the musicians exactly what to play and how to play it is good for a big laugh. And unfortunately a certain kind of composer has taken more and more responsibility away from the performer and tried to overcontrol every aspect of interpretation through ever more obscure notation. Part of an arranger's job is often to transcribe something from a recording, and I've done it enough to understand quite thoroughly that notation cannot and does not specify every single aspect of interpretation. Or perhaps it's more fair to say that it IS possible to notate every aspect (although where to place the phonemes a singer uses can be a real problem), but that the result is essentially unreadable. Interpretation is a performer's job. The composer who tries to notate every aspect using more and more complex notation--whether old or new--has lost sight of that simple but very important fact. A composer is not necessarily the best interpreter of his or her own music, just as a poet can almost never read his or her own poetry as well as a trained and sensitive actor. New music has always called for new notation or, more often, new modifications to existing notation. No argument from me. But the purpose of notation is, and always has been, communication. I simply do not choose to learn or perform music that requires me to learn new notation, unless the music itself is so great that the effort is worth while. Maybe I will come across such music. Maybe it will be by members of this list. It just hasn't happened yet, so the new notation, whether it is nearly a century old or not, does not communicate with me. Not anyone else's fault, just my loss, I guess. 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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Some people simply have, for whatever reason, a vested interest in superficial complexity. (Flame-retardant suit snugly on. Somebody has to say that the Emperor sometimes has little or no clothing.) - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12? Putting the mechanics aside for a moment, could someone please explain what you can do with 12/12 that you CANNOT do using standard meters, or combinations thereof ? There must be a good cause to write something that most accomplished musicians may have difficulty sight reading because of some obscure meter. Richard Bartkus ___ 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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
I once readan article on the subject of the "modern composer's" love affair with making life as difficult as possible for the performer. The article ended with an example. The rythms were amazingle complex and the example looked someone had spilt a bag of sharps and flats over the page. When you rationalized the rythms and notes, it was "God Save the Queen" in G major. A real example: the last movement of the Ligeti "Six Bagatelles" is offered in two versions - the sounding notes and rhythms are identical, but one is written out with the bar lines in different places so that more of the notes land on the beat. All the best, Lawrence "þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.ukDulcian Wind Quintet: http://dulcianwind.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Johannes Gebauer wrote: Tyler Turner schrieb: If 90% of Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal compositions performed by real people, don't you think something like GPO will be more attractive to them than linked parts? That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%. Johannes Yes, most people who use computer notation software for their own personal compositions rather than sharing with other musicians for performance having already jumped to Sibelius or simply started out with Sibelius due to its better out-of-the-box ease-of-use reputation. :-) Sibelius claims 25,000 Finale users have switched. That's not entirely true, since some of us (I speak for myself) have not switched but merely added Sibelius to our engraving arsenal. So I account for at least one who is still using both, but predominantly using Finale. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, I'm quite sure that a large majority of Finale users use Finale at least in part for their own personal compositions. I can draw this conclusion from my own experience dealing with a sampling of thousands of Finale users as well as other sources. Compositional use of Finale is the rule rather than the exception. Finale absolutely needs to maintain its success among composers, and playback plays a key role. Addressing the point in another post about the inclusion of GPO being a catch up to Sibelius Kontakt implementation - this isn't the case. Finale was already pretty much on par. The sounds weren't quite up to Sibelius', but Sibelius only includes 20 sounds, and only 8 can be used simultaneously. That's not enough for any decent size ensemble. Finale GPO gives 100 sounds and 64 can be used simultaneously. Have those who want the better sounds of GPO already purchased GPO? Most haven't. This isn't the way Finale's market works. Users by in large are looking for the 1 program solution where everything just works. They don't want to mess with MIDI controllers. They certainly don't want to try to link together multiple applications. Even selecting instruments manually is too much to expect from the average user. The new notation software company Virtuoso Works, makers of Notion, correctly identified the need for a notation program with outstanding playback and no hassles. What they didn't understand was that they weren't alone, and so now they are left with an application with playback inferior to Finale's and notation capabilities not much better than NotePad's. I can't tell you how many times I answered questions such as Can I make this sound any better? by explaining the options of using sample software or purchasing hardware synths, sound cards, etc. When I explained these options to people, nearly all of them said, oh well, I guess my existing sounds will be good enough. Most people who want better sounds are not willing to go to great lengths to get it. But as Finale 2004 proved, they will upgrade their Finale to get it. If it just works, they're interested. Tyler __ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
On Jul 7, 2005, at 1:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Putting the mechanics aside for a moment, could someone please explain what you can do with 12/12 that you CANNOT do using standard meters, or combinations thereof ? Not so much 12/12, but say 5/12. Let's say you were honking along happily in 4/4, mixing eighths, sixteenths, and eighth-note-triplets freely, as those young kids today are wont to do. Then suddenly, you just want 3 eighth notes in a bar. Great, a bar of 3/8 (or 1/Q. ) and there you go. A standard solution exists that everyone easily understands. But then later, you are playing some triplets which work out perfectly, but you ONLY NEED FIVE OF THEM, not six. If you needed 6, then a bar of 2/4 with triplets marked normally would be great. But if you want a new downbeat after you've only played FIVE eighth-note-triplets, then you're out of luck in standard metre systems. Then you would need a bar indicating 5 (or really 3+2) over whatever eighth-note triplets are in relation to a quarter note. Hey, we do the math, and you get 12 triplets in a whole, which makes them 1/12th notes. So you mark 5/12, and put in three eighths beamed together followed by 2 eighths beamed together, and I would put a bracketed 3 tuplet over the first group, and the same over the second group (even though there are only TWO notes in it) for clarity. There must be a good cause to write something that most accomplished musicians may have difficulty sight reading because of some obscure meter. Yes. One would only use it if it clarified the musical gesture. If I could accomplish it with an ordinary metric modulation instead, I would do it. But let's say again, in the same happily honking 4/4, that you are constantly doing this odd-triplet thing, but at one point actually have 4 pulses worth of triplets. Rather than switch back to 4/4 with tuplets for one measure, I might be tempted to make that measure 12/12. Might be is the operative word. 12/12 is not really in my vocabulary (12/8 barely is!) and I would do my darndest to find a conventional solution first. But that's how it would work. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Putting the mechanics aside for a moment, could someone please explain what you can do with 12/12 that you CANNOT do using standard meters, or combinations thereof ? Turning again to Ferneyhough: A passage of four bars, with the following time signatures: 7/8 7/20 3/12 5/16 The 3/12 bar could be notated as triplets in 2/8 - although this removes (or at least obscures) the three-beat structure of that bar. However, there's no way of rewriting the 7/20 bar using tuplets. It could be done in 7/16, with a tempo change in the ratio 4:5. Except that there's a rallentando marked over these four bars, making such a tempo marking impossible. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Tyler Turner schrieb: Addressing the point in another post about the inclusion of GPO being a catch up to Sibelius Kontakt implementation - this isn't the case. Finale was already pretty much on par. The sounds weren't quite up to Sibelius', but Sibelius only includes 20 sounds, and only 8 can be used simultaneously. That's not enough for any decent size ensemble. Finale GPO gives 100 sounds and 64 can be used simultaneously. Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. (Should we talk about marketing blurp?) Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
On 7-Jul-05, at 11:00 AM, John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A twelfth note is a triplet eighth note. They are sometimes used in new music (eg Mark-Anthony Turnage has used it frequently I believe) Henry Cowell was way ahead of the game with this sort of thinking. Why is 12/12 not like 12/8? Because 12/8 is not triplets. Yes, I know it sounds like triplets, but it's not. Why is there so much confusion over compound time? Well, perhaps I'm too dense to follow your reasoning, but your two statements above do seem to be mutually contradictory! If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it sounds like triplets, it's triplets. Q.E.D! Its barcarole is worse than its bite! By definition a triplet is 3 in the time of 2. That's different than a compound meter. There's nothing to dispute here. _ with best wishes, John http://abram.ca/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:12 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: But then later, you are playing some triplets which work out perfectly, but you ONLY NEED FIVE OF THEM, not six. If you needed 6, then a bar of 2/4 with triplets marked normally would be great. But if you want a new downbeat after you've only played FIVE eighth-note-triplets, then you're out of luck in standard metre systems. Then you would need a bar indicating 5 (or really 3+2) over whatever eighth-note triplets are in relation to a quarter note. Hey, we do the math, and you get 12 triplets in a whole, which makes them 1/12th notes. So you mark 5/12, and put in three eighths beamed together followed by 2 eighths beamed together, and I would put a bracketed 3 tuplet over the first group, and the same over the second group (even though there are only TWO notes in it) for clarity. I'm really not sure that's clearer than a bar of 5/8 with a quarter = dotted quarter indication, which is what I would use in that situation. If you didn't want to change the note value in the denominator and you didn't want a metric modulation, you could use a fractional time sig: 1+2/3 - 4 Both of those solutions make more sense to me than 12th notes. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. What's chewing all the CPU? In Sonar, I can run 64-plus tracks of soundfonts on the Athlon 1.4GHz system I built 4 years ago -- using regular WMD drivers, not even ASIO. What's so intensive about GPO vs. any other sample-based software? Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Darcy James Argue wrote: On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:12 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: But then later, you are playing some triplets which work out perfectly, but you ONLY NEED FIVE OF THEM, not six. If you needed 6, then a bar of 2/4 with triplets marked normally would be great. But if you want a new downbeat after you've only played FIVE eighth-note-triplets, then you're out of luck in standard metre systems. Then you would need a bar indicating 5 (or really 3+2) over whatever eighth-note triplets are in relation to a quarter note. Hey, we do the math, and you get 12 triplets in a whole, which makes them 1/12th notes. So you mark 5/12, and put in three eighths beamed together followed by 2 eighths beamed together, and I would put a bracketed 3 tuplet over the first group, and the same over the second group (even though there are only TWO notes in it) for clarity. I'm really not sure that's clearer than a bar of 5/8 with a quarter = dotted quarter indication, which is what I would use in that situation. Possibly true. But replace 5/12 with 5/10, and there's no easy change-of-tempo indication. Also, if you have these changes happening frequently (such as every single bar!), the x/12 system is far less messy. If you didn't want to change the note value in the denominator and you didn't want a metric modulation, you could use a fractional time sig: 1+2/3 - 4 A change to 5/12 is actually a change of the speed of the pulse. This is lacking in such a fracntional sig. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:42 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. What's chewing all the CPU? In Sonar, I can run 64-plus tracks of soundfonts on the Athlon 1.4GHz system I built 4 years ago -- using regular WMD drivers, not even ASIO. What's so intensive about GPO vs. any other sample-based software? Native Instruments's sh-tty Mac implementation, basically. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On Jul 7, 2005, at 5:55 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:Thinking about this theory even more, why on earth any of these composers who want playback more than output chose Finale in the first place, is am complete mystery to me. And I doubt that even with the latest improvements Finale is going to be the right choice. What they want is a sequencer with notation capability. Not an engraving tool with limited output capability. If Finale is now going to compete with Sequencers I may very well leave the ship quite soon. In fact I may do that anyway, unless we get linked parts and score. I just spent several days revising score, parts and my intermediate score file. It was a nightmare. If Digital Performer had decent notation I would never have bought Finale. I've always wanted one program to do it all, but have always been told that that'll never happen. This requires me to do my work twice--in Finale for printout, and in Digital Performer for a decent sounding mockup. I used to start in DP, and since opening a MIDI file in Finale required too much tweaking, I had to start from scratch to recreate the same file in Finale. Then I discovered that if I start in Finale, and then open the MIDI file in DP, there's a lot less tweaking to do to get decent playback. And Human Playback helps to get a less mechanical-sounding mockup. Now with GPO, it's almost possible for me to get what I need in Finale alone, although I'm a little disappointed in GPO (at $139 I can't really complain--you get what you pay for).  I can see that the addition of a mixer in Finale will be helpful in getting my mockup made. But Finale has a long way to go before it can even begin to compete with DP or Logic. And judging from what I've read here, that's not the path most listers want to see MM take.I'm surprised that this dynamic part linking issue is suddenly such a big deal to everybody. Like I said in an earlier post, MOTU's Mosaic had that feature, and if MOTU hadn't completely abandoned that program, I would never have bought Finale. I've always missed this feature since coming to Finale. But until this announcement from Sibelius, I don't remember anybody making much of a fuss about dynamic parts on this list. Now all of a sudden almost everybody wants this feature, and claim to have wanted it all along. I'll tell you this. Since getting on the Finale bandwagon, I've tried to be a loyal user, resisting the urge to jump ship and go with Sibelius, even though I have clients who would like me to do so. But this dynamic parts feature is awfully appealing to me--enough so that I may just have to bite the bullet and make that jump to Sibelius.Lon Lon Price, Los Angeles [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hometown.aol.com/txstnr/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. What's chewing all the CPU? In Sonar, I can run 64-plus tracks of soundfonts on the Athlon 1.4GHz system I built 4 years ago -- using regular WMD drivers, not even ASIO. What's so intensive about GPO vs. any other sample-based software? Dennis It might be Finale. I've noticed that during playback, Finale eats 99% of CPU cycles, even on my 3.2 GHz P4. That makes it hard to even loop back and record the audio from external MIDI devices if Finale is generating the playback. Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
--- Johannes Gebauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tyler Turner schrieb: Addressing the point in another post about the inclusion of GPO being a catch up to Sibelius Kontakt implementation - this isn't the case. Finale was already pretty much on par. The sounds weren't quite up to Sibelius', but Sibelius only includes 20 sounds, and only 8 can be used simultaneously. That's not enough for any decent size ensemble. Finale GPO gives 100 sounds and 64 can be used simultaneously. Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. (Should we talk about marketing blurp?) Johannes -- I can't speak for Macs, but I think most people running PC's will get decent performance as long as they have enough RAM. Granted I have a reasonably fast PC (a 3.2GHz notebook), but I'm not getting much in the way of problems in running files with over 40 instruments loaded. I haven't been held back by performance issues on my $1300 computer, so I imagine my success won't be too uncommon. Tyler __ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Lee, It's not Finale. It's the Native Instruments Kontakt Player. The Mac version sucks. Results are equally awful playing back GPO instruments from a sequencer. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:50 PM, Lee Actor wrote: At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. What's chewing all the CPU? In Sonar, I can run 64-plus tracks of soundfonts on the Athlon 1.4GHz system I built 4 years ago -- using regular WMD drivers, not even ASIO. What's so intensive about GPO vs. any other sample-based software? Dennis It might be Finale. I've noticed that during playback, Finale eats 99% of CPU cycles, even on my 3.2 GHz P4. That makes it hard to even loop back and record the audio from external MIDI devices if Finale is generating the playback. Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.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
Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
On 7 Jul 2005 at 0:22, Christopher Smith wrote: On Jul 6, 2005, at 11:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: [] Is your MIDI interface USB? If so, you may have something else contending for the bandwidth of the USB interface, and that could be the reason you're having the problem. I have a USB MIDI interface (4 ports) plugged into one of two available USB ports, also a Logitech wireless mouse, and of course my computer keyboard, both plugged into my screen's USB port, as designed. I occasionally plug a SanDisk memory card reader, or a Cue Cat barcode reader (don't ask!) into the other port, but the problem is there even when neither one is plugged in. Do you have a non-USB keyboard port? If so, I'd try getting the keyboard off the USB bus so that MIDI is on USB and the rhythmic values you're typing is *not* on USB. That actually could be the source of the problem. I'm not sure how USB prioritizes the order of data sent over the bus. In your case, the order is crucial, and if USB can't maintain that timing-wise, it may be entirely the source of your problem. I have always felt that USB is not a very good technology. I prefer to have only one of my input devices on USB at a time (keyboard or mouse -- the computer I'm typing this on has a USB mouse and a non- USB keyboard), and I don't think it's at all an appropriate technology for any kind of regular data access. That is, I'd never put any storage devices on it that were for any purpose other than backup or portability (i.e., I would never edit data resident on a USB-attached drive). That's not to say I don't use it. My scanner is plugged into USB as are my digital camera interface and my Handspring Visor interface. But all of those are things I use only occasionally, and mostly while not doing something else. That's my rule of thumb -- USB is fine for non-continuous use (mostely) one device at a time. But I don't know anything about the ports provided on a Mac, nor about OS X's implementation of USB support. I don't even know that USB is *not* designed to support real-time data transfer in order from various devices attached to the bus. But it would certainly be the first place I'd start looking to solve the annoying problems you're experiencing. -- 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] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal
On 7 Jul 2005 at 1:10, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 06 Jul 2005, at 11:25 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: But you HAD objected to the concept of having two different windows open on the same file - why? I personally much prefer the default Sibelius behavior, where you can simply click a button to switch between Score View and Part View without spawning a new window. I never resize Finale windows so I can see two documents at once (or two views of the same document) -- if I need to compare two parts, or two different sections of the score, I print them out. It just strikes me as potentially confusing to have separate windows for each part (plus the score) when they are not, in fact, separate documents. The name in the title bar is different for each part (obviously), but this really is like opening multiple instances of the same document, and I don't think that's something most Mac users routinely do. No, it's not. If it were, the second window would be read-only. You're afraid of it, and I see no good reason to be. Don't you have tiling functionality available to you, so you can tile the open windows? On Windows, when I'm comparing, say, exposition and recap, I open the main document window, then launch a second document window, and then choose TILE HORIZONTALLY. This sizes the two open windows to fit the parent Finale window with two equally-sized rectangular windows, one below the other. The working window I prefer to be at the top, and the one I'm looking at at the bottom (though I sometimes edit in both windows). The title bar clearly distinguishes the two windows. The only problem with the implementation is that the order of the windows is not predictable. Every other Windows application I've ever used places the tiled windows by order of opening. That is, your first window is at the top, the second at the bottom. But Finale is not predictable in this regard, which is pretty annoying. I still think Finale should support it -- after all, I can see how people would find the separate windows useful. I just wanted to voice my support for *also* including the option to switch from Score View to Parts View within a single window. I fully agree with that, and my whole point was that if part view were implemented as a view equal with scroll and score view that you'd automatically get just that, and the ability to view different parts via the new document windows. Have you downloaded the Sibelius demo and tried this out? The UI for Dynamic Parts takes a little getting used to (at least for me). This isn't to take away from the solution they chose, which is a good one. It's just that the whole concept of Dynamic Parts is a tough UI nut to crack, and as soon as you get into multiple windows, it's hard to make it obvious what's going on. I haven't had the time yet. As to multiple windows, I think having it set up to only display score and one part is just about as useless an implementation as you could have, except for the demo, where it comes in really handy to show the linked editing. In all other circumstances, I just don't see how it is very useful, compared to the ability to compare two different parts side by side. The way I described above for Finale would allow you to open however many windows you liked in whatever view you liked, rather than restricting the way in which you can view your work, as it seems Sibelius does. I'll have to see what the demo does, when I get around to it. Of course, if I were not using Finale list to avoid the work I'm *supposed* to be doing, I could be avoiding work by downloading the demo. . . :) -- 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] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Tyler Turner wrote: No, I'm quite sure that a large majority of Finale users use Finale at least in part for their own personal compositions. I can draw this conclusion from my own experience dealing with a sampling of thousands of Finale users as well as other sources. Compositional use of Finale is the rule rather than the exception. This is true. Finale absolutely needs to maintain its success among composers, and playback plays a key role. Addressing the point in another post about the inclusion of GPO being a catch up to Sibelius Kontakt implementation - this isn't the case. Finale was already pretty much on par. The sounds weren't quite up to Sibelius', but Sibelius only includes 20 sounds, and only 8 can be used simultaneously. That's not enough for any decent size ensemble. Finale GPO gives 100 sounds and 64 can be used simultaneously. The sounds included with previous Finale updates were laughable. Seriously. They were sad. Have those who want the better sounds of GPO already purchased GPO? Most haven't. This isn't the way Finale's market works. Users by in large are looking for the 1 program solution where everything just works. They don't want to mess with MIDI controllers. They certainly don't want to try to link together multiple applications. Even selecting instruments manually is too much to expect from the average user. The new notation software company Virtuoso Works, makers of Notion, correctly identified the need for a notation program with outstanding playback and no hassles. What they didn't understand was that they weren't alone, and so now they are left with an application with playback inferior to Finale's and notation capabilities not much better than NotePad's. I can't tell you how many times I answered questions such as Can I make this sound any better? by explaining the options of using sample software or purchasing hardware synths, sound cards, etc. When I explained these options to people, nearly all of them said, oh well, I guess my existing sounds will be good enough. Most people who want better sounds are not willing to go to great lengths to get it. But as Finale 2004 proved, they will upgrade their Finale to get it. If it just works, they're interested. On the flip side of this, there are people, including myself, who have very functional computers, which simply cannot use GPO effectively. My 2.5Mhz Athlon PC drops out after about 6 instruments, and the 933Mhz G4 I have does even fewer. The people I know who use Finale still use it on older machines. They are going to get this update and go how comes it doesn't work?. Instead of bundling GPO, why not offer like a huge discount on a Good Midi sound device. Like what PG Music does. Offer up a Roland Sound Canvas synth at a discounted price. If you TAKE OUT the GPO aspect, the update is more like a bug fix. Hardly anything to write home about. Unless you include the textured paper feature. Woohoo. Oh, and the handbell notation. Yeah, I'm going to use that a lot... ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
dhbailey schrieb: Now that we have seen how Sibelius has done it (very elegantly from what I've seen of the demo) and we know it can be done, we're clamoring for it more. Although I agree, Robert P. has got me thinking. I do fear that not only is this going to be a really major change in programme design (especially for spacing), it will also screw most plugins, probably. I am not saying it can't be done. However, I am beginning to think that it won't happen, simply because yearly programme updates will not allow it. And when it does come it will probably break most plugins. However, here is an idea: How about inventing a Project File architecture, where the linking is done via a project file which doesn't include any actual notation data, but just keeps track of all linked score and part files. When you need to update the notation, just do it in the score file, and the relevant data will be shoved into the part files, while maintaining the file independence. Most Audio apps work like this. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A sincere thank you for the resposes to my question. My humble opinion still stands, that using an esoteric meter such as anything/12 will return an uncertain performance. *Can* result in it, not *will* result. PS - What is the notation for a twelth note ? If an 8th is a single flag and a 16th is double flag, is a 12th note a flag and a half ? It's still quaver notation - http://www.owainsutton.co.uk/images/x-10.jpg ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
While we are on about it: House styles is another area where Sibelius is far superior to Finale. Several times I have suggested ways how some house style functionality could be added to Finale with as I understand very limited programming effort (as most of it is already in Finale, just not used). All it needs from my perspective: - More fields in the File info, which should all be addable via placeholders. - Better handling of default fonts - a description field for articulations - a set of plugins which can deal with moving the notation data from one template to another, utilizing the above (ie distiguishing standard articulations like staccato etc by their description field), plus the ability to run certain plugins automatically (like Patterson beams). As far as I can see this would open the way for house styles, in a more flexible way than Sibelius offers. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: It seems to me self-evident that linked parts are the way Finale should have been designed from the beginning. ...The data file is a database, and there are various report views for showing that data and subsets of that data Then the only question is whether or not the different views are completely independent of each other in terms of the view characteristics (i.e., layout) or if subviews (individual parts) inherit characteristics from the global view (score). I agree--with this caveat: The Page Setup parameters must be independently configurable/savable for the score and for each individual part. Anything less is a deal-breaker as far as I'm concerned. As of now, I know of no program that allows more than one Page Setup configuration (at a time) per file, and I have therefore assumed that this restriction is unavoidable. Correct me if I'm wrong. And while we're at it, would it be asking too much to figure out some way to transfer page setup data between platforms? I realize the operation is done completely differently in Mac vs. Windows, but information is information isn't it?--and should, therefore, somehow be retrievable and transferrable. 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] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
I don't know how efficient Finale playback is on Macs without GPO, but on PCs it's horrendous. I use Finale to drive external MIDI devices, which you wouldn't think would very strenuous, but I can't even reliably record the audio output from my mixer in another app at the same time, on a very fast PC. Something is definitely out of whack there. -Lee Lee, It's not Finale. It's the Native Instruments Kontakt Player. The Mac version sucks. Results are equally awful playing back GPO instruments from a sequencer. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:50 PM, Lee Actor wrote: At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. What's chewing all the CPU? In Sonar, I can run 64-plus tracks of soundfonts on the Athlon 1.4GHz system I built 4 years ago -- using regular WMD drivers, not even ASIO. What's so intensive about GPO vs. any other sample-based software? Dennis It might be Finale. I've noticed that during playback, Finale eats 99% of CPU cycles, even on my 3.2 GHz P4. That makes it hard to even loop back and record the audio from external MIDI devices if Finale is generating the playback. Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote: In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are reflected immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the notes are only stored in one place. On the other hand, the file keeps track of different positioning information for things like expressions -- one position in the score and a different one in the part -- so that you can make small tweaks as needed. Aaron. I can dig it, but: Tacet movements and other omitted or added measures for one part (e.g., optional cadenza not written out in score)? Cue notes--not in score, and different in different parts? Divisi on 2 staves vs. 1? Above all, as I've just remarked elsewhere: different Page Setup settings? Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Thank you Owain for your response. If I understand your correction of will to can correctly, you agree that it can return an uncertain result. Okay, I can accept that. Richard From: Owain Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/07/07 Thu PM 04:17:50 EDT To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A sincere thank you for the resposes to my question. My humble opinion still stands, that using an esoteric meter such as anything/12 will return an uncertain performance. *Can* result in it, not *will* result. PS - What is the notation for a twelth note ? If an 8th is a single flag and a 16th is double flag, is a 12th note a flag and a half ? It's still quaver notation - http://www.owainsutton.co.uk/images/x-10.jpg ___ 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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
On 7 Jul 2005 at 1:00, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: Christopher Smith wrote: Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam algorithm. Even now, I often find myself getting ahead of Speedy Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale remembers the numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as you would expect) but DOES NOT remember what MIDI note I was holding down at the time I hit the number key! Well, I do not not expect Finale to remember the MIDI note I was holding when I hit the number key. If Finale is well behaved that is, if it follows the rules and conventions established for the Operating System, what seems to be Finale remembering entries in the numeric keypad, is actually an artifact of Finale getting the next keystroke in the Keyboard buffer of the O.S. I can't say whether it is possible, or rather how difficult it would be, for Finale to implement a shadow MIDI key buffer that could be somehow linked to the OS keyboard buffer, so that when Finale gets the sixteenth item from the keyboard buffer, it also gets the sixteenth item from the MIDI buffer. Well, it can't be done by event count, since you can have a different number of events. If you get 16 from the MIDI interface and 15 from the keyboard, you want the extra from the MIDI interface ignored, because it didn't have a corresponding rhythmic value. Likewise, if you have 16 from the keyboard and 15 from the MIDI device, you want the 16th used, since it indicates the rhythmic value for a rest. So, it's not about matching up sequential items between two buffers. It's about the timecode on each event -- they have to be received in the order they were sent in order for Finale to make sense of them. That is, the keyboard data has to come between the NOTE ON/NOTE OFF from the MIDI keyboard in order for Finale to know the rhythmic value of the note. It has to be real-time data, and that's why I suggested that the problems Chris were having were caused by some kind of timing problems in the USB bus, and the easiest suggestion to test this is to take one of the devices off the USB bus, so that there's no longer contention on the bus, or artifacts of any possible inaccuracies in the timing data used by the USB bus. If Finale has a more complex beaming algorithm than it presently does, no doubt this problem will get worse. I doubt that, as the beaming algorithm is strictly computation and followed by redraw, and the problem you describe, of numeric keypad entries not matching the correct pitches is a hardware / OS problem. And the redraw probably takes thousands more CPU cycles than the calculation. -- 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] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 7 Jul 2005 at 19:48, Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote: Tyler wrote: Now if you want to get specific, the reason other people wanted it was because those other people saw a point in it. And quite frankly so did the people at MakeMusic. But when it comes right down to it, the reason to include the feature stems first from the fact that people WANT it. I requested a mixer in the next version of Finale, but mainly because I was sick of having to create all these non-printing expressions to try to be able to hear certain parts in the score for checking purposes that were rendered quite inaudible by the out-of-tune, unbalanced solo violin patches. So, therefore, to correct an inadequacy in Finale in the first place. My version of Finale has no violin patches. I use the ones provided in the wavetable synthesizer on my sound card. But if you're talking about Finale 2004 and later, then, yes, you had violin patches from Finale (the Finale soundfont), and, as I've said repeatedly, the point at which Finale was providing the instruments was the point at which Finale should have had a mixer. Of course, if it's a basic balance problem, I don't see why you couldn't just up the base velocity of all the notes in the weak part, or put a volume control expression at the beginning of all the other parts to set their volume lower than that of weak sample. Of course, if Human Playback gets involved or you're using lots of swells and diminuendos, you'd have to adjust those to account for this. I'm not sure how a mixer makes this any easier -- you have to do exactly the same things, just with a different UI. I, for one, have never found the concept of presenting a picture of a mixing board onscreen to be a particularly intuitive interface for this kind of thing, even though it's pretty much a universal aspect of all sequencers. I don't think of volume as controlled with knobs. I think of it as a graph, with a line that rises and falls over time. If I could draw that line, that would, to me, be the most intuitive UI for controlling volume/balance. But that's just me, I guess. -- 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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Owain for your response. If I understand your correction of will to can correctly, you agree that it can return an uncertain result. Okay, I can accept that. Yep - and so can any notation ;) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] tacet instrument
On Jul 6, 2005, at 6:52 PM, Paul Hayden wrote: Two questions about using tacet: 1. An instrument is not used in the first movement of a multi-movement work. Should the instrument be included on the first page of music in the score (and then perhaps deleted on other pages of the first movement)? Tradition says that the first system in each movement of any work (except for obvious things like string quartets) should show all the instruments required in that movement, and that movement only. To learn what instruments are required for the whole piece, you look at the Instrumentation list that precedes the first page of music--that's what it's there for. That said, the method you propose is not wrong, it is just not required, and not quite traditional. 2. When creating the part for that instrument, should I just put I. TACET and then start the second movement directly below on the same page? Yes. 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] Dynamic Parts in Finale
On 7 Jul 2005 at 17:57, Johannes Gebauer wrote: I don't think you quite understood what I am after. I find the basic concept of how cue notes are included in the first place very short sighted. Simply adding them to a free layer is always going to cause all sorts of problems. What I want is a separate cue notes layer. I've always felt that the key to a sensible implementation of cue notes was in the MIRROR feature. But nobody uses that because it's all bollixed up and doesn't really work. If they fixed that, it would give you a lot of what you desire with linked cue notes. If they then added conditional display to mirrors, or the ability to apply a staff style that displayed mirrors in part view but not in score view, then you'd have what you want. But I wouldn't hold my breath. -- 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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
On 7 Jul 2005 at 10:15, Technoid wrote: On 7/6/05, Aaron Sherber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special view of the score. From a software engineering standpoint, this is the way it should be. Word processors and many other applications have been doing this for years: Store the data (document) only once. Provide multiple views of that single document. (There is no linking taking place.) While a wholeheartedly support the basic thrust of your argument, I'd say your choice of example is poor -- word processor data is nowhere near as complex as Finale data. A more correct example would be a database program, where the data is stored in related tables and you can create report layouts independent of the data that display whatever subsets of data you want, with each report layout having its own independent layout characteristics. -- 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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:27 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:12 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: But then later, you are playing some triplets which work out perfectly, but you ONLY NEED FIVE OF THEM, not six. If you needed 6, then a bar of 2/4 with triplets marked normally would be great. But if you want a new downbeat after you've only played FIVE eighth-note-triplets, then you're out of luck in standard metre systems. Then you would need a bar indicating 5 (or really 3+2) over whatever eighth-note triplets are in relation to a quarter note. Hey, we do the math, and you get 12 triplets in a whole, which makes them 1/12th notes. So you mark 5/12, and put in three eighths beamed together followed by 2 eighths beamed together, and I would put a bracketed 3 tuplet over the first group, and the same over the second group (even though there are only TWO notes in it) for clarity. I'm really not sure that's clearer than a bar of 5/8 with a quarter = dotted quarter indication, which is what I would use in that situation. If you didn't want to change the note value in the denominator and you didn't want a metric modulation, you could use a fractional time sig: 1+2/3 - 4 Both of those solutions make more sense to me than 12th notes. And both would get mighty messy if you had more than a couple of them in the space of a phrase. As you said, in a normal, uncomplicated situation, an ordinary metric modulation would be best, and certainly what I would strive for. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
On 7 Jul 2005 at 12:37, John Howell wrote: Seems to me that talking about beats compounds (sorry!) the confusion. Yes, 12/8 can indicate 4 beats per bar; that's sort of the default interpretation. At a slower tempo, however, it can indicate 12 beats per bar. I've conducted Bach slow movements that required exactly that. And at a faster tempo it can indicate 2 beats per bar. Young musicians have to learn that ALL time signatures are variable. They may first encounter 6/8 in the context of marches, 2 beats to a bar. And they will be confused the first time they run into 6/8 with six beats to a bar, but that's just one more variable in our notation that they have to master. Well, I disagree entirely with your point here. You're writing from the standpoint of a conductor -- yes, a conductor has to convey subdivisions in slow tempos, but that does not mean the beat has changed. A slow 12/8 may need 8th-note subdivisions beaten, but that is *not* the same thing as 12 beats to the bar. I also don't think there's such a thing as 6/8 in six, even at slow tempos -- not, at least, as a standard interpretation (who knows what composers have imposed on poor musicians by trying to use conventional notation to convey something at odds with its usual meaning). I think the use of a note as denominator would eliminate all these problems. 6/8 would become 2/Q., and would also allow one to notate 6/E if one actually wanted it. That makes far more sense than the absolutely idiotic 12/12. -- 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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Do you have a non-USB keyboard port? If so, I'd try getting the keyboard off the USB bus so that MIDI is on USB and the rhythmic values you're typing is *not* on USB. Umm, AFAIK USB is the only option for Mac keyboard plugging in. That actually could be the source of the problem. I'm not sure how USB prioritizes the order of data sent over the bus. In your case, the order is crucial, and if USB can't maintain that timing-wise, it may be entirely the source of your problem. You may be right. But I don't see much I can do about it, aside from slowing down. Speed(y) Kills! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
Andrew Stiller schrieb: On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote: In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are reflected immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the notes are only stored in one place. On the other hand, the file keeps track of different positioning information for things like expressions -- one position in the score and a different one in the part -- so that you can make small tweaks as needed. Aaron. I can dig it, but: Tacet movements and other omitted or added measures for one part (e.g., optional cadenza not written out in score)? Cue notes--not in score, and different in different parts? Divisi on 2 staves vs. 1? Above all, as I've just remarked elsewhere: different Page Setup settings? And much more basic: as Robert remarked it is absolutely essential to have separate spacing for each part. The way that Finale's spacing works I fear that this might indeed make the one file, different views approach incredibly complicated, as the data will have to be separated into global and part data, and in fact every element has to be effectively both, with individual decision on what is global and what isn't. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale
David W. Fenton schrieb: I've always felt that the key to a sensible implementation of cue notes was in the MIRROR feature. But nobody uses that because it's all bollixed up and doesn't really work. If they fixed that, it would give you a lot of what you desire with linked cue notes. If they then added conditional display to mirrors, or the ability to apply a staff style that displayed mirrors in part view but not in score view, then you'd have what you want. But I wouldn't hold my breath. I do actually use the mirror feature. It works, but parts of the interface is pretty dreadful. The only other complaint I have is that Finale pops up a warning about mirrors not being converted properly when extracting parts _after_ it has done all the extracting. a) I can't understand why it doesn't pop up the warning _before_ it goes about extracting all the parts, and b) I don't understand why they never fixed this shortcoming in the first place. I agree that the mirror tool would be a very good way to implement cue notes, if it was improved slightly. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Owain Sutton wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Owain for your response. If I understand your correction of will to can correctly, you agree that it can return an uncertain result. Okay, I can accept that. Yep - and so can any notation ;) Now there's no need to bring hemiolas into this discussion! :-) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Richard As Creston sez: It looks exactly the same but what it looks like is a 'transposition' in that a 1/6 note looks exactly like a 1 quarter note in a quarter note triplet. In 6/6 the tuplet bracket would still be applied. Either way this kind of rhythm will entail explication. The problem is that of dealing with 1/3 of one beat as in: 3/3 becoming either 4/3's or 2/3's of one beat of the base 4/4 pulse and still being able to revert to eight note fractioning subsequently (8/8 e.g.). 2/8 is 1/3 longer than 2/12 So that playing the time sig: 1/4] 2/8] 2/12] 1/4]2/8]2/12] playing rhythmic units: one quarter] 2 eights] 2 notes of eight note triplet] 1 q] etc. This is quite simple with the 2/12 but otherwise -- what? What would you like to see here. No matter what you do it is going to look messy but with 2/12 it is very clean. As for 7/10 or 13/20 -- there's a fraction too far. As a student I once wrote a compound tuplet that was a 56 over something (i can't remember) -- it was beautiful but hell if I could ever find out what it sounded like. Jerry On 7-Jul-05, at 4:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A sincere thank you for the resposes to my question. My humble opinion still stands, that using an esoteric meter such as anything/12 will return an uncertain performance. Richard PS - What is the notation for a twelth note ? If an 8th is a single flag and a 16th is double flag, is a 12th note a flag and a half ? PPS - These are sincere questions, not sarcasm as they might seem in the printed word. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Gerald Berg ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
On 07 Jul 2005, at 4:24 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: While we are on about it: House styles is another area where Sibelius is far superior to Finale. Several times I have suggested ways how some house style functionality could be added to Finale with as I understand very limited programming effort (as most of it is already in Finale, just not used). All it needs from my perspective: - More fields in the File info, which should all be addable via placeholders. - Better handling of default fonts - a description field for articulations - a set of plugins which can deal with moving the notation data from one template to another, utilizing the above (ie distiguishing standard articulations like staccato etc by their description field), plus the ability to run certain plugins automatically (like Patterson beams). As far as I can see this would open the way for house styles, in a more flexible way than Sibelius offers. All of that would be great. Sibelius has had House Styles for some time now (maybe even since v1.0?) and an alternative solution for Finale is long overdue. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
On 07 Jul 2005, at 4:36 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote: On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote: In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are reflected immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the notes are only stored in one place. On the other hand, the file keeps track of different positioning information for things like expressions -- one position in the score and a different one in the part -- so that you can make small tweaks as needed. Aaron. I can dig it, but: Tacet movements and other omitted or added measures for one part (e.g., optional cadenza not written out in score)? Cue notes--not in score, and different in different parts? Divisi on 2 staves vs. 1? Above all, as I've just remarked elsewhere: different Page Setup settings? Andrew, I addressed all of those issues (except the cadenza) in my initial post proposing how this feature might work in Finale, which for some reason you completely dismissed. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Owain Sutton wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Owain for your response. If I understand your correction of will to can correctly, you agree that it can return an uncertain result. Okay, I can accept that. Yep - and so can any notation ;) And I can agree with that statement as well, it's just more likely mis-interpreted with an obfuscated meter. Richard PS - When I performed briefly for Don Ellis, in the early 70's, we played some very odd meters, but I do not recall 12/12. I do recall 24/8 (The Great Divide) While I respect the opposing point of view, I am not convinced that 12/12 is required. PPS - If the use of an uncommon and confusing meter is an attempt to stretch artistically, I admire that. If however, it is merely someone's ego to write something that very few can perform, I think it is a sad waste of perfectly good manuscript (paper or software file) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
Hi Chris, You have two possible solutions: 1) Get a FireWire MIDI interface. 2) Get a USB 2.0 card and a Belkin Tetrahub: http://tinyurl.com/6s9mf I have a FW MIDI interface and I never have a problem with Speedy not keeping up with MIDI input. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
On Jul 7, 2005, at 1:08 PM, John Howell wrote: Which, whoa, and other wh words like where properly start with a phoneme produced by a puff of air blown through pursed lips. Witch, and woe and ware do not. The pronunciation is often confused by young children, rap artists, and some speakers of dialectal English. In Broadcast Standard American, w and wh are pronounced identically, and the phoneme [hw] simply does not exist. Even in British RP [hw] is not universal. Gilbert and Sullivan's Never mind the why and wherefore is almost unsingable if you insist on rendering the Hs, and I know of no recording in which that is done. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] MOTU Updates vs. MakeMusic Updates
Looking that MOTU just updated Digital Performer to 4.6 for free to it's 4.5 users, and seeing all the GREAT improvements, it makes me laugh at MakeMusic and Finale. My God, there are a lot of useful, functional features that I can get for FREE updating to 4.6. Congrats MOTU! Honestly, this latest Finale update should have been for free...makes me wonder about MakeMusic...Couldn't they have updated Finale 2005 with the textured paper feature? Or some of these other things? Like the Handbell chart? I don't get the reasoning here ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
On 7 Jul 2005 at 13:08, John Howell wrote: At 8:27 PM -0600 7/6/05, John Abram wrote: On 6-Jul-05, at 5:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're really splitting hairs here -- putting 3 evenly spaced notes within one beat sounds like triplets to me, no matter how it's represented in the time signature. Yes it sounds the same, like witch sounds like which and like 4/8 sounds like 4/16 and 4/4. Poor example, I'm afraid, and one that suggests you are not a singer. Which, whoa, and other wh words like where properly start with a phoneme produced by a puff of air blown through pursed lips. Witch, and woe and ware do not. The pronunciation is often confused by young children, rap artists, and some speakers of dialectal English. Fred Waring insisted that his singers pronounce every sound (every phoneme) in every syllable and do so at the same instant, to ensure that the words were clearly intelligible. See, I read that as part of his point -- that here is a superficial similarity between the pronunciation of the words that, when one examines the details of pronunciation, vanishes. I thought his analogy was that 6/8 is not really the same thing as 2/4 with triplets, when examined closely. And I'd agree that that, though I'd also agree that it can be *treated* that way. A perfect example of that is the last movement (starts on p. 38 (17:07 in the MIDI file)) of this incompletely formatted score of a piano quartet: http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/FoersterOp11_1.PDF http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/FoersterOp11_1.MID The relevant sections begin on pp. 44 (19:07), 60 (23:58) and 64 (24:24). Here, it's pretty clear that the composer chose 2/4 with triplets just because he didn't have any method for notating 4 16ths in the time of 3 8th notes in 6/8. But in many cases, the distinction between the two meters is a salient, however subtle it may be. Aren't subtleties like that what good musical performance is about? -- 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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
On Jul 7, 2005, at 1:34 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: Next year, metric clocks! ...which you can see, BTW, on the walls in Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale - multi-file solution?
Robert Patterson and Johannes Gebauer have raised some excellent points about the feasibility of a single-file solution for Dynamic Parts in Finale. There is also the issue of a possible additional performance hit if Finale were to implement live updating as Sibelius does. What about a multi-file solution with manual updates -- after extracting parts, an option to update parts based on score or update score based on parts? Would that be a more feasible solution? Is there any way such a solution could duplicate all of the functionality of Sibelius's Dynamic Parts -- just without the auto-updating? Would this be the poor man's version, or could it actually be a *better* solution than SIb's single-file solution, if it was properly implemented? Your thoughts? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
On 7 Jul 2005 at 14:04, John Howell wrote: But the purpose of notation is, and always has been, communication. I simply do not choose to learn or perform music that requires me to learn new notation, unless the music itself is so great that the effort is worth while. That's an odd standard. I'd think the better standard would be that the notational irregularities should be justified by the musical content that they are trying to convey. That is, notational innovation should be motivated by trying to notate something that traditional notation cannot successfully convey. And how one can make a determination about the greatness of music before learning it (at least at some level), I don't know. Notation and musical style should be intimately linked. It's one of the reasons I'm a big fan of attempting to perform certain early music repertories using original notation -- the older notation was quite often better able to convey the musical content than transcriptions of it into modern notation (the recent discussion of how barlines cause performers to treat non-aligned meters as syncopations was a perfect example; it was Dennis who mentioned it in regard to his own music, but it's equally applicable to all sorts of 16th- through 17th-century music). If the musical style is a new one (for the performer) that means it's the performer's job to learn the new notation. Dismissing the music out of hand just because the notation is non- conventional is missing the point. It's like saying there's no such thing as good poetry in Portuguese, simply on the basis of my inability to read/speak Portuguese. -- 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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
And you can add to these: music examples for books. BF Noel Stoutenburg wrote: David W. Fenton opined: part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't preparing any performance materials at all. Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of part extraction: 1) hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and printed in close score, and 2) songs, including pop vocal music, and 3) choral music, where the voice parts are printed in full score, or in the case of larger works, where accompaniment is a larger ensemble, full choral score with keyboard reduction of the accompaniment, and 4) keyboard (piano, organ) music.. ___ 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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Christopher Smith wrote: and I would put a bracketed 3 tuplet over the first group, and the same over the second group (even though there are only TWO notes in it) for clarity. while i certainly agree with your post i think that tuplets are redundant here, as the /12 is meaning that already. i've used some fractionary time signatures like 2/3-over-quarter with an incomplete bracketed 3-tuplet, which is the same as 2/12. it worked really well. it took less than a minute to the performers to sort it out. it should be mentiones that those fractionary time signatures where in a context of pulse, all instruments playing staccato quarter notes. i've never tried with /12, though. marcelo There must be a good cause to write something that most accomplished musicians may have difficulty sight reading because of some obscure meter. Yes. One would only use it if it clarified the musical gesture. If I could accomplish it with an ordinary metric modulation instead, I would do it. But let's say again, in the same happily honking 4/4, that you are constantly doing this odd-triplet thing, but at one point actually have 4 pulses worth of triplets. Rather than switch back to 4/4 with tuplets for one measure, I might be tempted to make that measure 12/12. Might be is the operative word. 12/12 is not really in my vocabulary (12/8 barely is!) and I would do my darndest to find a conventional solution first. But that's how it would work. Christopher ___ 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] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 7 Jul 2005 at 11:46, Lon Price wrote: I'm surprised that this dynamic part linking issue is suddenly such a big deal to everybody. Like I said in an earlier post, MOTU's Mosaic had that feature, and if MOTU hadn't completely abandoned that program, I would never have bought Finale. I've always missed this feature since coming to Finale. But until this announcement from Sibelius, I don't remember anybody making much of a fuss about dynamic parts on this list. Now all of a sudden almost everybody wants this feature, and claim to have wanted it all along. I'll tell you this. Since getting on the Finale bandwagon, I've tried to be a loyal user, resisting the urge to jump ship and go with Sibelius, even though I have clients who would like me to do so. But this dynamic parts feature is awfully appealing to me--enough so that I may just have to bite the bullet and make that jump to Sibelius. You may not remember it, but *I* do. There have been at least a couple go-rounds of the discussion, hashing out how it should work and what the problems are. The Sibelius implementation pretty much follows exactly what was determined to be the best design here on this list. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the discussion here was a starting point (not the only one, though) for their implementation. Of course, from my point of view, dynamic parts in Finale is only a small part of my overall critique of the design of Finale, a critique I've been making on this list as long as I've been posting here. I've called for dynamic parts, cascading templates and subclassing of expressions/articulations. All of them have one thing in common: the elimination of the proliferation of copies of similar objects in favor of a single parent object with additional instances have their own properties. I have been saying this for years, that Finale needs to change basic things about the way it works in order to be easier to use. Dynamic parts would probably be the easiest to implement because of the existing Special Part Extraction as a starting point. But I still think that *all* of them need to be addressed if Finale is to survive (i.e., attract new users who can't be bothered with tweaking numeric settings in dialog boxes -- EVPUs? What's that). -- 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] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 7 Jul 2005 at 11:50, Lee Actor wrote: At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. What's chewing all the CPU? In Sonar, I can run 64-plus tracks of soundfonts on the Athlon 1.4GHz system I built 4 years ago -- using regular WMD drivers, not even ASIO. What's so intensive about GPO vs. any other sample-based software? It might be Finale. I've noticed that during playback, Finale eats 99% of CPU cycles, even on my 3.2 GHz P4. That makes it hard to even loop back and record the audio from external MIDI devices if Finale is generating the playback. That report of who is using CPU cycles may be misleading, depending on how the tool you're using reports, and in how Finale launches the processes necessary to do the playback. If a process is launched by another process, it may be considered a child thread, even though it's an independent program. That means that Finale could actually be using 1% of CPU, and the child process that plays the samples could be using the other 98%. In that case, it's not an inefficiency in Finale that is to blame for the heavy CPU usage, but an inefficiency in a process outside Finale that Finale depends on to get the job done, but which is counted as one of Finale's subthreads because it was launched by Finale. So, don't be so ready to blame Finale for the problem. -- 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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
At 05:52 PM 7/7/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote: Notation and musical style should be intimately linked. I agree with you in all respects, from early music to new music. And, in case I haven't mentioned it, I highly recommend the brand new SoundVisions by Moeller/Shim/Staebler. It's a worthy successor to the Cage Notations and the Karkoschka Notation in New Music. ISBN 3-89727-272-5, available from Amazon.de (not .com, yet). 39 euros, plus shipping (about $65 total to the US). Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 7 Jul 2005 at 22:15, Johannes Gebauer wrote: However, here is an idea: How about inventing a Project File architecture, where the linking is done via a project file which doesn't include any actual notation data, but just keeps track of all linked score and part files. When you need to update the notation, just do it in the score file, and the relevant data will be shoved into the part files, while maintaining the file independence. Most Audio apps work like this. That leaves it open to damage via intervention in the file system. There really isn't much difference between using a project file with multiple file system objects and restructuring the Finale file format to include a project file header structure, and individual file structures within a single document. Given that the parts would only need to store the delta (i.e., the changes) from the score, the data structures would be relatively small. That's vastly different from having separate files in parts, because those would still be Finale files, and would need to have all the original data. Linking that duplicate data back to the score file would be far, far, far harder than implementing it all within a separate file. Take it from a database programmer that the kind of denormalization (i.e., storing duplicate data of things that are really the same entity) you're suggesting is precisely why Finale has all sorts of problems already. Your suggestion would exercerbate this existing design problem, whereas dynamic parts as delta from the score stored within a single file could be the beginning of the restructuring of all sorts of parts of Finale to use cascading structures that eliminate duplication. This includes areas like expressions/articulations and but could also be extended to cascading templates and libraries (though there you might be ending up with duplication of data and external files, as is the case with, say, MS Word's cascading document templates). -- 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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Gerald Berg wrote: As for 7/10 or 13/20 -- there's a fraction too far. Why? It's easily playable, and it's something that cannot possibly be notated another way, unlike x/12. And, like it or not, it's found its way into mainstream notation and publication. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I respect the opposing point of view, I am not convinced that 12/12 is required. I agree that 12/12 is unnecessary - for the same reason as 8/8 is hardly ever used. However, 7/12, 5/10 etc have a distinct function that cannot be substitued with a 'normal' notation PPS - If the use of an uncommon and confusing meter is an attempt to stretch artistically, I admire that. If however, it is merely someone's ego to write something that very few can perform, I think it is a sad waste of perfectly good manuscript (paper or software file) In the case of Ferneyhough (I keep on going back to him, because he's somebody that consistently uses the fluctuation of pulse offered by x/10 and x/12), he fully acknowledges that he writes music that will not be performed as often as music he could choose to write. I've also seen him severely criticise students for writing unnecessarily-complex music. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
David W. Fenton wrote: I think the use of a note as denominator would eliminate all these problems. 6/8 would become 2/Q., and would also allow one to notate 6/E if one actually wanted it. I would love this system...but That makes far more sense than the absolutely idiotic 12/12. How would you replace 2/10, 7/24 etc? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale
On 7 Jul 2005 at 16:24, Andrew Stiller wrote: On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: It seems to me self-evident that linked parts are the way Finale should have been designed from the beginning. ...The data file is a database, and there are various report views for showing that data and subsets of that data Then the only question is whether or not the different views are completely independent of each other in terms of the view characteristics (i.e., layout) or if subviews (individual parts) inherit characteristics from the global view (score). I agree--with this caveat: The Page Setup parameters must be independently configurable/savable for the score and for each individual part. Anything less is a deal-breaker as far as I'm concerned. As of now, I know of no program that allows more than one Page Setup configuration (at a time) per file, and I have therefore assumed that this restriction is unavoidable. Correct me if I'm wrong. The way I've always described dynamic parts has been exactly that way -- that there is independent information stored for each view. If the positioning of a p in the flute part can be independent from the score, that means that there is a special data structure dedicated to the flute part for store layout/positioning data specific to that particular part. Including page/system layout definitions in that is a no-brainer. Now, I'd also say there should be a layer intermediate between the score and parts, a default part layout definition, so that when you create a part view, it inherits those part layout parameters (much like Finale's current independent page layouts settings for extracted parts). Then, when you edit a particular part (perhaps optimizing and dragging a few systems, or changing the margins of a few system to fit more/fewer systems on a page), those changes would be stored for the part. And while we're at it, would it be asking too much to figure out some way to transfer page setup data between platforms? I realize the operation is done completely differently in Mac vs. Windows, but information is information isn't it?--and should, therefore, somehow be retrievable and transferrable. I'm not sure why there's a problem today. If you create a file with page layout definitions in it, you can save a library, or send the file to someone and they can save the library for page layout and import it into their document. Or use Robert's Settings Scrapbook to copy the settings. I'm not sure what you're asking for here that can't be done in a manner that's already pretty consistent with the way these things work in Finale. -- 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] Another thing Sibelius has
On 7 Jul 2005 at 22:24, Johannes Gebauer wrote: While we are on about it: House styles is another area where Sibelius is far superior to Finale. Several times I have suggested ways how some house style functionality could be added to Finale with as I understand very limited programming effort (as most of it is already in Finale, just not used). All it needs from my perspective: - More fields in the File info, which should all be addable via placeholders. - Better handling of default fonts - a description field for articulations - a set of plugins which can deal with moving the notation data from one template to another, utilizing the above (ie distiguishing standard articulations like staccato etc by their description field), plus the ability to run certain plugins automatically (like Patterson beams). As far as I can see this would open the way for house styles, in a more flexible way than Sibelius offers. I honestly see nothing about any of these suggestions that belongs with what I conceive of as the concept of house styles. However, the concept *does* relate to my suggestion of cascading templates/libraries, where you could maintain a link between a file and it's parent template (or break the link, if you chose) and also maintain a link back to libraries, instead of having the current proliferation of item definitions that make it a mess to manage libraries. Libraries should be stored *outside* the file -- copying them into the file rather breaks the whole concept of library files. And what I'd really want would be two-way editing of linked libraries. What I mean is, if I edit the library, all Finale documents using that library would have their definitions updated automatically (perhaps the next time the file is loaded; perhaps conditionally, with a warning The Articulations library on which this file is based has been updated. Would you like to import those updates? YES | NO | SHOW ME THE UPDATES SO I CAN CHOOSE WHICH ONES TO IMPORT). Likewise, a change in a document that is to an item that is stored in a library should have the option of pushing the change you make up into the parent library. This kind of thing would make my life much easier by allowing me to keep all my files consistent without having to replicate edits in multiple files (in combination with running Robert's Settings Scrapbook plugin, which can't copy everything). But, none of this would really work well until expressions/articulations/etc. (the items that are library-based) were altered to be sub-classed, where you could create instantiations of a parent object with different characteristics. A perfect example of this is bowing marks. Rather than having a set of four, one for notes without articulations and one for notes with them, you'd have one parent definition, then a second definition that is a child of the original bow mark, but has different vertical spacing parameters. If you then altered, say, the font size of the original, the child mark would automatically inherit that. This would not preclude the actual copying to a new articulation definition, as is the case now -- it would simply allow one to have multiple related items that shared the common properties. For me, this would be most useful for the stroke articulation. I presently have to maintain a set of 6 of these, since the stroke is used as both a stacatto and as an accent. I want the appearance to be identical, but I want the performance effect to be different (one shortens duration, the other increases velocity). I also need a version of each that shows onscreen but doesn't print, and a version that prints but does not have a playback effect. Then I also need editorial versions of all of these (with brackets). If there were sub-classing of these, I could organize them either around appearance or around performance effect, then base the child definitions on the basic definition, but with different properties. Depending on what you could override, I could have a single definition as the parent for all, and then make the adjustments all based on the original. It makes more sense to me to have two performance-based definitions and then have those have multiple manifestations. Sounds complicated, but I don't think it must be in the implementation -- it's really not much different than simply replacing the existing copy button with copy to new definition for one button (that work the same as it does now) and a new button that says copy to linked definition (obviously there'd need to be work on terminology to make it more transparent and less geeky!). Or, you could have the existing copy functionality work the same as it does now, and have a checkbox that controls whether the new item is linked to its parent or not (and a program option that allows you to set the default behavior for this; probably most people would want it to be unlinked, so that it would work exactly the same
