Re: [Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
At 07:34 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote: Change all of those settings at once in a pre-existing file, simply by choosing a different house style? I don't know -- I'm guessing. It's the only implementation of such a thing that would make any sense to me. Yes, that;s the way it's designed to work. Once you have made all the settings to any of a large number of parameters available in a house style, you can then Export this style to a file, and give it a unique name. Sib gives it a .lib extension. Then, when working on another score in which you want to use that House Style, you simply Import that file, and its settings are then applied to the new score. Of course you're not locked into it - you can modify them, and if you wish save those modifications as yet another House Style. You can also include other style domains besides Engraving Rules' , like fonts, text styles, note heads, etc., and you can include custom keyboard shortcuts in that - for example for some score you might need a custom text style for stage directions - you can specify its size and attributes and then assign a kbd shortcut to it. (If the shortcut you want is already used you have the option of overriding it.) Another feature I put in a House Style for when I do work for others is a kbd shortcut for a highlight - literally a yellow block in a selection which i use as a proofing guide - highlit sections need to be checked with the composer. Not a terribly profound example, but the point is you can do it with just about anything. Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
David W. Fenton schrieb: Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already? And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface? Of course Macs support add on cards (at least those that have PCI). The System doesn't support old fashioned serial or printer ports. 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
I am talking about the smart cue notes plugin that is part of Finale (not TGTools, though I think Tobias programmed the plugin, too). Johannes Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account schrieb: Johannes Gebauer wrote: The smart cue notes plugin doesn't cut it for me, it causes more trouble than it is worth in my experience. Johannes, I'm interested in the problems you've had with this - are you using the one in the TGTools set? Because I find this to be an absolute time-saver in so many respects. There are some things I wish it would do better (such as automatically move the whole-bar rests out of the way of the music), but other than that, I've had almost no problems with it. Matthew -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
David W. Fenton schrieb: I guess my point is that the kind of restructuring I'm calling for here would go much further to making it possible to manage house styles than any of the things you mentioned. Except it won't happen. I'm not certain about that. The Finale developers are computer programmers. They understand better than *you* do the advantages of non-duplication of data, of sub-classing, of object-oriented programming. My bet is that they'd love to have the luxury to be turned loose on Finale and rework its data structures in order to support the kinds of UI and feature requests I've been talking about. But the realities of business don't allow them to pull a Netscape (and, of course, they shouldn't do that, anyway: David, I am absolutely certain it won't happen. Not unless the way MakeMusic has been working the last few years will change radically. 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] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
I haven't actually looked at Sibelius in a long time, but in David's case I am actually pretty sure he would find a lot of things to his liking in Sibelius. The basic concept of the application is much more what he has been asking for. Partly because Sibelius is a more modern package. But also considering what David does, I actually wonder whether Sibelius would actually be much more suited to his work than Finale. Johannes shirling neueweise schrieb: From: David W. Fenton For all those who claim the Sibelius UI is so intuitive, I'd like to hear an explanation. Was I unable to find the methods for accomplishing basic things (i.e., bad UI), or is Sibelius simply unable to do the things I was puzzled by (i.e., badly designed application)? it may be you just don't know the programme. i used it recently and found some things frustrating because i hadn't figured out how to do them, but saw a colleague working just as fast on sib as i do on finale, i just hadn't mastered the keyboard shortcuts. not a concrete answer, but there is no reason to judge it so harshly: you (as i am) are a sibelius beginner and experienced finale user. maybe reading a sib manual would help... or at the very least giving it a more than cursory test drive. cheers, jef -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
I think you are somewhat missing the point. It's not about supporting any kind of style element, it is about switching between different house styles. In Sibelius I understand you can switch between house styles at the click of the mouse, while in Finale try doing this. In Sibelius this also includes the position of texts etc on the page. That's where things get really dirty in Finale. Johannes Noel Stoutenburg schrieb: Johannes Gebauer wrote: While we are on about it: House styles is another area where Sibelius is far superior to Finale. In my considerations of Sibelius, the closed, proprietary way they treat the data file structure is such an early consideration, that I'm not reached the point of understanding exactly what a house style is. Intuitively, this would reaonsably include what fonts to use, details of spacing, of line widths, of beaming methods, of shape and spacing, of ties and slurs. But I can create a Finale template document which has the line thicknesses, and staff and system spacings, and font selections, and even additional insert items as reserved text blocks, and which pre-loads designated libraries. What can a Sibelius House Style do that one cannot do with a Finale template? ns ___ 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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
I think you'll find that "Q=80" only means anything to Americans. It means nothing in Europe. 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 version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already? Yes, I believe Chris's Mac has only USB 1.1. And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface? I think you misunderstood Johannes. He was talking about trying to add legacy technology unsupported by OS X, like a serial port. But if your Mac has a free PCI slot, it is easy and inexpensive to add a USB 2.0 card. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale - multi-file solution?
On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:18 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: No, it wouldn't. Yes, I knew you'd object. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view, but I also have good reason to believe a multi-file equivalent to Dynamic Parts (perhaps implemented by plug-ins -- e.g., Update score based on this part and Update parts based on this score) is vastly more likely to be implemented than a single-file solution, at least in the short term. So, for the moment, can we put aside the issue of technical hurdles? It's the harmonizing potential conflicts aspect that I'm more interested in. Let's put it another way -- let's say you *had* to come up with a multi-file, manually synchronized plugin equivalent to Sibelius's Dynamic Parts. What would that look like? How would you want it to resolve discrepancies between score and parts? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ 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??=
Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes 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. If you can anticipate the later need, you start off in 12/8, mixing dotted eighths, dotted sixteenths (or duplet versions of the two preceding) and normal eighths ... But then later, you are playing some triplets which work out perfectly, but you ONLY NEED FIVE OF THEM, not six. ... so you mark 5/8: no big deal. Of course, Ferneyhough has more complicated relationships than this to prescribe. 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. Other methods that would overcome this problem while remaining within traditional notation have been around for some time. The Fauré C minor piano quartet of 1879 mixes 2/4 and 6/8 in its scherzo, with a constant beat, quarter = dotted quarter. It is clear that the beat is constant, because time signature changes occur in different places in the four parts. In my experience, the unorthodox use of time signatures is the least of your problems, until the first (and only) time you try to use one as a rehearsal point. -- K C Moore ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Grace note spacing: summary
I didn't look at your file yet, David, but from Rafael's subsequent comment and your reply, it sounds like it's the exact same thing I saw on a file that Andrew Levin sent to me directly. That is, the discrepancy in spacing is due to the need to accommodate leger lines on one staff but not on the other. If all these grace note discrepancies are something of this nature, then the situation is fairly straightforward. I think that several of us, including me, were pre-disposed to suspect larger problems, due to our memories from earlier versions of the program when grace note spacing was significantly screwed up. But in current versions of Finale, although some grace note spacing is initially unexpected, it make logical sense within the confines of how Finale treats grace notes. The key to remember about grace notes is that their position is not directly linked to the beat chart. The beat chart is what makes all your non-grace notes align, and the grace notes are outside of that. Every grace note is linked to the beat that it leads to, and then if there's more than one grace note, they count backward from there. A grace note's position follows an algorithm that calculates how far to the left of its beat it needs to be. Since they all follow the same algorithm, grace notes with identical rhythms ought to have identical positions. Most of the time they do. When they differ, it's because there is an external factor affecting the amount of space needed and this factor is present in one system but not in the other. One external factor, as we've seen, is the need to accommodate a ledger line. Other possibilities are accidentals, articulations, lyrics, etc -- pretty much anything that affects music spacing. You're not very likely to attach lyrics to grace notes, but if you do, then a grace note on a vocal line with a syllable attached is going to push to the left to accommodate the syllable, whereas in the same line on an instrumental part, the grace note won't be pushed, so they won't align. I think the most common discrepancies are going to be due to ledger lines or accidentals. The one we've seen. For the other, imagine you have a line with two grace notes going up to the big note. In one instrument it goes B C# D, while in the other it goes D E F. If we assume that C# is not in the key signature, then that sharp will need to appear before the second grace note on the first line. The second line does not require an accidental. In a situation like this, there's really two questions. One is how to make the grace notes align (since by default they won't). The other is to ask yourself if you even want them to align. I'm not convinced that you will. In this case, to make the grace notes align, the second line is going to have a big ugly gap where the first line needs space for the sharp. If the two systems are adjacent, it might look OK, but if one is a flute at the top of the staff and the other is a violin several staves down, it might not look so nice when looking at just the strings. Do we really care about grace notes aligning horizontally in such a case, or does Finale have a good point in choosing to treat the two independently? With ledger lines, it's a subtler difference, so you might well draw a different conclusion, but even there it's not obvious to me that you'll always want to spread out grace notes for an instrument just because some other instrument has a parallel line requiring ledger lines. Off the top of my head, I'd think that if it's at the beginning of a measure or on a significant beat, I don't want them to align, since I'd rather that the staff with the tighter spacing is allowed to stay tight. If, on the other hand, the grace notes appear in the middle of a set of beamed notes (as they do in the example Andrew sent me), so that the tighter spacing is just going to result in a big ugly gap in front of the graces instead, then I think I do want them to align. In any case, whether you like it or not, when two parallel lines of grace notes have external factors differently affecting their spacing, Finale will by default display them unaligned. So if you don't like the result, your question will be how to fix it so that they do align. Once you understand the logic that causes the misalignment, the solutions suggest themselves, so I don't think I need to spell out procedures. Rafael already mentioned the option of turning ledger lines on or off in the Music Spacing Options. A more general solution is to decide which of the two alignments you prefer. Temporarily edit the other line to match, space them both so that they align, then edit the other line back to how it should be and never respace those measures again. So, for example, in the case that Andrew sent me, where the flute and clarinet are playing octaves apart with ledger lines for the flute and none for the clarinet, the solution is to transpose the
Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
David W. Fenton wrote: [snip] Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already? And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface? USB2 midi interfaces are just external devices which connect to the computer via the USB port. They then present normal midi in/out and sometimes audio in/out ports to the musical devices. -- 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: [snip] Why is it inapproptiate to give decimal-point metronome marks which will be ignored, but perfectly appropriate to state Q=80 and see it equally ignored? (Although I'm not necessarily stating that this is the reason Ferneyhough uses these metronome markings.) Because a serious musician can set a metronome to 80 and at least try to make an attempt to follow that tempo, while nobody has a metronome that I've ever seen which will give a 69.75 tempo so nobody can even try to follow it, even if they want to. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
Noel Stoutenburg wrote: Johannes Gebauer wrote: While we are on about it: House styles is another area where Sibelius is far superior to Finale. In my considerations of Sibelius, the closed, proprietary way they treat the data file structure is such an early consideration, that I'm not reached the point of understanding exactly what a house style is. Intuitively, this would reaonsably include what fonts to use, details of spacing, of line widths, of beaming methods, of shape and spacing, of ties and slurs. But I can create a Finale template document which has the line thicknesses, and staff and system spacings, and font selections, and even additional insert items as reserved text blocks, and which pre-loads designated libraries. What can a Sibelius House Style do that one cannot do with a Finale template? You can create a document using one Sibelius House Style and then later on simply change the House Style to a different one and the necessary items will alter in the file you've already created. In Finale to do that, you need to create the file in one template, then open the second template with the different style and then try to copy all of your musical data from the first file to the new template. And we all know how wonderful Finale is at copying all the musical details between files. :-) (not!) Sibelius' House Styles removes the necessity to copy music from one template to another template simply to duplicate the appearance of another file. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
Johannes Gebauer wrote: [snip] David, I am absolutely certain it won't happen. Not unless the way MakeMusic has been working the last few years will change radically. Johannes We've already been told on this list that unless whatever engraving changes are requested can demonstrably be shown to attract new customers (in other words, to be requested by non-users, to whom it seems MakeMusic pays more attention than it does to long-time users), we haven't a snowball's chance in hell of seeing them implemented. I'm sure the next version of Finale will have more easily implemented changing of skins like Winamp and other audio playes use. They're probably working on a major update to micnotator and possibly expanding the available harmonies available in that auto-harmonizing plug-in. Maybe they'll even figure out a way to get Band-in-a-Box styles to generate entire songs for us, becoming effectively the super-notation-module for PGMusic. I'll be they're working hard on giving us differently colored noteheads to satisfy the educational market which works with boom-whacker music. And probably working on the ability to mix audio tracks with our notation tracks in the mixer and get them all to play back simultaneously with an expanded version of GPO (maybe they'll actually include the jazz instruments for which we currently have to pay extra?) Any number of upgrades to attract those who like chrome bumpers and are attracted to shiny things. I agree with Johannes that things such as house styles (or Finale style-sheets or whatever they want to call them) which can be altered, saved, and then can be applied to any Finale file for instantaneous appearance changes without having to copy the music to a new template are not things that seem to be on MakeMusic's radar as being helpful in generating more sales. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
dhbailey schrieb: I agree with Johannes that things such as house styles (or Finale style-sheets or whatever they want to call them) which can be altered, saved, and then can be applied to any Finale file for instantaneous appearance changes without having to copy the music to a new template are not things that seem to be on MakeMusic's radar as being helpful in generating more sales. Although I do for the most part agree with you, the discussion with David was on a slightly different subject: Some time ago I was trying to find a way to change house styles in Finale easily. In the process I discovered there were certain shortcomings (especially I needed more custom fields in the File info to use for text blocks), but altogether only small additions were needed to make this possible, plus a plugin which would do the copying business quickly and efficiently. David argued that house styles would be much more flexible if some of the fundamental basics of Finale's internal workings were redesigned. To which I reply, the much I would like to see this, it simply won't happen. Not the way that MM approaches updates. So I personally think it better to request something that I think may work with much less work on MM's end, than to request something which requires a complete redesign of Finale, which I personally believe won't happen, unless Finale changes owners. On the other hand, I think you (David) are making a very good point, and it mirrors my own concerns. Personally I think that the whole GPO thing, even if it is perhaps welcomed by a larger proportion of Finale users (which I personally doubt), was actually a very easy way for MM to get away with the yearly upgrade process this year. For me the benefit is very limited. I am looking forward to MacOS X improvements, but they should have been in the 2k4 maintenance update. For me 2k6 is mostly a bug fix of 2k4. I really hope that 2k7 is going to be a major update. I hope they will sort out - bugs with Engraver slurs (WYSIWYG!!) - vertical spacing - clefs after the barline (ie key/meter) at the beginning of a system - cue notes via the mirror tool - dynamic part linking in one way or another - house styles in one way or another - a redesign of Speedy (to allow entering artics and slurs from within Speedy) In this order. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: =?iso-8859-1?Q?[Finale]_Hey!_What's _wrong_with_Creston's_12/12??=
On 8-Jul-05, at 5:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But then later, you are playing some triplets which work out perfectly, but you ONLY NEED FIVE OF THEM, not six. ... so you mark 5/8: no big deal. Of course, Ferneyhough has more complicated relationships than this to prescribe. But of course this 5/8 is 1/3 longer than the required 5/12. But hey, who's counting! Jerry Gerald Berg ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale]_Hey!_What's_wrong_with_Creston's
At 11:38 AM 7/8/05 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes But then later, you are playing some triplets which work out perfectly, but you ONLY NEED FIVE OF THEM, not six. ... so you mark 5/8: no big deal. That's not the same thing, nor is a quintuplet. As for the math ... compare, in order of length (longest to shortest actual time of measure): 1. You have a measure of 5 eighth notes (Ken's 5/8) 2. You have a measure of 4 eighth notes, and quintupletize them (which might be what Ken meant, 5:8) 3. You have a measure starting as an equivalent to 4 eighth notes, you tripletize them, then you lop one off (Christopher) An eighth note in option #1 is N long and the measure is 5N long. An eighth note in option #2 is 0.8N long and the measure is 4N long. An eighth note in option #3 is 0.67N long and the measure is 3.33N long. As for the feel ... there are five notes in each case, but the feel of each group of five is very different. The first will probably be played 5=3+2 or 5=2+3, the second as an even quintuplet (for those who can play quintuplets), and the third in two different ways, depending on the notation -- as a triplet plus a truncated triplet, or as an even group of five sixth notes (shorter than 5:8). These difference are, in the big picture of a composition, crucial to making it 'sound'. It seems to me that tuplets are useful in such a simple example above, but can quickly break down if they're nested even once -- what's the feel of a nested triplet starting on the third note of a triplet and a truncated triplet? On the other hand, what's the feel of a triplet beginning on the third note of a 5/6 measure? Much easier! Why is it so hard to graduate from division by halves? A basic 'feel' for measure divisions and their notation with denominators of /3 /6 /9 and /12 is easy ... with /5 /7 following in difficulty. Admittedly it gets very tough with big numbers like /11 and /13 and big subdividables like /15 /18 and /20, but it's only the same practice we put in to learn all meters. If students start with the easy small numbers, soon tupletted full measures will start to look anachronistic and quaint, i.e., How did we ever make music out of that convoluted notation? or A triplet in a quintuplet... um, oh, I see, a triplet in a measure of 5/6! Why didn't they write that? Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] score to midi
I've been requested from a composer to produce a midi file from the score where each instruments are assigned to a different channel to separate everything. Now I can't get the Timpani to open back to Finale once the midi file is produced and display as a pitched intrument. It was assigned to channel 26 and I chose timpani from the geneal midi list. What could be wrong? Éric Dussault Mac Finale 2003a ___ 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 6:00 PM, M. Perticone wrote: 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 Yes, after sending the message I realised I was being redundant with the tuplet brackets. Your solution with the fraction time signatures (suggested by Darcy as well) seems workable in this case, too. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale]_Hey!_What's_wrong_with_Creston's
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: If students start with the easy small numbers, soon tupletted full measures will start to look anachronistic and quaint, i.e., How did we ever make music out of that convoluted notation? or A triplet in a quintuplet... um, oh, I see, a triplet in a measure of 5/6! Why didn't they write that? Dennis We can but hope! :) ___ 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 7:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 7 Jul 2005 at 17:13, Christopher Smith wrote: 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. Sounds like bad design, in my opinion. High-end machines that are used for music ought to have options. Of course, that option might be an add-on serial port card? Yes, that was an option suggested to me by Darcy as well (USB that is. Serial is no more.) Well, what about a non-USB MIDI interface? Did they also take away the printer port (isn't that what used to be used for MIDI, given how I remember all the complaints about contention for the port?)? You and Darcy seem to think alike 8-) He suggested a FireWire MIDI interface, too. My printer(s) are on the Mac's built-in Ethernet. I have 2 Firewire ports (1 free right now) and 2 USB ports (one free right now, though both would be free if I switched to a FireWire MIDI interface), plus the USB keyboard/mouse connection on my monitor. I will look into the suggestions to see if there are any improvements. Thanks for the insights. 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 Jul 7, 2005, at 9:47 PM, Neal Schermerhorn wrote: Owain Sutton wrote: (7/10, 13/20) 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. I've never seen it. If I bought a piece of music and I saw 13/20 I would have no clue how to interpret it. My best guess would be 13 notes to the bar all equal to a quintuplet division of a quarter. Basically 2 sets of 5 sixteenths with a 5 under them, and 3 extra. Am I close? See? You got it first try! Seriously, the set of musicians who would even want to think about timing so hard to get that even close is small. Much smaller than the still-small set of musicians who can play a quintuplet accurately in the first place. Huh? I'm no wizard, but I can certainly play quintuplets accurately, and have been able to so do since I was seventeen, when I first had to, and on trombone, yet (it took me about a week to be consistent, but it was easy from then on.) My trick was (for 4 sixteenths, a quintuplet, and a quarter note) to say out loud TEE-ry tee-ry MATH-e-ma-ti-cal TAH. My nine year old can do it (I tested it out on him.) I personally question the value of having such rhythms in music when there's plenty of life left in the ones most people can actually play, but hey, you write what you like, no problem with me. Still, it sounds more like architecture or graphic design than composition to me... And I personally question waiting until every single combination of quarter notes is used before moving on to use some eighths, which is what you are saying. There are WAY wackier rhythms than the ones we are discussing in everyday music (try transcribing just about any R+B singer, for instance), so don't try pulling that nobody can play these rhythms routine. Sure, they are hard to read. But that's a problem with our notation system, which came about through monks trying to remember chants, and is badly set up for notating even moderately complex rhythms that just about anybody can learn easily by ear. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] combine rhythms/pitches
On Jul 7, 2005, at 11:16 PM, shirling neueweise wrote: in a 70mm passage for 6 voices, i have renotated the rhythms/durations (attack points remain the same) of the top voice and want to do the same changes to the other 5 voices (all 6 in rhythmic unison). i've tried doing it with TGTools, but you have to have the same rhythms to start with for it to work. anyone have a trick? i don't think it is possible using an implode music workaround, but some sort of glorifed implode music function is really what i need. Hmm, I've had to do similar things in the past, and this is how I did it. In Speedy Entry on the first measure of the top voice, hold down all the pitches of ALL the voices, and hit Enter, so that you have a big six-note chord. Use your nose, toes, a pencil held in your teeth, or if you are really excited, any other appendage that is available to hold down the extra notes, or ones that are out of range. If you can't fit a note in, cursor to the correct vertical place afterward and hit Enter with no MIDI keys pressed, which will add the note there, and + or - as needed to alter it. Continue for the entire passage. Using Finale's Explode, or TG Tools, split the giant top staff into six staves. Drag and drop as appropriate (with Partial Measures selected) to correct unisons that didn't split properly. Sorry this isn't easier. If anyone has a better way, let us know! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
At 11:18 PM +0200 7/7/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote: 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. And I point out yet again that Mosaic has had this ever since it repaced the late and unlamented Professional Composer in about 1992, so it must not be all that incredibly complicated! Everything--galley, score and parts--is part of a single file, but spacing and other paramenters can be set up differently for each separate part, something obviously necessary for optimal page turns, without affecting the score. In fact the score itself is just another independent page view with its own layout. 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
[Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
At 03:37 AM 7/8/2005, you wrote: Because a serious musician can set a metronome to 80 and at least try to make an attempt to follow that tempo, while nobody has a metronome that I've ever seen which will give a 69.75 tempo so nobody can even try to follow it, even if they want to. No but often we ask ourselves or others to lay back on a beat, or to push it slightly without actually altering the basic pulse. Maybe this is a way to try and notate that. Set your metronome to 69 and lean on it ever so slightly. On the other hand, and this has probably been mentioned, I've read that B.F. is more concerned with the *effect* produced by a virtuoso musician essaying some of these extreme effects, than their absolute accuracy. And, one is not to read that as he doesn't really care how it sounds - the effect (of intensity) will only result if you make a concerted effort. I think it's a response to the prevalence of the virtuoso tradition, a sort of that will give them something to do.We want to hear the result of the interaction. I once saw a performance of a piece that involved 5 players all with headphones listening to the same source tape; the idea was that they all improvised in response to it, while the audience could not hear the source, just the combination of five different responses to it. When I first became aware of what Ferneyhough was doing it reminded me of this experiment. The response to the score is the piece. Ken ___ 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 5:39 PM -0400 7/7/05, Andrew Stiller wrote: In Broadcast Standard American, w and wh are pronounced identically, and the phoneme [hw] simply does not exist. I'm not sure whether you are referring to a reference book, or just to general practice. I do know that I grew up having been taught to differentiate between the two by a mother who besides being a fine theory teacher was an equally fine choral conductor, and I still draw the distinction between the two and so train my own choral ensembles. I might mention that in the early days of radio and the national networks, the networks turned to the west coast, from Washington State to California, to find announcers with neutral, non-dialectal pronunciation so as not to offend anyone. Quite a few of my parents' college buddies from the 1920s (at Washington State) ended up in broadcasting for that very reason. 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. Funny, I just tried it and had no problem. We all understand that the English language is constantly changing. This just happens to be a change I don't care for because it creates homonyms, and therefore potential confusion, where they needn't be, and no amount of appeal to authority will change that. 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] Ferney who? was: Creston
Ken Durling wrote: At 03:37 AM 7/8/2005, you wrote: Because a serious musician can set a metronome to 80 and at least try to make an attempt to follow that tempo, while nobody has a metronome that I've ever seen which will give a 69.75 tempo so nobody can even try to follow it, even if they want to. No but often we ask ourselves or others to lay back on a beat, or to push it slightly without actually altering the basic pulse. Maybe this is a way to try and notate that. Set your metronome to 69 and lean on it ever so slightly. Actually, Ferneyhough's apparently-ludicrous metronome markings have a logic to them. A score I have in front of me begins with 8th=54, the next marking is 8th=60.75, then 47.25 and back to 54. This may seem an impossible task - until you realise that the ratio 54:60.75 is the same as 8:9, and 54:47.25 is 8:7. So they're actually rather simple shifts in tempo. On the other hand, and this has probably been mentioned, I've read that B.F. is more concerned with the *effect* produced by a virtuoso musician essaying some of these extreme effects, than their absolute accuracy. And, one is not to read that as he doesn't really care how it sounds - the effect (of intensity) will only result if you make a concerted effort. I think it's a response to the prevalence of the virtuoso tradition, a sort of that will give them something to do.We want to hear the result of the interaction. That's spot on. I've also seen him criticise students for using *unnecessary* complexity. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Am 07.07.2005 um 11:12 schrieb Christopher Smith: 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. Okay, so perhaps I'm dim, or simply not understanding, but would not a simple metric modulation of previous quarter=new dotted quarter in 5/8 effect the desired rhythm? ___ 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 6:56 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: 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? Cadenza and cue notes sounds like the same thing to me, and I think any implementation must handle it. The cadenza example was about having more measures in the part than there are in the score. 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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
James E. Bailey wrote: Okay, so perhaps I'm dim, or simply not understanding, but would not a simple metric modulation of previous quarter=new dotted quarter in 5/8 effect the desired rhythm? Yes. But no such easy indication is possible for any metre beyond x/12 - and if there's changes of metre every bar, such indications would start to be the more cluttered confusing way of showing such changes. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO - a little disappointing
Darcy James Argue schrieb: Johannes, You need to use the keyswitched instruments and download the library of keyswitching Finale expressions from the GPO website. This makes it very easy to switch from legato, sustained articulations (default) to the alternating bows articulations (which you need for fast or detached passages). It sounds like you might be happy using the alternating bows articulation exclusively. If so, you just have to put an invisible keyswitching expression that triggers that style of articulation at the beginning of each part in your score. Well, I tried this, how awful!!! Now whenever there is an uneven number of notes in a measure it ends up being off-beat emphasized. It sounds like an army of elephants...Dreadful. Is there any way to get a similar kind of attack as with the Finale soundfont cello patch (I personally find that one quite well balanced)? 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 Jul 8, 2005, at 1:22 AM, Owain Sutton wrote: Neal Schermerhorn wrote: ...e 13 notes to the bar all equal to a quintuplet division of a quarter. Basically 2 sets of 5 sixteenths with a 5 under them, and 3 extra. Am I close? Spot on Time for a reality check. There are other ways to notate such complex rhythmic proportions, some of them much more intuitive to play. Check out Ben Johnston's Knocking Piece, wh. was published in Source #2 (1967) and recorded at least once. There are no meter signatures. A bold = sign thru the barline in each individual staff indicates that the preceding note value is maintained across the barline, so that for example when a bar of 5:4 eighths (5 eighths in the space of 4) is followed by a bar of four eighth notes with an = sign between the two bars, then the four eighth notes are to be played as if they were 4/5 of a quintuplet. Since the other player has something completely different and equally complex in the same bar, the presence of a meter signature would simply create confusion and visual clutter. As for the esthetic issues involved, Johnston is worth hearing: If the rationally controlled shifting tempi are not mastered, the realization [tapping on a piano interior] will deteriorate into feigned vandalism. If the marathon ensemble cooperation and concentration required fail, the performance will be impossible to execute. A spirit of competitiveness between the performers will destroy the piece. The players must be friends; in quick alternation each must support the other. I have heard several live performances of this piece and found them thrilling. As for Ferneyhough, I've never heard anything of his that I would ever care to hear again. 'Nuff said. the still-small set of musicians who can play a quintuplet accurately in the first place. You can't be serious. Chopin requires them! I personally question the value of having such rhythms in music when there's plenty of life left in the ones most people can actually play, but hey, you write what you like, no problem with me. Rhythms at this level of complexity appear in a large body of music from the late 14th-early 15th centuries. Should these be ignored? 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 Jul 7, 2005, at 7:47 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: The problem Andrew describes has nothing to do with libraries, and it is even a problem going from OS 9 to OS X. To my knowledge there is no easy work around. Please enlighten me as to what Andrew is talking about. Whatever it is, if there's a data structure in Finale that already stores the information, there is no reason to assume that this data structure will not be duplicated in part views, in order that parts can have independent settings. On the Mac, in any printable application, there is a File menu item called Page Setup, wh. calls up a dialog in wh. printer settings are stored. If, for example, you want to print a part on folded 11X17 sheets, the Finale layout would prescribe ordinary letter-size paper, but the Page Setup should prescribe 11X17. Obviously, one would often want to do just this for parts, but not for the score they came from. My concern is that I have never heard of any Mac application in which two different Page Setup configurations could be applied simultaneously to the same file, and I therefore wonder whether it might prove impossible to do such a thing in the Mac environment. 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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Am 08.07.2005 um 08:57 schrieb Andrew Stiller: the still-small set of musicians who can play a quintuplet accurately in the first place. You can't be serious. Chopin requires them! I understand the point he's trying to make. Accurate execution of a quintuplet is rather tricky. Chopin may require them, but performers rarely play five notes of equal length. But performers rarely play five notes of equal length in 5/4. Heck, we rarely play four notes of equal length in 4/4. A simple check using hyperscribe will show any of us that. The point, however, I don't think is absolutely accurate execution of any rhythmic pattern. I think the point is what we hear. If we can distinguish the written rhythm simply by hearing it. (Or at least understand the concept of the rhythm, even if another might notate it differently). Sent via the WebMail system at cuisp.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?
Andrew Stiller wrote: Time for a reality check. There are other ways to notate such complex rhythmic proportions, some of them much more intuitive to play. Check out Ben Johnston's /Knocking Piece/, wh. was published in /Source/ #2 (1967) and recorded at least once. There are no meter signatures. A bold = sign thru the barline in each individual staff indicates that the preceding note value is maintained across the barline, so that for example when a bar of 5:4 eighths (5 eighths in the space of 4) is followed by a bar of four eighth notes with an = sign between the two bars, then the four eighth notes are to be played as if they were 4/5 of a quintuplet. Since the other player has something completely different and equally complex in the same bar, the presence of a meter signature would simply create confusion and visual clutter. If I'm understanding your description right, it wouldn't work with Ferneyhough's rhythms. Again quoting from the score that's become my standard refernce for this discussion ;) there's all sorts of situations where it's not possible to equate the last note of one bar with the first note of the nextfor example, a 3/20 bar containing a 7:6 tuplet, followed by a 16th-note in 5/8. And, even if the equals-sign system were to be possible, it would obscure what is important in Ferneyhough's metres, in that the pulse is shifting up and down in exact ratios, not that a new pulse emerges from subdivisions of the previous one. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
On Jul 8, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Owain Sutton wrote: ctually, Ferneyhough's apparently-ludicrous metronome markings have a logic to them. A score I have in front of me begins with 8th=54, the next marking is 8th=60.75, then 47.25 and back to 54. This may seem an impossible task - until you realise that the ratio 54:60.75 is the same as 8:9, and 54:47.25 is 8:7. So they're actually rather simple shifts in tempo. And should have been notated as such. 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] Ferney who? was: Creston
Andrew Stiller wrote: On Jul 8, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Owain Sutton wrote: ctually, Ferneyhough's apparently-ludicrous metronome markings have a logic to them. A score I have in front of me begins with 8th=54, the next marking is 8th=60.75, then 47.25 and back to 54. This may seem an impossible task - until you realise that the ratio 54:60.75 is the same as 8:9, and 54:47.25 is 8:7. So they're actually rather simple shifts in tempo. And should have been notated as such. In many cases the new 'deciaml' metronome marking is reached by an accel/rall from the old tempo - how would you notate that? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] score to midi
Éric Dussault wrote: Now I can't get the Timpani to open back to Finale once the midi file is produced and display as a pitched intrument. It was assigned to channel 26 and I chose timpani from the geneal midi list. Best guess, though I am not certain: 32 MIDI channels is 16 + 16. As 10 is reserved for percussion, so would be 26. So you really only have 30 spots for pitched percussion and other instruments. 10 and 26 would be only for unpitched drum maps. Neal Schermerhorn ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO - a little disappointing
On 08 Jul 2005, at 11:02 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, I tried this, how awful!!! Now whenever there is an uneven number of notes in a measure it ends up being off-beat emphasized. When you need to break the down-up pattern, use the keyswitched bowing indications (which are expressions, not articulations) to get, e.g., two upbows in a row. Then switch back to the alternate downbows and upbows expression on the downbeat. - 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 08 Jul 2005, at 12:25 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote: My concern is that I have never heard of any Mac application in which two different Page Setup configurations could be applied simultaneously to the same file, Yes you have -- Sibelius 4.0. and I therefore wonder whether it might prove impossible to do such a thing in the Mac environment. Clearly not. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
At 9:21 PM -0500 7/7/05, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: What can a Sibelius House Style do that one cannot do with a Finale template? Ummm, save you the time and knowledge base needed to create your template? I, for one, don't speak EPVU or whatever the heck it is! It's my son who investigated Sibelius, not me, but my understanding from him is that the House Styles give you instantly available setups, but that the program also gives you the ability to change the default settings in those setups. I may be wrong, but that's a BIG time saver, especially since when Sibelius first became available for U.S. platforms the default settings in Finale were absolutely dreadful. (And yes, I've been on the list long enough to have seen the discussion of nobody's presets are going to give me exactly what I want, so I'm going to have to tweak everything anyway. That's a valid argument for a professional engraver. It is NOT a valid argument for the average Finale user, who just wants to get his music printed and IS going to use the default settings. Mosaic's single house style was never chageable, but it was never necessary to change it because the people who designed it had the intelligence and the skill to make it acceptable and professional looking for the naive user like me. Yes, I did change the measure spacing from the too-wide default, and to get good page turns, but doing so was trivial. It appears that Finale developers never cared, but Sibelius developers definitely did. I find it amazing that ANY notation program can turn out near-professional product in a field that was developed by monks writing with feathers! John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO - a little disappointing
Darcy James Argue schrieb: On 08 Jul 2005, at 11:02 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, I tried this, how awful!!! Now whenever there is an uneven number of notes in a measure it ends up being off-beat emphasized. When you need to break the down-up pattern, use the keyswitched bowing indications (which are expressions, not articulations) to get, e.g., two upbows in a row. Then switch back to the alternate downbows and upbows expression on the downbeat. Yes, I realize this is the idea behind it. But you see, playback is not half as important to me to even start doing this. If I need to go through all these things to get decent playback out of GPO it's definitely not what I hoped for. Improvements in engraving matters, ease of use, linked parts, etc is much more important to me. I am currently working on some string quartets, and it would take hours to go through them with downbows just to get proper bowing. And it would still sound like an army of elephants. Basically to get what I want I would have to put a marking on nearly every note. Johannes Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
Can someone remind me why I _shouldn't_ switch to Sibelius? Seems like it much more fulfills the promises of CAE (computer aided engraving...). 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] The ultimate Sibelius question...
Hi Johannes, Not saying you *shouldn't* investigate Sib 4 -- they have a very nice competitive upgrade price for Finale uses, and it's a good idea to try to stay on top of the competition. But I have a hunch that you will feel that the slurs are unacceptable by your standards. Have you tried inputting music into the demo yet? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 08 Jul 2005, at 2:12 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Can someone remind me why I _shouldn't_ switch to Sibelius? Seems like it much more fulfills the promises of CAE (computer aided engraving...). Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ 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] Another thing Sibelius has
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Johannes Gebauer wrote: [snip] David, I am absolutely certain it won't happen. Not unless the way MakeMusic has been working the last few years will change radically. Johannes We've already been told on this list that unless whatever engraving changes are requested can demonstrably be shown to attract new customers (in other words, to be requested by non-users, to whom it seems MakeMusic pays more attention than it does to long-time users), we haven't a snowball's chance in hell of seeing them implemented. Okay, since I was the person talking about something related to this just a day or so ago, I'm going to be so bold as to believe you are talking about what I said. And if this is true, then I'm a little ticked that you are misrepresenting me in this manner. I stated that when you consider the size of the professional engraver market, MakeMusic devotes a disproportionate number of features directly to that market. These are features that benefit this group and few other people. I also stated that when MakeMusic has ideas on the table that can benefit everyone, including the engravers, it's easier for them to justify. Is it so damn hard to believe that this would be true? And is it so shallow to ask that you try to think of ways to benefit yourself as well as the bulk of other Finale users? I in no way suggested that you should ask for features that would help you LESS, but I did suggest you ask for features that would ALSO help other people MORE. I can't understand how it shouldn't be blindingly obvious that features that appeal to both you and everyone else are preferable to the company to features which just benefit you or just benefit everyone else. And how in the world did I say asking for something that primarily benefits the engraver's world has a snowball's chance in hell of being implemented??? If you're upset with the features being included, fine. But don't stretch my words to forward your argument. Tyler Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
Darcy James Argue schrieb: Hi Johannes, Not saying you *shouldn't* investigate Sib 4 -- they have a very nice competitive upgrade price for Finale uses, and it's a good idea to try to stay on top of the competition. But I have a hunch that you will feel that the slurs are unacceptable by your standards. Have you tried inputting music into the demo yet? I haven't even got the demo yet. Not sure whether I will, but I would like to know all the things I would be missing should I decide to switch. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Help request for testing multilingual MusicXML support
Dear Finale list members, Recordare's Dolet 3.0 for Finale plug-in is entering the final stages of beta testing. This new version of our plug-in will both read and write MusicXML 1.1 files. It will be a much improved way to exchange files back and forth with Sibelius and to move files back to earlier versions of Finale. We could use some help is in support for lyrics and musical directions in languages from outside Western Europe - specifically, any languages that use something besides the ISO Latin-1 character set. I hope that we may be able to get some help from the international Finale list community to make things work better for different languages. We have some example files created with Finale for Windows in Russian, Hebrew, Lithuanian, and Polish, and these are working fine. It would be great if we could get some Finale files that are in other languages such as Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Greek, and Turkish, created either on Windows or Mac. We could also use Finale for Macintosh examples for Russian, Lithuanian, Hebrew, and Polish. Western European languages like English, French, German, and Italian are all set. It's languages that use other character sets where we could use your help (not just the ones listed above!) The ideal file would have the title, a musical direction, and some lyrics in the chosen language. Small files are fine; we're not interested in the quality of either the music or the engraving here. Please e-mail me (off-list) any files that you would be willing to contribute. These files will be used for our internal testing only. Thank you very much for any assistance that you can offer in making MusicXML work better for people around the world. Best regards, Michael Good Recordare LLC www.recordare.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
Tyler Turner schrieb: I stated that when you consider the size of the professional engraver market, MakeMusic devotes a disproportionate number of features directly to that market. These are features that benefit this group and few other people. I also stated that when MakeMusic has ideas on the table that can benefit everyone, including the engravers, it's easier for them to justify. Is it so damn hard to believe that this would be true? And is it so shallow to ask that you try to think of ways to benefit yourself as well as the bulk of other Finale users? I in no way suggested that you should ask for features that would help you LESS, but I did suggest you ask for features that would ALSO help other people MORE. I can't understand how it shouldn't be blindingly obvious that features that appeal to both you and everyone else are preferable to the company to features which just benefit you or just benefit everyone else. No sorry, I am selfish. I want features that help me and I don't give a damn how many others will benefit from them. The truth is that those features I am interested in will probably mostly benefit the pro engraver, or at least those who primarily engrave, and not playback. Now, it does seem to me that in this field Sibelius is not only catching up but actually passing Finale. If this happens I am out of here quickly. I don'care in the least whether a mass market of amateur composers who want a toy to play (with) their compositions are still attracted to Finale or not. 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] The ultimate Sibelius question...
Johannes, Trust me, you really are better off downloading the demo and experimenting for yourself. You are the only one who knows which Finale features are essential to you, and which you can do without, and nothing can take the place of hands-on experimentation. Download the demo, read the manual, try inputting a page of music. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 08 Jul 2005, at 3:10 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Darcy James Argue schrieb: Hi Johannes, Not saying you *shouldn't* investigate Sib 4 -- they have a very nice competitive upgrade price for Finale uses, and it's a good idea to try to stay on top of the competition. But I have a hunch that you will feel that the slurs are unacceptable by your standards. Have you tried inputting music into the demo yet? I haven't even got the demo yet. Not sure whether I will, but I would like to know all the things I would be missing should I decide to switch. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ 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] The ultimate Sibelius question...
Darcy, I wasn't 100% serious anyway. I have no time nor intention to do a quick switch to Sibelius, but I do want to put some pressure on MakeMusic to move into the right direction. Johannes Darcy James Argue schrieb: Johannes, Trust me, you really are better off downloading the demo and experimenting for yourself. You are the only one who knows which Finale features are essential to you, and which you can do without, and nothing can take the place of hands-on experimentation. Download the demo, read the manual, try inputting a page of music. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 08 Jul 2005, at 3:10 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Darcy James Argue schrieb: Hi Johannes, Not saying you *shouldn't* investigate Sib 4 -- they have a very nice competitive upgrade price for Finale uses, and it's a good idea to try to stay on top of the competition. But I have a hunch that you will feel that the slurs are unacceptable by your standards. Have you tried inputting music into the demo yet? I haven't even got the demo yet. Not sure whether I will, but I would like to know all the things I would be missing should I decide to switch. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ 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 -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 7 Jul 2005 at 22:57, Richard Smith wrote: May I, as a longtime Finale user (begining with v.2) who now uses mostly Sibelius (although I have Finale 2005), respond to this post. The reason you can't get Sibelius to work easily is probably because you expect it to act like Finale. It is different. For instance, there is no speedy entry (although you can make it work similarly) but there are a variety of very direct keyboard and midi methods of data entry that are more effective in Sibelius. A good approach for Sibelius is enter the music once, then copy, paste, and edit. It's very quick and, often, midi is not needed to work very quickly. Sibelius copies much more easily than Finale. Paste can be reduced to highlight, point, press the middle mouse button (sorry mac users). No little truck! I had no real difficulties with note entry. It was the application of articulations/expressions that I found difficult, because of the palette-based approach, which I dislike intensely as a user interface. It's the kind of thing that is easy to figure out, but not easy to use in the long run. Easy to learn and easy to use are often mutually contradictory goals in user interface design, and for music entry, If found that Sibelius was biased so much towards easy to learn that it made using it once you'd learn painful and slow. When I started on Sibelius (after years on Finale), I felt clumsy. Now, after 6 years of working with Sibelius, Finale is awkard for me. They are just different. You may not want to learn Sibelius. That's OK. But Sibelius will work extremely well if you don't try to make it act like Finale. I understand all of that, but the problem is the claim that the Sibelius UI is intuitive. It isn't -- it's got just as many secrets as Finale. And my main objection was that I could never figure out, once the music was entered, how to (in Finale terms): 1. change the page percentage OR 2. change the system percentage The music was TOO BIG. I wanted it smaller. I couldn't figure out a way to do that. And the result was something I'd never show anyone else, because it looked like a kindergarten exercise. -- 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] Transparent boxes
On 8 Jul 2005 at 6:19, Owain Sutton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: Seems to me the problem is not docking your toolbars, not the lack of transparency. Why not dock the palettes at the edge of the screen, as in my Finale in this screenshot? http://dfenton.com/Toolbars.gif I only set up that layout to show the transparency option at work - normally I have all my toolbars floating on a second monitor I understood you to say that transparency somehow ameliorated problems associated with wandering toolbars. I'm just pointing out that there is no problem involved, as toolbars don't have to wander. -- 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] The ultimate Sibelius question...
Johannes: I agree with Darcy though, you should download the demo and check it out. It's pretty amazing. I've owned Finale since 1989, Mosaic since 1990, and Sibelius since 2000, but I've primarily used Sibelius since 2002 for music prep and engraving, and this new version seems really slick. == Doug LeBow LeBow Music Multimedia, Inc. Santa Clarita, CA 91390-5233 (661) 297-1001 Studio (661) 244-4400 Fax (661) 313-6044 Cell http://www.lebowmusic.com On Jul 8, 2005, at 12:29 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Darcy, I wasn't 100% serious anyway. I have no time nor intention to do a quick switch to Sibelius, but I do want to put some pressure on MakeMusic to move into the right direction. Johannes Darcy James Argue schrieb: Johannes, Trust me, you really are better off downloading the demo and experimenting for yourself. You are the only one who knows which Finale features are essential to you, and which you can do without, and nothing can take the place of hands-on experimentation. Download the demo, read the manual, try inputting a page of music. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 08 Jul 2005, at 3:10 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Darcy James Argue schrieb: Hi Johannes, Not saying you *shouldn't* investigate Sib 4 -- they have a very nice competitive upgrade price for Finale uses, and it's a good idea to try to stay on top of the competition. But I have a hunch that you will feel that the slurs are unacceptable by your standards. Have you tried inputting music into the demo yet? I haven't even got the demo yet. Not sure whether I will, but I would like to know all the things I would be missing should I decide to switch. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ 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 -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ 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 v4
Okay, my interest was piqued, so I downloaded it and gave it a brief try. Initial look and feel was impressive. However, I have a significant investment already in FINALE formatted files. I tried to import a couple files and was not successful. Even after exporting to ETF first and then importing. I do like the options/templates etc. but if I have to reinput all my FINALE files, it's going to take some more convincing before I make the move. Just my initial and humble opinion on the subject Richard Bartkus ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
On 8 Jul 2005 at 9:18, Johannes Gebauer wrote: David W. Fenton schrieb: I guess my point is that the kind of restructuring I'm calling for here would go much further to making it possible to manage house styles than any of the things you mentioned. Except it won't happen. I'm not certain about that. The Finale developers are computer programmers. They understand better than *you* do the advantages of non-duplication of data, of sub-classing, of object-oriented programming. My bet is that they'd love to have the luxury to be turned loose on Finale and rework its data structures in order to support the kinds of UI and feature requests I've been talking about. But the realities of business don't allow them to pull a Netscape (and, of course, they shouldn't do that, anyway: David, I am absolutely certain it won't happen. Not unless the way MakeMusic has been working the last few years will change radically. They've changed their ways of doing things before, when outside conditions forced it upon them. If they want to stay in business they are definitely going to have to make changes in their operating practices. If they don't, they'll always be playing catch-up, and thus lose more and more market share. I think they are going to have to abandon the yearly upgrades. I think it's a really bad business practice in the first place, because it places a schedule on development that is artificial -- a software development schedule should be determined by the goals of the projects currently on the table for implementation/revision/fixing. MakeMusic is also now in a situation where their yearly upgrade is coming out at an inoppportune time for schools -- releasing in August and September and October is not a very good time for that. If they took 18-20 months for their next release, they could have the new release out in time for budget considerations for the next school year. After that, they could return to the old schedule, if they liked (though it still doesn't make any sense to me -- some Finale releases, like the upcoming one, seem to me more a matter of we're going to ship, even if there's nothing significant in the upgrade). Secondly, one longer product cycle could give them time to address large-scale architectural issues that might otherwise be impossible in one release cycle. Another alternative would be to release, say, Finale 2007 as nothing but a rewrite of Finale 2006, with no new functions, just fixes to old stuff and the new architecture necessary to make Finale 2008 a major leap forward. While it would be impossible to justify charging the usual full upgrade price, at 1/3 or 1/2, it might be worth it, and produce enough revenue to keep the company operating. It's not like Finale is their only product these days, is it was a decade ago. If MakeMusic does *not* make some major changes, more and more committed Finale users are going to abandon it, just as Sibelius tends to be the program of choice for people just getting into music engraving. So, I don't think it's impossible for them to change. Market conditions have change drastically. They are losing market/mindshare, and with Sibelius 4, they're going to lose even more. If they don't change, they will simply wither and be gone in 5 years. I think that if *I* can see that, MakeMusic's board can see it, too. -- 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] Transparent boxes
David W. Fenton wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 at 6:19, Owain Sutton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: Seems to me the problem is not docking your toolbars, not the lack of transparency. Why not dock the palettes at the edge of the screen, as in my Finale in this screenshot? http://dfenton.com/Toolbars.gif I only set up that layout to show the transparency option at work - normally I have all my toolbars floating on a second monitor I understood you to say that transparency somehow ameliorated problems associated with wandering toolbars. I'm just pointing out that there is no problem involved, as toolbars don't have to wander. OK, I put that screenshot together ad hoc, to save giving you a 300kb one - here's my usual working layout: http://www.owainsutton.co.uk/images/trans1.jpg This means my main (better-quality) monitor is dominated by the main Finale working area, while the toolbars are on the second monitor. With this arrangement, having the toolbars translucent (once you know your way around them!) makes it easy to have other applications running maximised on that monitor - here it's Thunderbird, but often it'll be IRC, or Acrobat, or Pagemaker, or whatever. If those toolbars were opaque, it'd make it more difficult to see the display of those applications without switching focus. Obviously, not everyone wants or needs this function - but I find it very useful! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: Sibelius v4
Hi Richard, However, I have a significant investment already in FINALE formatted files. I tried to import a couple files and was not successful. Even after exporting to ETF first and then importing. Your best way to transfer Finale files to Sibelius V4 is usually via MusicXML files rather than ETF files. This is especially true for newer versions of Finale. If you have Finale 2003 or later on Windows, use Plug-ins-MusicXML Export Light... to save the MusicXML file, then read the MusicXML file into the Sibelius 4 demo. To go the other way, from Sibelius to Finale, you need our Dolet for Sibelius plug-in to save the MusicXML file from Sibelius. For older versions of Finale on Windows or Macintosh OS X, you need our Dolet for Finale plug-in to export the MusicXML file. Finale 2006 has MusicXML import and export on the File menu on both Windows and Mac. More information about the Dolet plug-ins is available at: http://store.recordare.com/software.html Best regards, Michael Good Recordare LLC ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius v4
On 08/07/05, Michael Good [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For older versions of Finale on Windows or Macintosh OS X, you need our Dolet for Finale plug-in to export the MusicXML file. Finale 2006 has MusicXML import and export on the File menu on both Windows and Mac. Will the included MusicXML in Finale 2006 still be a Dolet Lite version only, or will it now be fully included? That is to say, in order to transfer entire contents of files (lyric, expressions, and all), will it still be necessary to purchase the full version of Dolet? -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Life would be so much easier if only (3/2)^12=(2/1)^7. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale - multi-file solution?
On 8 Jul 2005 at 3:42, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:18 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: No, it wouldn't. Yes, I knew you'd object. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view, but I also have good reason to believe a multi-file equivalent to Dynamic Parts (perhaps implemented by plug-ins -- e.g., Update score based on this part and Update parts based on this score) is vastly more likely to be implemented than a single-file solution, at least in the short term. I think you're dreaming. The complexities of synchronizing files are an order of magnitude greater than those of relating data structures within a single file. Now, if they separated the data structure from the layout files, then it could work. That is, every Finale file would have two files, one the database, and one the file you worked with to edit and format the data (this is the way it's done in properly-designed Access database applications -- your data tables are in one file, while the forms and reports, etc., that you use to interact with your data are in another file, linked to the data file). Then, to create a part, you'd simply create a new layout file, linked to the same data store. Now, another way of implementing that might be to have the data stay in the score file, and then have the parts be separate files that have no actual frame data in them, and, instead, link back to the data in the score file. This would be not much more complicated than implementing it all within one file, and if you like the idea of having separate files (I *don't* like this idea), then that would be an easy way to implement it that wouldn't be very different from implementing it the way I've suggested. So, for the moment, can we put aside the issue of technical hurdles? It's the harmonizing potential conflicts aspect that I'm more interested in. Let's put it another way -- let's say you *had* to come up with a multi-file, manually synchronized plugin equivalent to Sibelius's Dynamic Parts. What would that look like? How would you want it to resolve discrepancies between score and parts? [what follows was written *before* I wrote most of what is above, so it pre-dates my idea of having a Score file with data in it and part files with no data, just layout information] I would want to avoid the problem. Seriously. In a multi-user database, if two people edit the same record, you have some choices for what to do: 1. lock the record as soon as user1 edits it so user2 can't start an edit. Problem: inconvenient to user2, especially if user1 starts and edit and goes to lunch. 2. don't lock but keep track of who is editing. If user1 starts an edit, allow user2 to start an edit of the same record. If either of the users save the record, you have to inform the other user when *they* save the record that somebody else has edited the record and then you give them a choice of what to do: 1. overwrite the other user's changes with mine 2. drop my changes and use the other user's changes 3. show me the differences so I can resolve them somehow Now, all of this is a huge user interface challenge. First off, a dialog that gives you these 3 choices is very hard to understand -- most users won't know what the hell it means. You could skip it all and just do #3, but designing a user interface for that is very difficult, too. Of course, what you're suggesting is not multi-user editing, but it kind of comes down to the same thing. This is the scenario that is basically the same: 1. you have a SCORE. 2. you have PART1 and PART2. 3. you edit PART1. 4. you edit PART2. 5. you tell Finale to update the score with the changes you made to PART1. 6. you tell Finale to update the score with the changes you made to PART2. Now, what if you made mutually contradictory changes in PART1 and PART2 (and let's leave aside changes that shouldn't cascade back to the score)? Perhaps there aren't any linked changes that would overlap, but my bet is that there would be. Take, for instance, inserting a measure into a part. Say you insert it at measure 20. And you do it in both the parts. Finale has to be smart enough to know that you've done the same thing twice, not made two independent insertions. Now, from a common-sense perspective, that sounds simple, but from a computer point of view, it's rather complicated. If you think of it as FRAMES, and each FRAME is assigned a unique ID, somehow Finale has to translate from the FrameIDs of the part (which, since it's a separate, newly created file, independent of the score, will be different from the score) to the FrameIDs of the score. I don't know how this would be managed. A lookup table? Or, creating the parts using the same FrameIDs as the score? Again, I don't know, since there are drawbacks to both (the second is actually an attractive alternative, since then you'd have an exact match back to the original data; but I don't know if
Re: [Finale] Grace note spacing: summary
On 8 Jul 2005 at 2:49, Mark D Lew wrote: Once you understand the logic that causes the misalignment, the solutions suggest themselves, so I don't think I need to spell out procedures. Rafael already mentioned the option of turning ledger lines on or off in the Music Spacing Options. A more general solution is to decide which of the two alignments you prefer. Temporarily edit the other line to match, space them both so that they align, then edit the other line back to how it should be and never respace those measures again. I've decided I'll just change the clef in the offending measure so that all have ledger lines or none do, rather than transposing. In the case of my piece, it's a violin and viola part, and so if I just put the viola part in bass clef, then do the spacing, it comes out exactly right. Then I restore the correct clef and everything is OK. So, for example, in the case that Andrew sent me, where the flute and clarinet are playing octaves apart with ledger lines for the flute and none for the clarinet, the solution is to transpose the clarinet's measure up an octave, respace that measure so that the clarinet grace notes spread out to match the flutes, then transpose the measure back down and don't respace. Thanks for going through an explanation of it. I had never thought through the way grace note spacing works, and your explanation makes sense. You're also right that in regard to accidentals, the horizontal spacing should not be vertically aligned. But the problems I've seen are rather different -- it's the problem with extra space, or insufficient space. I've given up on tweaking every case, since it's just such a pain. I just accept less than perfect spacing and make alterations only when it's particularly ugly or unreadable. -- 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 8 Jul 2005 at 6:35, dhbailey wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: [snip] Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already? And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface? USB2 midi interfaces are just external devices which connect to the computer via the USB port. They then present normal midi in/out and sometimes audio in/out ports to the musical devices. Well, if your computer supports only USB 1.x, attaching a USB 2 MIDI interface won't get you USB 2 performance. As everyone has informed me, I misinterpreted what Johannes was saying, which is why I asked! -- 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
When David W. Fenton writes: I think they are going to have to abandon the yearly upgrades. I think it's a really bad business practice in the first place, because it places a schedule on development that is artificial -- a software development schedule should be determined by the goals of the projects currently on the table for implementation/revision/fixing. MakeMusic is also now in a situation where their yearly upgrade is coming out at an inoppportune time for schools -- releasing in August and September and October is not a very good time for that. If they took 18-20 months for their next release, and I personally doubt that the upgrade cycle is one that is completed within a year. Rather, I'm guessing that the development cycle is 36 or 48 months, and that a new cycle is started about every 12, so that some group within MakeMusic! already is already working on what is going to be in 2k9, that the list of what will be in 2k8 is already pretty well fixed and design work is substantially completed, and that the programming work on 2k7 is substantially completed, and with the alpha testers. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: Sibelius v4
Hi Brad, Will the included MusicXML in Finale 2006 still be a Dolet Lite version only, or will it now be fully included? That is to say, in order to transfer entire contents of files (lyric, expressions, and all), will it still be necessary to purchase the full version of Dolet? The Finale 2006 version will import MusicXML 1.1 files and export MusicXML 1.0 files. This offers the greatest compatibility with older versions of Finale, which would not be able to handle the new MusicXML 1.1 features. We've fixed the 2006 software so that compatibility problem won't occur in the future if we release a MusicXML 1.2 format. The full version of the Dolet plug-in will add MusicXML 1.1 export (with improved formatting features) and batch translation. Best regards, Michael Good Recordare LLC ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale
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. Andrew, I posed your question on the Sibelius list, concerning independent page setup parameters for each part, and here is the answer from the resident Sibelius employee, confirming that you can indeed have independent page setups for each part: The first bit is my question -- the part beginning with yes indeed is his response: [quote] Someone on the Finale list asked if we can use different page setup definitions for one or more parts, separate from the page setup definitions (I think he was asking basically about changing paper size for the parts, differently from the score, and possibly even asking if each part could have its own page definition, so, for whatever reason, someone might print a violin part on 8.5x11 (sorry, I'm American and I can never keep those A sizes straight) in portrait mode but print percussion parts on 8.5x14 (legal) in landscape mode. Is this possible? Yes, indeed. The Multiple Part Appearance dialog allows you to change the page and staff size for one or more parts; if you want finer control, you can go to the Layout Document Setup dialog when viewing a dynamic part and change things like margins etc. there (which can then be propagated to other parts via house styles). Each part can naturally have a completely different page size if necessary. Furthermore, on Mac, where it is necessary for each part to have its own printer-specific Page Setup data, you can click the 'Page Setup' button in the Multiple Part Appearance dialog and set the printer-specific properties for one or more parts, and of course this can also be set individually for each part via the File Page Setup dialog if you wish. (Nothing of this sort is required on Windows, where you set the paper size to be used for the print job via the Properties button in the File Print dialog, or Sibelius simply uses the Windows default paper size). [endquote] -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
On 08 Jul 2005, at 5:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Well, if your computer supports only USB 1.x, attaching a USB 2 MIDI interface won't get you USB 2 performance. My suggestion was predicated on getting a USB 2.0 PCI card. Another option I forgot to mention earlier: if you have built-in Bluetooth, you can use a wireless keyboard and mouse, which would free up some bandwidth on the USB bus. (Of course, if you don't have built-in Bluetooth, putting a USB Bluetooth transmitter on the same USB 1.1 bus as your MIDI interface would make the problem worse, not better.) - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] score to midi
Eric Dussault wrote: I've been requested from a composer to produce a midi file from the score where each instruments are assigned to a different channel to separate everything. Now I can't get the Timpani to open back to Finale once the midi file is produced and display as a pitched intrument. It was assigned to channel 26 and I chose timpani from the geneal midi list. What could be wrong? Channel 26 is actually channel 10 of the second group of channels, and channel 10 in GM is a percussion channel. Try changing it to 25 or 27. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
On 8 Jul 2005 at 7:39, Ken Durling wrote: At 03:37 AM 7/8/2005, you wrote: Because a serious musician can set a metronome to 80 and at least try to make an attempt to follow that tempo, while nobody has a metronome that I've ever seen which will give a 69.75 tempo so nobody can even try to follow it, even if they want to. No but often we ask ourselves or others to lay back on a beat, or to push it slightly without actually altering the basic pulse. Maybe this is a way to try and notate that. Set your metronome to 69 and lean on it ever so slightly. Well, standard metronomes don't have 69 as a setting, but the original marking was 60.75, not 69.75. The difference between 60.75 and 61 in a piece of 100 measures is 0.026985090737367604398569790191362 minutes, or 1.6191054442420562639141874114817 seconds: 100 measures of 4/4 is 400 beats. beats per minutetime (minutes) 60.75 6.5843621399176954732510288065844 61 6.5573770491803278688524590163934 Difference:0.026985090737367604398569790191362 in seconds:1.6191054442420562639141874114817 So, basically, you're talking about less than 2 seconds difference in a 100-measure piece, if it's performed with absolutely metronomic regularity. My guess is that 69.75 pushed slightly is going to yield something substantially faster than 70. I don't think we are wired to perceive such tiny differences. I think it would even take 5-10 or more measures of these two tempos played simultaneously before we'd even notice the difference. And I doubt that anyone could tell you which was which just be listening to them. On the other hand, and this has probably been mentioned, I've read that B.F. is more concerned with the *effect* produced by a virtuoso musician essaying some of these extreme effects, than their absolute accuracy. And, one is not to read that as he doesn't really care how it sounds - the effect (of intensity) will only result if you make a concerted effort. I think it's a response to the prevalence of the virtuoso tradition, a sort of that will give them something to do.We want to hear the result of the interaction. I don't see what double decimal point precision of tempo markings accomplishes in that regard. I once saw a performance of a piece that involved 5 players all with headphones listening to the same source tape; the idea was that they all improvised in response to it, while the audience could not hear the source, just the combination of five different responses to it. When I first became aware of what Ferneyhough was doing it reminded me of this experiment. The response to the score is the piece. I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75. -- 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!
John Howell wrote: At 11:18 PM +0200 7/7/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote: 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. And I point out yet again that Mosaic has had this ever since it repaced the late and unlamented Professional Composer in about 1992, so it must not be all that incredibly complicated! Everything--galley, score and parts--is part of a single file, but spacing and other paramenters can be set up differently for each separate part, something obviously necessary for optimal page turns, without affecting the score. In fact the score itself is just another independent page view with its own layout. John Not being a programmer, I can only speculate, but I agree that if one application could do it in 1992, and another one has done it very elegantly in 2005 (in winXP and MacOSX), that a third application ought to be able to do it. It's the direction the programmers are allowed to work, not their programming skills, which is the problem here. The marketing department (which is apparently the tail that wags the dog at MakeMusic) feels it isn't that important. We've already been told that Finale almost had linked score/parts a while ago and it was nearing completion when it was yanked in favor of other programming directions. So now we have textured paper and GPO, which is entirely a third-party thing, well actually TWO third-party things (Kontakt from NI and GPO from Garritan) with only minimal involvement(relatively speaking) from MakeMusic, instead of meaningful upgrades to the program itself. More chrome bumpers added on so we can't see how flawed the chassis and drive train are becoming. I'm beginning to feel like the young lady in the Fantasticks, when being shown the world by El Gallo and starting to lower her rose-colored glasses and seeing the misery of the real world -- he simply forced her to look through those rose-colored glasses again and things were fine. Seems like what MakeMusic is doing -- don't pay any attention to those features you asked for as engravers and we haven't implemented yet, don't look at those flaws in the engraver slurs which we implemented but haven't got working quite properly yet, pay no mind to the inability to copy and paste everything accurately from file to file -- just listen to them fine GPO sounds! And rest your eyes on this textured paper! And don't forget how kind we were to you, all those years ago when we introduced staff styles -- don't go being unkind to us nice folks at MakeMusic! Man, those are some fine sounds, aren't they? Let's hit that replay button again! -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
Johannes Gebauer wrote: Can someone remind me why I _shouldn't_ switch to Sibelius? Seems like it much more fulfills the promises of CAE (computer aided engraving...). Johannes These days the older complaints of Sibelius being too rigid in the placement of items and not allowing engraver control over things seems to be fading away. There may not be much reason no to switch anymore. Try the demo for a while more (the American release of Sibelius4 won't ship until August so you've got some more time to fool around with it.) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale
On 8 Jul 2005 at 12:25, Andrew Stiller wrote: On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:47 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: The problem Andrew describes has nothing to do with libraries, and it is even a problem going from OS 9 to OS X. To my knowledge there is no easy work around. Please enlighten me as to what Andrew is talking about. Whatever it is, if there's a data structure in Finale that already stores the information, there is no reason to assume that this data structure will not be duplicated in part views, in order that parts can have independent settings. On the Mac, in any printable application, there is a File menu item called Page Setup, wh. calls up a dialog in wh. printer settings are stored. If, for example, you want to print a part on folded 11X17 sheets, the Finale layout would prescribe ordinary letter-size paper, but the Page Setup should prescribe 11X17. Obviously, one would often want to do just this for parts, but not for the score they came from. My concern is that I have never heard of any Mac application in which two different Page Setup configurations could be applied simultaneously to the same file, and I therefore wonder whether it might prove impossible to do such a thing in the Mac environment. Since it's data that's stored in the document, all the programmers have to do is create a data structure in the document that stores the different settings. There is no need to assume that this would be ignored in a dynamic parts implementation. Can anyone say what the situation is with Sibelius 4? Surely they already implement independent page setup for parts and scores, all in one file? The question is, is it for all parts or can independent page setups be saved for each individual part (as you rightly require)? If you can have separate settings for score and parts as a whole in a single file (as I assume Sibelius already does), there is no technical reason to prevent allowing for storing independent page setups for each part. Now, technical capabilities aside, it's something that the programmers need to have hammered home that they need to implement, so in sending in a feature request for dynamic parts to MakeMusic, you need to stress that this is needed, just in case they don't think it through sufficiently. -- 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] Ferney who? was: Creston
David W. Fenton wrote: I don't see what double decimal point precision of tempo markings accomplishes in that regard. I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75. I gave an explanation of this earlier - but to summarise, it's derived as a 9:8 ratio from Q=54. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
On 8 Jul 2005 at 16:07, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: When David W. Fenton writes: I think they are going to have to abandon the yearly upgrades. I think it's a really bad business practice in the first place, because it places a schedule on development that is artificial -- a software development schedule should be determined by the goals of the projects currently on the table for implementation/revision/fixing. MakeMusic is also now in a situation where their yearly upgrade is coming out at an inoppportune time for schools -- releasing in August and September and October is not a very good time for that. If they took 18-20 months for their next release, and I personally doubt that the upgrade cycle is one that is completed within a year. Rather, I'm guessing that the development cycle is 36 or 48 months, and that a new cycle is started about every 12, so that some group within MakeMusic! already is already working on what is going to be in 2k9, that the list of what will be in 2k8 is already pretty well fixed and design work is substantially completed, and that the programming work on 2k7 is substantially completed, and with the alpha testers. I honestly don't think MakeMusic is big enough to run their development projects in that manner. It basically means running multiple codebases at the same time, and forking them before you've finished implementing the features in a previous version. No smart developer ever does that unless they are planning a major discontinuity in their code base, such as I'm sure Coda did when they switched to the Windows32 API in WinFin97. In that case, they probably had separate codebases running in parallel, as they still needed to be able to distribute both Win16 and Win32 versions (and, of course, the Win16 version of WinFin97 was the only way to get MIDI on Windows NT 4). And I'm sure the same thing happened with the OS X version of Finale. So, I strongly doubt that the codebase for anything beyond Finale 2007 is already begun. Yes, at this point, Finale 2006 is a closed codebase, because they've already announced the feature set, but I strongly doubt they would launch Finale 2008 at this point unless it was basically a new development project. Even big companies don't do that kind of thing absent a major code fork. -- 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!
David W. Fenton schrieb: The cadenza example was about having more measures in the part than there are in the score. Hmm. Easily handled by optimizing out the cadenza systems in the printed score, no? Why make it harder than that? Actually I don't think this is sufficient. What if the layout doesn't allow that? This would be the half-hearted design that I fear most with such improvements. All of these cases need to be covered without clumsy work-arounds. 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] Ferney who? was: Creston
On 8 Jul 2005 at 23:00, Owain Sutton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: I don't see what double decimal point precision of tempo markings accomplishes in that regard. I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75. I gave an explanation of this earlier - but to summarise, it's derived as a 9:8 ratio from Q=54. You seem to not understand the meaning of the word obvious. Wouldn't it be more clear to just state the ratio, rather than using a metronome marking that is completely impossible to get from a metronome, or to perform, or to perceive? It's a proportional relationship between the parts of the piece, so why should it not be represented as a proportion? Why obscure that fact by converting the proportional relationship to something else? -- 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
Tyler Turner wrote: [snip] If you're upset with the features being included, fine. But don't stretch my words to forward your argument. I publicly apologize if I have misinterpreted Tyler's remarks (which apparently I have done.) I don't mean to put words into anybody's mouth (other than mine) and I appreciate the insights he has shared with us. But given the fluff that MakeMusic has added in the last release and the current one, it is frustrating for many of us. I apologize again if I let my frustrations get in the way of better judgement in interpreting your remarks, Tyler. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
David W. Fenton wrote: And my main objection was that I could never figure out, once the music was entered, how to (in Finale terms): 1. change the page percentage OR 2. change the system percentage The music was TOO BIG. I wanted it smaller. I couldn't figure out a way to do that. And the result was something I'd never show anyone else, because it looked like a kindergarten exercise. This is done via Layout Document Setup, I think. Best, -WR ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
David W. Fenton wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 at 23:00, Owain Sutton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: I don't see what double decimal point precision of tempo markings accomplishes in that regard. I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75. I gave an explanation of this earlier - but to summarise, it's derived as a 9:8 ratio from Q=54. You seem to not understand the meaning of the word obvious. Wouldn't it be more clear to just state the ratio, rather than using a metronome marking that is completely impossible to get from a metronome, or to perform, or to perceive? It's a proportional relationship between the parts of the piece, so why should it not be represented as a proportion? Why obscure that fact by converting the proportional relationship to something else? Because of what I've said elsewhere, that some of these markings are approached via accel/rit instructions. How would you show the proportional change, given this added element? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius v4
Richard Bartkus wrote: Okay, my interest was piqued, so I downloaded it and gave it a brief try. Initial look and feel was impressive. However, I have a significant investment already in FINALE formatted files. I tried to import a couple files and was not successful. Even after exporting to ETF first and then importing. I do like the options/templates etc. but if I have to reinput all my FINALE files, it's going to take some more convincing before I make the move. Just my initial and humble opinion on the subject Try exporting them as MusicXML and then import into Sibelius as MusicXML. To do this efficiently you may need to invest in the Dolet plugins for both Sibelius and Finale (Michael Goode is better equipped to advise you on this). On the other hand, if your files still work fine in Finale, there's no need to convert them -- keep Finale on your machine and also install Sibelius. But if you want all your Finale files converted, you're right that it will be a major bother. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: Re: [Finale] Sibelius v4
Thank you. The XML files ported over well. Not perfect, but reasonably well. Just have to tweek some things here and there, such as octaves etc, but it's manageable. I still need to do more writing in it to see if it's worth the bother to change. Is there a Sibelius list somewhere Richard From: dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/07/08 Fri PM 06:32:53 EDT To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius v4 Richard Bartkus wrote: Okay, my interest was piqued, so I downloaded it and gave it a brief try. Initial look and feel was impressive. However, I have a significant investment already in FINALE formatted files. I tried to import a couple files and was not successful. Even after exporting to ETF first and then importing. I do like the options/templates etc. but if I have to reinput all my FINALE files, it's going to take some more convincing before I make the move. Just my initial and humble opinion on the subject Try exporting them as MusicXML and then import into Sibelius as MusicXML. To do this efficiently you may need to invest in the Dolet plugins for both Sibelius and Finale (Michael Goode is better equipped to advise you on this). On the other hand, if your files still work fine in Finale, there's no need to convert them -- keep Finale on your machine and also install Sibelius. But if you want all your Finale files converted, you're right that it will be a major bother. -- 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] Sibelius v4
Go to http://www.sibelius.com and choose Help Center, and then join the chat page.You can view posts there or choose to have them sent to you via email.==Doug LeBowLeBow Music Multimedia, Inc.Santa Clarita, CA 91390-5233(661) 297-1001 Studio(661) 244-4400 Fax(661) 313-6044 Cellhttp://www.lebowmusic.com On Jul 8, 2005, at 3:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Is there a Sibelius list somewhere ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
Indeed. We should start a petition or something. Light a fire under MakeMusic's ass. Or something. Johannes Gebauer wrote: Darcy, I wasn't 100% serious anyway. I have no time nor intention to do a quick switch to Sibelius, but I do want to put some pressure on MakeMusic to move into the right direction. Johannes ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
On 08 Jul 2005, at 6:53 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: Indeed. We should start a petition or something. Light a fire under MakeMusic's ass. Or something. By all means, if you want this feature implemented in future versions of Finale, tell Coda. If you have any detailed suggestions about exactly *how* to implement Dynamic Parts in Finale, I might suggest holding off until Fin2k6 is out the door -- but if it's just We demand Dynamic Parts, you know where to go: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 9 Jul 2005 at 0:08, Johannes Gebauer wrote: David W. Fenton schrieb: The cadenza example was about having more measures in the part than there are in the score. Hmm. Easily handled by optimizing out the cadenza systems in the printed score, no? Why make it harder than that? Actually I don't think this is sufficient. What if the layout doesn't allow that? . . . Why wouldn't the layout of the score allow it? If it's a solo instrument cadenza, and you don't want it displayed in the score, those measures can be put on their own systems and those systems optimized out. What layout would prevent that? Surely not multiple simultaneous cadenzas, since you could still optimize out the systems you don't want displayed. And if there's other music being played during the cadenza, you don't have a different number of measures in the cadenza part. . . . This would be the half-hearted design that I fear most with such improvements. All of these cases need to be covered without clumsy work-arounds. Well, how would you handle this today? Would you *really* extract the part and then insert the cadenza only into the part? I certainly wouldn't! It's too easy to lose data that exists only in a part. The way I look at it, certain things are going to be too complex for dynamic parts, and in those cases, you should be able to revert to traditional extracted parts. It seems to me that trying to do everything in dynamic parts is going to be impossible, because accomodating every single one of these requirements makes it so complicated as to be insurmountable. If, on the other hand, you have an alternative method for getting these additional features that is identical to how it would have been accomplished in earlier versions of Finale, it seems to me as though you've got a big win -- dynamic parts for the vast majority of parts, and the ability to extract to an independent file for the complicated ones that dynamic parts can't really accommodate. My guess is that it's one of those 90/10% things. If getting 90% of the functionality takes 10 manhours, getting the last 10% implemented often takes 90 more manhours. As long as functionality is not removed from Finale, you'd still be able to get the job done, even if the new feature doesn't implement it. And if the design goal is getting something usable as a productivity enhancement for most situations, rather than getting a 100% complete implementation that covers all eventualities, who is going to complain? -- 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] The ultimate Sibelius question...
The HOW part is up to them. Playing with the Demo of Sibelius 4, I think what they did is very good. So, they could just COPY them Darcy James Argue wrote: By all means, if you want this feature implemented in future versions of Finale, tell Coda. If you have any detailed suggestions about exactly *how* to implement Dynamic Parts in Finale, I might suggest holding off until Fin2k6 is out the door -- but if it's just We demand Dynamic Parts, you know where to go: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 8 Jul 2005 at 23:23, Will Roberts wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: And my main objection was that I could never figure out, once the music was entered, how to (in Finale terms): 1. change the page percentage OR 2. change the system percentage The music was TOO BIG. I wanted it smaller. I couldn't figure out a way to do that. And the result was something I'd never show anyone else, because it looked like a kindergarten exercise. This is done via Layout Document Setup, I think. Well, I'm sure I looked at that (I couldn't save the file, so it no longer exists), since I definitely went menu hunting to try to figure out where such settings might exist. But I apparently didn't find it. I just tried one of the sample files and see that you change this by choosing a different staff size (based on their raster sizes, I guess). The results are nearly as unacceptable as the original, because it maintains interstaff spacing (up to a certain point, at which it then leaps to a different interstaff spacing, but I don't know exactly what controls that change). It looks like there are more settings in HOUSE STYLES | ENGRAVING RULES that have an impact on this. And, of course, this is what makes me crazy about Sibelius's intuitive UI reputation. In Finale, you operate directly on the score to adjust these things, but in Sibelius, you go to a dialog box and make changes to settings there that then change the way things look onscreen. At least in the first dialog (Document Setup) you have a preview to show you the results of your changes, but in the ENGRAVING RULES, you can't see the results onscreen. This is *easier*? I guess it's easier if you don't want to change it. This is what happens to me every time I try the Sibelius demo (and I'm still working with the Sibelius 3 demo) -- I come into it wanting to like it more than Finale, and then I realize why Finale, despite all its flaws, is still better than the alternative! And I still don't see the intuitive reputation of Sibelius as being earned. This is *not* about me knowing how to use Finale already -- there's a huge difference between controlling layout with settings in dialog boxes and doing it instead by operating directly on the layout objects onscreen, as 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] The ultimate Sibelius question...
On 08 Jul 2005, at 7:11 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: The HOW part is up to them. I meant how do you want this feature to work, not how do we implement this feature. Playing with the Demo of Sibelius 4, I think what they did is very good. So, they could just COPY them If that's really what you want, tell them. If there are things that Sib doesn't do so well and you can think of a way to do it better, tell them that, too. (Again, for best results, AFTER Fin2k6 starts shipping.) - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
On 8 Jul 2005 at 23:29, Owain Sutton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 at 23:00, Owain Sutton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: I don't see what double decimal point precision of tempo markings accomplishes in that regard. I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75. I gave an explanation of this earlier - but to summarise, it's derived as a 9:8 ratio from Q=54. You seem to not understand the meaning of the word obvious. Wouldn't it be more clear to just state the ratio, rather than using a metronome marking that is completely impossible to get from a metronome, or to perform, or to perceive? It's a proportional relationship between the parts of the piece, so why should it not be represented as a proportion? Why obscure that fact by converting the proportional relationship to something else? Because of what I've said elsewhere, that some of these markings are approached via accel/rit instructions. How would you show the proportional change, given this added element? I don't know. I have a fundamental lack of understanding of what is desired tempo-wise and rhythmically in these kinds of scores. Notations like 60.75 beats to the minute and time signatures of 5/12 don't make it any clearer to me. -- 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!
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Snip We've already been told that Finale almost had linked score/parts a while ago and it was nearing completion when it was yanked in favor of other programming directions. I should have kept my mouth shut for the last couple of days! I apologize for the confusion I have caused. MakeMusic was never close to finishing this. They had done some research and consulted with engravers about how it should work, but in the end they chose not to start development of this project. Again, I'm not sure of the reasons. This was prior to OS X Finale, and so the fact they were working through the many challenges that has given them may have come into play. And just so there's no confusion, MakeMusic has wanted to do linked parts for a very long time. I believe they still want to do it, and I won't be the least surprised when it finally happens. Let's just hope it comes sooner rather than later. Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
David W. Fenton wrote: I don't know. I have a fundamental lack of understanding of what is desired tempo-wise and rhythmically in these kinds of scores. Notations like 60.75 beats to the minute and time signatures of 5/12 don't make it any clearer to me. Get yerself a score or two, and take a look for yourself - I'm honest when I say it's not difficult music :) And if you ever get the chance to hear Ferneyhough speak, or especially to see him in a workshop/student situation, take it. He's a minority among composers, in that he is an exceptionally good teacher, and able to adjust his speech and his comments to suit both the tutee and also the audience. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75. Then isn't the next hypothesis that there is a non-obvious meaning? I think it is overwhelmingly likely that the composer was entirely aware that the two-decimal point precision is impossible to follow or maintain. It seems ludicrous to think otherwise. You seem locked into the assumptions that the marking MUST be intended concretely. There are lots of other possibilities - indeed even subtle and artistic ones. Maybe it's a puzzle; maybe it's a parody; maybe it's a satire on overprecision; maybe it's purpose is to reveal musicians who have a bullheaded insistence on literalism. It is as if someone were looking at this: http://www.comviz.com.ulaval.ca/module1/Images/MagrittePipe.jpg and saying Of course it's a pipe! You can't fool me! Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] score to midi
Thanks David, you're right and I got it to work with the advise of Steve and Neal. Éric Dussault Le 05-07-08 à 17:33, dhbailey a écrit : Channel 26 is actually channel 10 of the second group of channels, and channel 10 in GM is a percussion channel. Try changing it to 25 or 27. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: Re: [Finale] Sibelius v4
Yes. At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/ and it is a very helpful community. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 10:42 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: Re: [Finale] Sibelius v4 Thank you. The XML files ported over well. Not perfect, but reasonably well. Just have to tweek some things here and there, such as octaves etc, but it's manageable. I still need to do more writing in it to see if it's worth the bother to change. Is there a Sibelius list somewhere Richard From: dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/07/08 Fri PM 06:32:53 EDT To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius v4 Richard Bartkus wrote: Okay, my interest was piqued, so I downloaded it and gave it a brief try. Initial look and feel was impressive. However, I have a significant investment already in FINALE formatted files. I tried to import a couple files and was not successful. Even after exporting to ETF first and then importing. I do like the options/templates etc. but if I have to reinput all my FINALE files, it's going to take some more convincing before I make the move. Just my initial and humble opinion on the subject Try exporting them as MusicXML and then import into Sibelius as MusicXML. To do this efficiently you may need to invest in the Dolet plugins for both Sibelius and Finale (Michael Goode is better equipped to advise you on this). On the other hand, if your files still work fine in Finale, there's no need to convert them -- keep Finale on your machine and also install Sibelius. But if you want all your Finale files converted, you're right that it will be a major bother. -- 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 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Grace note spacing: summary
On Jul 8, 2005, at 2:06 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: But the problems I've seen are rather different -- it's the problem with extra space, or insufficient space. I've given up on tweaking every case, since it's just such a pain. I just accept less than perfect spacing and make alterations only when it's particularly ugly or unreadable. Even aside from the question of two stave with matching rhythm coming out unaligned, there's the more basic matter of whether Finale's choice of spacing looks good. In my experience, it usually does, but not always -- which is a large improvement over past versions, when it was almost always bad. By the way, for those who don't know it, there is a global setting you can change for grace note spacing. In Fin 2k2 it's the last item under Options Document Settings Music Options. As far as I can tell, this only affect spacing when the notes are first entered. Any implementation of music spacing (ie, metatool 3 or 4) overrides it. It seems pretty pointless to me. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
On 8 Jul 2005 at 17:14, Richard Yates wrote: I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75. Then isn't the next hypothesis that there is a non-obvious meaning? I think it is overwhelmingly likely that the composer was entirely aware that the two-decimal point precision is impossible to follow or maintain. It seems ludicrous to think otherwise. You seem locked into the assumptions that the marking MUST be intended concretely. . . . It's funny how decimal points seem in my crazy world to be associated with precision. . . . There are lots of other possibilities - indeed even subtle and artistic ones. Maybe it's a puzzle; maybe it's a parody; maybe it's a satire on overprecision; maybe it's purpose is to reveal musicians who have a bullheaded insistence on literalism. Someone specifies a number to a precision that is humanly possible to realize or perceive, and *I'm* the one who insists on interpreting it with precision? It is as if someone were looking at this: http://www.comviz.com.ulaval.ca/module1/Images/MagrittePipe.jpg and saying Of course it's a pipe! You can't fool me! Ridiculous analogy -- has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. A pictorial representation of an object, no matter how detailed, is still a depiction. A score is a recipe for performing the piece. Specifying a metronome marking of 60.75 would be like specifying 1.00456 teaspoons of sugar in a recipe -- not something to be taken at all seriously, and not something that accomplishes anything in regard to enhancing the results. I'm done on this issue. I get angry when people defend such blatantly obvious stupidity. -- 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] The ultimate Sibelius question...
Can someone remind me why I _shouldn't_ switch to Sibelius? Seems like it much more fulfills the promises of CAE (computer aided engraving...). I thought that and tried it and discovered that it just couldn't do the job. The performance claims were over exaggerated and if you didn't want to do things the way Sibelius wanted to do them then there were precious little ability for work arounds. When they talk about Finale workarounds as a bad thing (implying that Finale can't do something properly and Sibelius can), they're really saying that Sibelius is over-rigid and Finale is very _very_ flexible. I sold Sibelius 3 on ebay a while back. Having said that you really ought to try it, maybe it'll work for you, I thought it was a textbook case of over marketing though. Ever since I watched Dead Ringers (David Cronenberg) I find twins really spooky, maybe that has something to do with it too. Simon Troup Digital Music Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
At 02:44 PM 7/8/2005, you wrote: When I first became aware of what Ferneyhough was doing it reminded me of this experiment. The response to the score is the piece. I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75. -- Who said anything about obvious? ;-) Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 12:39 PM 7/8/2005, you wrote: And my main objection was that I could never figure out, once the music was entered, how to (in Finale terms): 1. change the page percentage OR 2. change the system percentage The music was TOO BIG. I wanted it smaller. I couldn't figure out a way to do that. And the result was something I'd never show anyone else, because it looked like a kindergarten exercise. Objection overruled. Don't blame Sibelius for what you don't know how to do. This is a very basic setting under Layout Document Setup Staff Size. I don't know Finale well enough to know exactly what is meant by page percentage but I suspect that it's under House Styles Engraving Rules Staves Justify when % full?I could be wrong. Ken ___ 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 8, 2005, at 5:24 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 at 10:21, Christopher Smith wrote: My trick was (for 4 sixteenths, a quintuplet, and a quarter note) to say out loud TEE-ry tee-ry MATH-e-ma-ti-cal TAH. My nine year old can do it (I tested it out on him.) Hmm. You pronounce mathematical differently than I do. My rhythm for it is 8th 8th 16th 16th 8th, with ma-ti being a subdivision of the length of the other syllables. In other words, four feet. Canadian. I have no other explanation. This came up a while ago, and some regions drop the e, making it four syllables, not unlike the beginning of a Viennese waltz QEEQ. Yes, I can distort the pronunciation to be a quintuplet. Try this one from an older musician than I am: for quintuplets say Lollobrigida. For septuplets, say Gina Lollobrigida. Hey, works for me! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
A score is a recipe for performing the piece. This assumption does seem to lead to your outrage. Specifying a metronome marking of 60.75 would be like specifying 1.00456 teaspoons of sugar in a recipe -- not something to be taken at all seriously Good analogy, and yet you are the one that is the most serious about it rather than being amused, puzzled, intrigued, or entertained. and not something that accomplishes anything in regard to enhancing the results. You are insisting that you know what result is intended. You are probably wrong. I get angry when people defend such blatantly obvious stupidity. I don't know that I am defending it as much as suggesting that the purpose of the marking may be (almost certainly is) intended in a broader context than a literal, concrete reading. Maybe a better analogy would be someone looking at an Impressionist painting and saying, If he wanted me to see a person he shouldn't have made it all blurry, goddammit! Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
