Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 09:55 PM 7/8/2005, you wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 at 18:16, Ken Durling wrote: 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. I posted about this later on. The UI for adjusting these things in Sibelius is buried in dialog boxes, whereas the UI in Finale is based on right clicking on things displayed onscreen, or dragging margin lines, or by using one of the standard tools. While the Finale methods have their drawbacks in terms of some loss of precision if you only try to drag things around onscreen (instead of using the tools that allow precise settings), in Sibelius, I could see no way to visually see the settings I was changing, except to visit a dialog box, make the changes and then close the dialog (yes, one of the dialogs had a preview, but it was too small to be entirely eliminate the need to close the dialog to see the results). I also find simple page navigation very frustrating. How do I move right in the page display? [typed later:] Well, I've discovered that there are scrollbars that can be turned on (don't know why they're off!) and that you can click on the navigation palette in a special way to navigate from page to page, but this does not feel at all comfortable to me. I cannot seem to position the view window successfully where I want it. That is, I can't seem to figure out the relationship of the position of the mouse click to where the view window ends up. I never use the navigation palette or the scroll bars. I'm entirely comfortable with a combination of click and drag and page up/down. I mucked around quite a while with a MusicXML imported file and there were a whole host of problems in the conversion (I'm not blaming that on Sibelius), and I had a devil of a time figuring out how to fix them. Here's a couple: 1. the first time I imported, I let Sibelius choose the instruments. It chose orchestral strings instead of the solo sounds. I never was able to figure out how to change the playback to use solo string patches instead of orchestral. 2. the piece being imported had independent key signatures, but only in the final movement. The problem was that the key signature change in the piano part for the second movement was missed (it's only the piano that has independent time sigs). Now, I have no way of telling if this is a MusicXML problem or not (the file won't re-import into Finale, giving me a DTD error), but I don't really care about that. My concern was with how to fix it. And because of Sibelius's page view orientation, it was extremely hard for me to reliably select measures to transpose. 3. the cello part had some sections in treble clef. I didn't expect to get the right performance from a MusicXML import, but in giving a look, I couldn't quite figure out how to get the treble clef passage to play an octave below notated (it didn't come out right with an ETF import, either). 4. playback was very annoying. I wanted the view to be 2-page view, but every time I started playback, it switched back to 100% (or some larger percentage), which made it very, very difficult to follow playback. Ah -- I see there's a setting that was set to always play back at 75%. You can set this however you want it, even no zoom, where I have it set. 5. I tested their version of Human Playback and found that the default settings were best (espressivo with basically no rubato). But I don't like certain interpretations of how the shape of lines should be interpreted, specifically, any time a line has a disjunction (say, a leap up an octave) the first note after the leap is accented. That's musically *awful* for just about any style I can think of. If you look to Sibelius as a playback program, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. And the above behavior sounds more like a problem with your sound module than Sibelius - mine does no such accents on wide leaps. And playback is what you're criticizing - at least many here are - Finale for pursuing. It's a notation program. I am really pleased so much was implemented in this upgrade that directly addresses engraving. 6. I also just tried ETF import, and it's not too bad, actually. But now the tempo is wrong. For some reason the MusicXML import got the right tempo, but ETF doesn't. I can't for the life of me figure out
Re: [Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
David W. Fenton wrote: But it tells me *nothing* about how to perform it. I just ignore the extra, useless decimal places and play Q = 60 and measure out as close to exactly 1 teaspoon as I'm able. If that's going to be the result, I just don't see what is accomplished by going into decimal places. If the decimal places were not used, it would obscure the intention, which is a 9:8 increase in tempo from the previous section. Indicating the change precisely, to me, makes it clear that this is what is to be attempted (and having read his writings, know that's what he intends with such indications). And even if the change were indicated with this ratio rather than a decimal, it would not be played precisely. Nor would Q=60, not without a click-track. If NO alternative is going to be following robotically, why not use an option which shows the ideal realisation? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 11:34 PM 7/8/2005, you wrote: I never use the navigation palette or the scroll bars. I'm entirely comfortable with a combination of click and drag and page up/down. Sorry, should have added Home and End, (and Ctrl-Home and Ctrl-End.) Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
On Jul 8, 2005, at 11:07 AM, John Howell wrote: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.Time and knowledge base indeed. I'm one of those people who are sick of tweaking, and would like for the default settings to be at least close to usable. I'm working on a book of pieces for flute and piano for my students, and I find that I'm having to do a lot of tweaking to get things to look right:1. Virtually every slur has to be tweaked. If I change the music spacing I can pretty much count on slurs going haywire, being drawn at an ungodly height, for instance, and colliding with all manner of notational elements--ties, accidentals, expressions, etc. But even when I let Finale do the spacing, slurs still get drawn at ungodly heights. Transposing the music makes slurs go nuts too.2. Same with tuplets. I thought these had been improved, but when I do a simple group of quarter triplets, using Speedy note entry, the bracket is almost never the right height, requiring more tweaking. Then if I transpose the part, I have to tweak tuplets all over again.3. Where is the freaking Maestro Default file, and how do I tweak that so that I don't get a one-inch left margin on a file created from the Setup Wizard? I thought I'd located it in the Components folder, so I tweaked the page layout settings for both score and parts to get rid of the one-inch left margin. Then, lo and behold, the next time I used the Setup Wizard I still got one-inch left margins. I have templates made for a lot of situations, but not every situation, so I need to use the Setup Wizard occasionally, as I suspect most average users do. Why is it such a mystery where this default file is located, and why is it so hard to preset things the way I want in Finale? Wouldn't House Styles eliminate this problem?4. I spent a lot of time creating an extensive instrument list, called Lon's Orchestra, that covers just about every instrument I'll ever need to use in Finale. I got tired of having to load my instrument library into every file created with the Setup Wizard, so while I was tweaking page layout settings, I also loaded my instrument list into this supposed Maestro Default file. That didn't work either. The next time I used the Setup Wizard my instrument list was not there.These are the types of complains I've heard from people who have tried Finale in the past, but moved on to some other notation program, usually Sibelius. I tried looking in the manual for answers to the above stated problems, but gave up in frustration, because I guess I just don't know where to look--and that's after looking in the Table of Contents and the Index. If I don't know exactly how something is worded, I can't find it in the manual. I remember having to ask you guys when I first bought Finale how to beam across staves, because I couldn't find it in the manual. I didn't know that it was called "cross-staff beaming." (I just tried looking in Finale QuickHelp for "beaming across staves," and was directed to the Mass Mover tool.)BTW, I ordered the $199 "cross-grade" of Sibelius last night, and, yes, I've already preordered Finale 2006, so I'm not necessarily jumping ship, but I'm close. These issues have been bugging me for the entire five + years that I've been using Finale.Lon Lon Price, Los Angeles [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hometown.aol.com/txstnr/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
=?iso-8859-1?Q?[Finale]_Hey!_What's_wrong_with_Creston's_12/12???=
Gerald Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote But of course this 5/8 is 1/3 longer than the required 5/12. But hey, who's counting! Please reread my previous paragraph. The 5/8 (5/Q) relates correctly to the duplets (or dotted eighths) in the 12/8 (4/Q. or 8/E.). Incidentally, this Brit has been happy with whole notes, halves, quarters etc. for some decades, except when looking for a translation of maxima and longa. -- K C Moore ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
Lon Price schrieb: Time and knowledge base indeed. I'm one of those people who are sick of tweaking, and would like for the default settings to be at least close to usable. I'm working on a book of pieces for flute and piano for my students, and I find that I'm having to do a lot of tweaking to get things to look right: 1. Virtually every slur has to be tweaked. If I change the music spacing I can pretty much count on slurs going haywire, being drawn at an ungodly height, for instance, and colliding with all manner of notational elements--ties, accidentals, expressions, etc. But even when I let Finale do the spacing, slurs still get drawn at ungodly heights. Transposing the music makes slurs go nuts too. Which version of Finale, pre or post Engraver slurs. If you are using a recent version it sounds to me like your font annotation has gone crazy, or your Engraver slur settings are wrong. There are problems with Engraver slurs, but it sounds you are having addtional problems. 2. Same with tuplets. I thought these had been improved, but when I do a simple group of quarter triplets, using Speedy note entry, the bracket is almost never the right height, requiring more tweaking. Then if I transpose the part, I have to tweak tuplets all over again. 3. Where is the freaking Maestro Default file, and how do I tweak that so that I don't get a one-inch left margin on a file created from the Setup Wizard? The setup wizard uses the pagesizes.txt file for margins, so the ones in the default file get overlooked. Change the pagesizes.txt file, look it up in the appendix of the manual. 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] Finale 2006 Review?
Colin Broom wrote: Has anyone written a Finale 2006 review yet? Jari has in recent years put one up on the tips site, but there hasn't been one yet. Jari, are you planning on reviewing it? I'd be interested to know if there any reviews by serious users/beta testers available. It hasn't been released yet, only announced, so disclosure agreements may still be in effect. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
Ken Durling wrote: At 06:23 PM 7/8/2005, you wrote: Can any Sibelius users out there confirm that Sib 4 fixed the bug that makes octave-transposing instruments an octave off, like bari sax? Hmm, I don't recall ever having a problem with tenor sax, which is also an 8va transposer, and I write for it regularly. Checking bari . . . ok, looks fine to me - what was the problem exactly? The problem was in using the Sibelius version of Exlode, called Arrange. If you have a 4-note chord written on a single staff and you want to explode that onto 4 sax parts, 2 altos, a tenor and a bari, the bari sax used to end up an octave too high, yet the others were put in the correct octave. Similar problems occured with the trombones, from what I remember reading on the Sibelius list. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Richard Smith wrote: [snip] Here's where I will probably say the wrong thing on a Finale list. The competition has been great for both programs. However, I think Finale has benefited more than Sibelius. I think the long discussion of dynamic parts here is an indicator of that. I remember pre-Sibelius Finale. It's MUCH better now. You won't get any argument from me on that point. As to whether it's directly Sibelius-caused or just the natural evolution of Finale which would have ocurred anyway, whether or not Sibelius existed, is something nobody will ever know for sure. But it is curious that several things that Sibelius initiates end up in Finale. I don't see much of the opposite happening, although there was an interesting post on the Sibelius-list where they wish that Finale's purported ability to use ANY kontakt-based samples (not just the Sibelius-only Kontakt-silver or Kontakt-gold) would happen in Sibelius. Perhaps that will show up in an interim release of Sibelius. I also remember the reports of Sibelius version 1 for Windows/Mac and Sibelius is MUCH better, now, too. That may be because it knows it has tough competition from Finale, and again, it may simply be the normal maturing of a product. But in any event both programs have improved immensely over the past few versions, since Sibelius appeared in this marketplace. In any event, these two giants of the notation software field have been good for each other if for no other reason than the competition for the relatively small market for notation software has made both stronger. I just hope that Finale doesn't keep heading towards the sequencer end of things (which has gotten strong attention in the recent few versions, starting with the inclusion of the soundfont player and human playback) at the expense of notational improvements. There have been some posts on the Sibelius list which congratulate that program's developpers on remaining focused on the core purpose of the program, notation. I wish I could make the same congratulations to Finale's developpers. -- 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: David W. Fenton wrote: 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. Well, I didn't think of it in terms of multiple codebases, so much as the development process being more involved,. and taking longer than most on the list seem to think. I suspect the 2006 codebase was substantially closed sometime late last summer or last autumn, and that some people began working at that point on the 2007 codebase. My hunch is that someone at Makemusic! already knows the 2007 update feature list with 85 percent confidence. I further suspect that if someone submitted a brand new idea that did not yet appear in any form on MakeMusic!'s to do list, and they felt it was so compelling that it had to be included, that it might well be Fin 2k8 or even 2k9 before it made it to light. I agree that the planning stages may be a version or 2 ahead of the programming stages. This might explain why in the past a bug has appeared and then been squashed in a maintenance release, only to resurface in the next upgrade, needing to be squashed in THAT maintenance release. The newer upgrade having worked with the original gold code for the previous version before that bug was squashed. Interesting! I can also see such a planning-ahead need because there may be some programming skills needed to be gained for certain things or at least negotiations with 3rd-parties to include their software, and I'm sure that doesn't happen overnight. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Ken Durling wrote: [snip] Sib's UI is not dreadful Far from it. It works wonderfully and is very flexible. But it takes tine to learn. I'm still trying to find time to pursue finding my way around Finale better. Neither program is perfect, and layout is one of the tougher issues in Sibelius. But I'm not going to call either program awful because I just haven't learned how to use it! . This is something that every user of either program needs to remember when trying the competition. I have been using Finale for 12 years (I think, starting with version 3.5) and I remember coming from MusicPrinterPlus and having a slow beginning to get comfortable with Finale. I know David Fenton has been using Finale longer because he was already resident on this list when I joined, shortly after I started with Finale. It took me a while to get comfortable with the working methods that Finale forced me to use. And then I got very comfortable with them, to the point that I can fly with the program now, doing music entry very fast and comfortable and being able to solve most of my notational problems myself, only rarely consulting the on-line documentation or asking questions on this list. When I started using Sibelius I found it extremely frustrating because I didn't take the time to find where things are in the menus. Of course, Finale keeps moving things around and often with a new upgrade of Finale I'm frustrated for a short while until I get comfortable with the new locations of menu items. I blamed Sibelius, until I realized it was simply that I didn't take the time to learn the program. The more I use it, the more comfortable I get with it, and I realize that my 12-years of finale-workflow really gets in the way of giving Sibelius a fair chance. I am trying now to approach Sibelius as if it were a brand-new program (which it is) that I have to learn as if I had never used a notation program (that's hard to do!) I have been unfair in many (but not all) of my former criticisms of Sibelius and have tried to point out the same unfairness in Sibelius users' complaints regarding Finale. If anybody simply gets the program (I agree that both demos, Sibelius and Finale are lousy ways to learn the program, since neither is truly full-functioned and prevent really learning how to use the program, since you can't save a project and continue working on the same thing for a week or more continuously to really get comfortable with the program), does the included tutorials, joins one of these lists and reads the questions and problems raised by others and tries out the solutions themselves, even if they haven't reached the point where they need a particular function, and they will get more comfortable more quickly with the way either program works. Both programs can and do generate gorgeous notation and both programs can and do generate truly ugly notation. With either program the output is the responsibility of the user. Both programs are very complex and neither will stand up to a cursory attempt to learn it. Unfortunately, Sibelius tries to make that gorgeous output and easy to use right out of the box claim which leads to frustration in many beginners. Equally unfortunately, Finale has a known history of a steep learning curve (which has gotten to be far less steep as the years have passed) which it seems unable to shake. They're both equally complex to learn if a person wants to reach a professional engraving level. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 12:55 AM -0400 7/9/05, David W. Fenton wrote: Anyway, that's enough for now. Most of the notational aspects I could probably figure out how to configure, but I find the user interface is, overall, really poorly done, with lots of places where it's extremely hard to find how to control things (they just aren't located anywhere on any of the menus that would make sense to me). Also, there seems to be very little in the way of context-sensitive menus. I would expect that if I right click on a text expression I'd get some shortcuts to commands that are specific to the type of object I'm clicking on, but there's nothing there. Gee, that describes exactly how I feel about Finale, coming to it from Mosaic. IT'S WHAT YOU'VE LEARNED!!! (And, of course, what you HAVEN'T yet learned!) 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] 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...). My quick 2c: - No scroll view in Sibelius. Having the last bars on the page jump around I find intensely irritating. Also as one of the Davids here said, it makes it more difficult to select different things. - Very few metatools for things like time signatures, which are a big time-saver in Finale. Mind you if you're dealing mostly with baroque music you may not need such things... Also the option-click to copy function in Sibelius is great. - The time signature function in Sibelius is actually pretty clunky from what I can see if you need them to change a lot. - No Sibelius Notepad. - No Speedy Entry in Sibelius. - You can't undo plugins (this is truly bizarre IMHO - what application doesn't have an Undo for some of its functions?). - No TGTools Staff List Manager or TGTools Cue Notes function in Sibelius. - No graphic expression editor in Sibelius like in Finale. - You might not have time to learn another application to the standard to which you currently know Finale. - There is no rhyming dictionary in Sibelius ;-) (Funnily enough I needed to use this the other day). I think that it would still depend on your notational needs though. I wonder if you could make something as beautiful as your quasi-Henle scores using Sibelius? That would be the real test? It's interesting though, if I had to make a prediction about which application will still be around in 5-10 years, I think it would be Sibelius. It's caught up in most areas to Finale and in some areas, such as House Styles, its Setup Wizard and the new Dynamic Parts, has well and truly surpassed it. Matthew -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/44 - Release Date: 8/07/2005 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
I downloaded the demo this morning. The first feature I tried to look at was fingering numbers. The Demo documentation offers no help. I can find in the menus: Create - Text - Other Text - Guitar fingering (ALT C, X, O, G, OK) to add a fingering number to one note. As a Finale user I want one key shortcuts for each symbol but cannot find how to do this in the Demo with its limited documentation. How does one quickly apply fingering numbers to a succession of notes? Is there no autopositioning of such numbers as there is for articulations in Finale? Richard Yates ___ 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...). My music school gave me Sibelius 3, including a five lesson course in how to use it. I was excited and prepared really well for the first lesson: scanned a piece and edited it, imported a file from Finale and edited it and finally I input a piece from scratch. I included lute tablature, something I am particularly interested in, and classical guitar music (many voices on one staff). Working with Sibelius was all rather straightforward, no big problems, but I didn't have that much influence on the final appearance of the piece as I have with Finale. I encountered some things I couldn't do and a number of things that didn't look right on the page, so I had a list of questions for the first lesson. The guy who was teaching answered me on every question: what you want cannot be done in Sibelius. All of my problems can easily be solved with Finale, however. My impression was that Sibelius is fine as long as you're happy with the choices Sibelius makes for you, but if you want something different from standard you'd better give it up. Not much room for workarounds. So, back to Finale. But at least I tried, and I did like the 'feel' of the program. I think I will use it for some simple music-for-pupils jobs. David * David van Ooijen Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http://home.planet.nl/~d.v.ooijen/ * ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another thing Sibelius has
On Jul 9, 2005, at 5:14 AM, Lon Price wrote: 1. Virtually every> slur has to be tweaked. If I change the music spacing I can pretty much count on slurs going haywire, being drawn at an ungodly height, for instance, and colliding with all manner of notational elements--ties, accidentals, expressions, etc. But even when I let Finale do the spacing, slurs still get drawn at ungodly heights. Transposing the music makes slurs go nuts too. Yeah, I know of this. Darcy recently posted a fix for some it; when the slur arches too high when avoiding an accidental – Darcy talking here: In Smart Slur Options, change the Initial adjustment from Stretch to Lift, and enter a reasonable value for Maximum Lift (l use 9 pt., but YMMV). This won't fix everything, but it will help. 2. Same with tuplets. I thought these had been improved, but when I do a simple group of quarter triplets, using Speedy note entry, the bracket is almost never the right height, requiring more tweaking. Then if I transpose the part, I have to tweak tuplets all over again. In Document Options>Tuplets, screw around with the vertical height under Default Position. Try both fields; Tuplet and Shape (bracket). This might improve the number of tuplets you have to adjust. 3. Where is the freaking Maestro Default file, and how do I tweak that> so that I don't get a one-inch left margin on a file created from the Setup Wizard? I thought I'd located it in the Components folder, so I tweaked the page layout settings for both score and parts to get rid of the one-inch left margin. Then, lo and behold, the next time I used the Setup Wizard I still got one-inch left margins. I have templates made for a lot of situations, but not every> situation, so I need to use the Setup Wizard occasionally, as I suspect most average> users do. Why is it such a mystery where this default file is located, and why is it so hard to preset things the way I want in Finale? Wouldn't House Styles eliminate this problem? That IS the default file, but in order to have Finale recognise it (on a PC) you have to save it as a template. There might be some settings that don't get saved. I have noticed, for example as you do, that the left margin gets set to one inch no matter what I do. This might just be a bug, or it might be an oversight. To get around this, you might open a one-staff file (I have drums in mine, as the Setup Wizard doesn't use my drum map settings) and add staves to it using Staff Tool, Staff Menu>Add new staves using Setup Wizard. You don't get the page automatically formatted as you do when you start from zero, but all the instruments show up correctly, and you get to inherit ALL your settings. When I asked MakeMusic about this, they told me that the Setup Wizard was never intended to be used by pros, who were expected to have thier own templates that they tweaked to their own standards. But they DID add more pro features to the Setup Wizard in the last version. Ask about this one to be included, and if they get enough requests, they will include it. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
Isn't the fundamental problem here that the pie is not getting bigger? Sibelius had the luxury of learning from Finale's mistakes. Its original features list was a litany of Finale's (then) shortcomings. Apparently its entire reason for existing and strategy for growth was to be the answer to Finale's problems. I can't tell you how many Sib users who have told me flat-out this was their reason for using Sibelius: notably Sib's posterchild, John Rutter. So Sibelius has growth potential as long as there is a large number of Finale users. (I almost said dissatisfied Finale users, but that seems to go without saying.) :-) Meanwhile, I suspect Finale has a poor track record of stealing users from Sibelius. I do not say this because I think Sib is better or worse. I'm just reporting my personal impressions of fact. If it is true, then Finale's only potential for growth is to grow their market, and that growth will not happen in the pure notation arena. I believe Finale's fundamental dilemma is manifest in their upgrades of late. They are diversifying Finale and integrating it with a suite of products, notably Smart Music. (Smart Music is an amazing educational tool and is potentially if not actually the crown jewel in MM's portfolio.) I would not be surprised to see them develop or buy an audio/midi program (or integrate closely with a 3rd party) and move into that domain. If MM's strategy works, then Finale will be around a long, long time. However, it may no longer be the program of choice for high-end engravers. (Although that remains to be seen as well.) In any case, much as I personally wish MM would stick to notation needs for Finale, I believe MM has chosen the best (perhaps only) strategy with which they can grow and prosper. Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote: ...if I had to make a prediction about which application will still be around in 5-10 years, I think it would be Sibelius. It's caught up in most areas to Finale and in some areas, such as House Styles, its Setup Wizard and the new Dynamic Parts, has well and truly surpassed it. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
At 9:28 AM -0500 7/9/05, Robert Patterson wrote: Isn't the fundamental problem here that the pie is not getting bigger? Sibelius had the luxury of learning from Finale's mistakes. Its original features list was a litany of Finale's (then) shortcomings. Apparently its entire reason for existing and strategy for growth was to be the answer to Finale's problems. I can't tell you how many Sib users who have told me flat-out this was their reason for using Sibelius: notably Sib's posterchild, John Rutter. I ask this quite honestly because I don't know the answer. Was there actually a situation of competition with Finale in the UK when Sibelius was being developed? Or was it simply a case of parallel development? As I recall, Sibelius was originally developed for a computer platform only used in the UK--Acorn?--and thus had no possible market in the U.S., while Finale had no version that could compete on that platform. You may be completely correct if you're talking about what they did when they were preparing their Windoze and Mac versions, bringing them directly into competition with Finale, but it doesn't seem that the original impetus to develop the program was direct competition. 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] Sibelius 4
At 07:03 AM 7/9/2005, you wrote: As a Finale user I want one key shortcuts for each symbol but cannot find how to do this in the Demo with its limited documentation. How does one quickly apply fingering numbers to a succession of notes? You create your own kbd shortcut. FilePreferencesMenus and Shortcuts, and you have to create a new set. I doubt the demo explains this sufficiently, but it is covered in the manual. Is there no autopositioning of such numbers as there is for articulations in Finale? I just encountered this problem for the first time, and the jury is out. I don't usually put fingerings in my own stuff, but I'm working on a job now that requires them. So I created a shortcut. But the default is staff attachment where I think it should be note attachment. Under House StyleEdit Text Styles Fingering you get a menu with a number of tabs, and on the first there is a dialogue that actually shows an option for attachment, but it is set on staff and grayed out. That would suggest that under some conditions you could set that to Note and then under another tab set its vertical position. But I haven't figured out what that condition is. In the meantime I have to position each fingering manually. Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
At 10:03 AM 7/9/2005, you wrote: I downloaded the demo this morning. The first feature I tried to look at was fingering numbers. The Demo documentation offers no help. I can find in the menus: Create - Text - Other Text - Guitar fingering (ALT C, X, O, G, OK) to add a fingering number to one note. As a Finale user I want one key shortcuts for each symbol but cannot find how to do this in the Demo with its limited documentation. Hi Richard, Well, you can create a 1-key shortcut in Preferences, Menus and shortcuts, Text styles, which would then wait for you to input the number. Beyond that you can create macros that would incorporate this shortcut with specific numbers. How does one quickly apply fingering numbers to a succession of notes? Is there no autopositioning of such numbers as there is for articulations in Finale? Go to House style, Default positions, Text styles, where you can set precise positioning, relative to the note. Dan Carno _ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Daniel Carno Music Engraving Services Quality work in Sibelius, Finale, and Score 4514 Makyes Road Syracuse, New York 13215 (315) 492-2987 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
Matthew, this is a pretty good list. I wish I knew a bit more (learning) about some of the features in Finale that you mention as I think some things are there in different form. A few comments. At 06:48 AM 7/9/2005, you wrote: My quick 2c: - No scroll view in Sibelius. Having the last bars on the page jump around I find intensely irritating. Also as one of the Davids here said, it makes it more difficult to select different things. The jumping around thing, which i agree is a kludge, has workarounds. Basically i just set the page justification to off, or a very high value, when working on anything with touchy formatting. I'm not sure yet how useful I'd find scroll view because when entering music I'm almost always thinking about page layout - how the final product will look. - Very few metatools for things like time signatures, which are a big time-saver in Finale. Mind you if you're dealing mostly with baroque music you may not need such things... Also the option-click to copy function in Sibelius is great. - The time signature function in Sibelius is actually pretty clunky from what I can see if you need them to change a lot. One of my most-often requested changes. It IS clunky, and I use changing sigs frequently. A user-definable list of other time sigs would seem to me to solve the problem. - No Sibelius Notepad. - No Speedy Entry in Sibelius. Not sure I understand this. Sib's whole basis seems to me to be basically similar to Speedy Entry, using a MIDI keyboard and the keypad. And I certainly find it speedy! I realize there are differences, but not huge. - You can't undo plugins (this is truly bizarre IMHO - what application doesn't have an Undo for some of its functions?). No and I don't know enough about how plug-ins alter the file structure to have an inkling of why this is so. Some, quite a few, of them create the operation in a new file. But it's easy enough to work around with file versions, save as, and Save changes? responses. - No TGTools Staff List Manager or TGTools Cue Notes function in Sibelius. - No graphic expression editor in Sibelius like in Finale. - You might not have time to learn another application to the standard to which you currently know Finale. Right. I'm experiencing the reverse. But it's my summer project - to get a little further that is. - There is no rhyming dictionary in Sibelius ;-) (Funnily enough I needed to use this the other day). I think that it would still depend on your notational needs though. I wonder if you could make something as beautiful as your quasi-Henle scores using Sibelius? That would be the real test? I know quite a few major publishers are using Sibelius, as they also do Finale and Score. It would be interesting to have a list of what editions were done with which. Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
At 08:01 AM 7/9/2005, you wrote: Is there no autopositioning of such numbers as there is for articulations in Finale? Go to House style, Default positions, Text styles, where you can set precise positioning, relative to the note. Dan - See my response to this thread. Wouldn't you first have to first override the staff attachment in Edit Text Styles, which is grayed out? I've not yet been able to tweak Default Positions so that fingerings appear in anything but a row. Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
Robert Patterson schrieb: If MM's strategy works, then Finale will be around a long, long time. However, it may no longer be the program of choice for high-end engravers. (Although that remains to be seen as well.) In any case, much as I personally wish MM would stick to notation needs for Finale, I believe MM has chosen the best (perhaps only) strategy with which they can grow and prosper. I personally doubt that very much. What I see will happen is this: The main package will be SmartMusic, which includes Finale or parts of Finale as a notation editor. This will secure MakeMusic the educational market, but not in the notation field, where Sibelius has already taken over (perhaps not in numbers but with the V4 update certainly in fame). With MM's current strategies I see no future for Finale as an engraving tool. Currently Sibelius may still have shortcomings in certain areas where Finale works well. But the Sibelius people will do anything to correct them for the next big update, and that's going to be when the market is going to decide who is going to win the run. Chances are it won't be Finale. I am also worried from another perspective: I fear that Sibelius is already taking so much of the market away from Finale that MM will stop the Mac development. Perhaps not in the next two years, but I somewhat doubt that by that time there is enough of a Finale Mac market to justify the move to Intel. So, whether I like it or not, I have to look around and actually hope that Sibelius improves even more, so that by that time it will be a good alternative for me. You are correct that Sibelius's claim to have won however many Finale users doesn't really say much. There used to be a market dominated by Finale (by almost 100%). Then Sibelius cut in and took away some percentage. 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...
Finale came out in (I believe) 1988, and it should immediately or very quickly have been available in the UK. It had regular upgrades until about 1991, then it vanished until about 1994. I first began hearing about Sibelius (running on Acorn) in the early nineties. The first set of features for Sib I ever saw was a litany of c. 1994 Finale shortcomings. (My impression from talking to Rutter was that he switched from Finale to Sib in mid-90s, but I may have been mistaken.) BTW: this was true of *every* Finale competitor, not just Sib. Igor and Graphire feature lists also read as litanies of Finale shortcomings. The only exception I can think of is SCORE, which was a completely different beast and certainly predated Finale anyway. There was that ultra-expensive Synclavier system that some were working on in Dartmouth in the early eighties. This certainly predated Finale, and it may have been a precursor to Sib. But I don't think it bore much resemblance to the Mac/Win program that came out in the 90s. I have never spoken with the brothers Finn, so my comments derive mostly from observations of their marketing materials and spokespersons during the time since they in fact came into competition with Finale. BTW: In all fairness, Finale v1.0's feature list read as a litany of shortcomings of Professional Composer. It's a short road that never turns. MOTU took a stab at keeping up with Mosaic, but ultimately that technology ended up as an ancillary in DP, where it lives on to this day. (I can still open my old ProCo files in DP, well enough to play them and to export them as MIDI files.) MM may be headed down a similar path as MOTU. A great path for the company but perhaps not so great for Finale. OTOH, Finale is top-quality program, so history may not take the same turns. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
The Synclavier system was the basis for Graphire, IIRC. Is Graphire being produced/supported?? - Original Message - From: Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question... about 1991, then it vanished until about 1994. I first began hearing about Sibelius (running on Acorn) in the early nineties. The first set of features for Sib I ever saw was a litany of c. 1994 Finale shortcomings. (My impression from talking to Rutter was that he switched from Finale to Sib in mid-90s, but I may have been mistaken.) BTW: this was true of *every* Finale competitor, not just Sib. Igor and Graphire feature lists also read as litanies of Finale shortcomings. There was that ultra-expensive Synclavier system that some were working on in Dartmouth in the early eighties. This certainly predated Finale, and it may have been a precursor to Sib. But I don't think it bore much resemblance to the Mac/Win program that came out in the 90s. I have never spoken with the brothers Finn, so my comments derive mostly from observations of their marketing materials and spokespersons during the time since they in fact came into competition with Finale. BTW: In all fairness, Finale v1.0's feature list read as a litany of shortcomings of Professional Composer. It's a short road that never turns. MOTU took a stab at keeping up with Mosaic, but ultimately that technology ended up as an ancillary in DP, where it lives on to this day. (I can still open my old ProCo files in DP, well enough to play them and to export them as MIDI files.) MM may be headed down a similar path as MOTU. A great path for the company but perhaps not so great for Finale. OTOH, Finale is top-quality program, so history may not take the same turns. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
At 11:16 AM 7/9/2005, you wrote: At 08:01 AM 7/9/2005, you wrote: Is there no autopositioning of such numbers as there is for articulations in Finale? Go to House style, Default positions, Text styles, where you can set precise positioning, relative to the note. Dan - See my response to this thread. Wouldn't you first have to first override the staff attachment in Edit Text Styles, which is grayed out? I've not yet been able to tweak Default Positions so that fingerings appear in anything but a row. Ken ___ Hi Ken, It sounds like you are talking about the vertical placement, which for these things in Sibelius, is always relative to the staff. However, they can also be entered as articulations to get precise vertical placement. This could be done with using custom artics, as well as replacing any articulation not in use in the score (Edit Symbols). As for dealing with many changing key and time signatures, I've never missed Finale's metatool feature here, since Sibelius' copy capabilities are so powerful and easily implemented... Dan Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Daniel Carno Music Engraving Services Quality work in Sibelius, Finale, and Score 4514 Makyes Road Syracuse, New York 13215 (315) 492-2987 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
Johannes Gebauer wrote: This will secure MakeMusic the educational market, but not in the notation field, where Sibelius has already taken over (perhaps not in numbers but with the V4 update certainly in fame). This seems overly pessimistic to me. Sib is a strong competitor. It looks like it is winning because its only option is to leech off Finale users. When it succeeds, it looks like it is doing better. But there are still many Finale users. With MM's current strategies I see no future for Finale as an engraving tool. But it has such a glorious present as one that I don't foresee a mass abandonment any time soon. Mosaic had linked scores and parts, but that didn't keep Finale from trouncing it. I'm not saying linked scores and parts are not important, but I just don't think they are the be-all and end-all. For much of the work I do, I doubt I could use them in Sib. Meanwhile, Sibelius still (apparently) limits your ability to make the score look the way you want it to. This has been my biggest concern with adopting it, and I would think it would be yours as well. Furthermore, the attitude I've seen in the past from Sib insiders has been very arrogant that they know the right way and alternate opinions are wrong. If that attitude persists, can they possibly win over serious notators and engravers? I don't agree about a big showdown. Both programs will more likely stumble and muddle along in their respective directions. Honestly, I can't believe so many grown adults are so worked up over software marketing hype (which sfaict is the only thing anyone has seen about these linked parts). I am also worried from another perspective: I fear that Sibelius is already taking so much of the market away from Finale that MM will stop the Mac development. I almost hope that happens. Then I could abandon Steve Jobs and his cut-the-feet-out-from-under-me arrogance without a backwards glance. Honestly the main reason I remain on Mac is that FinWin still has an MDI container window, which means that multi-monitor use is quite awkward and constrained. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
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? Look, either there is a proportion or there isn't. If there is, you can put it in a tempo marking (e.g.: 8:7 faster), and if there isn't, you can't put it in a time sig. Throwing in rits. or accels. makes no difference. 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?
On Jul 8, 2005, at 5:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: And my bet is that Chopin didn't play his quintuplets with all 5 notes having exactly the same length. That is in contrast to what I understand many of today's composers to be asking for. No, he didn't want them equal. But he didn't want them randomly inaccurate either. To play Chopin's quintuplets musically, you first have to be able to play them precisely, and then have sufficient control to distort them in a desired direction by a desired amount according to your interpretation. The task is thus *more* difficult than a strict quintuplet would be. Rhythms at this level of complexity appear in a large body of music from the late 14th-early 15th centuries. Should these be ignored? . . . music that we have no idea if it was actually performed or not, and music that if it was actually performed, we have no idea how those rhythmic complexities were actually realized -- literally or according to some kind of oral tradition. I don't think any serious scholar today doubts that the ars subtilior repertoire was meant for performance and was in fact performed. There is certainly no evidence to the contrary, save for the complexity of the rhythms themselves. Since the music is performable today (as numerous recordings attest), there is absolutely no reason to doubt that it was performable 600 years ago. The same goes for any purely hypothetical oral tradition. The evidence we have is in the notes, and in commentaries from the time, and neither suggest anything other than that the music was meant to be played, and to be played as written. I might add that the musical results when these works are performed support the viability of such a conclusion. 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] The ultimate Sibelius question...
On 09 Jul 2005, at 12:10 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: Honestly, I can't believe so many grown adults are so worked up over software marketing hype (which sfaict is the only thing anyone has seen about these linked parts). Robert -- the Sibelius 4 demo is available NOW. It was immediately available on the day Sib 4 was announced. Some of us grown adults have been testing Dynamic Parts and other Sib 4 features for days now. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
My approach, although I don't think I've done anything quite like B.F., is to always give the performer something they can translate on the fly. An example was a tempo transition in one of my pieces that I could hear very clearly, but took me a few hours over a couple of days to figure out what it was. What it came down to was a change from a quarter note at 144 to one at 90, or a .625 or 1.6 (2/3) change. The way I indicated it in the score - and actually how I finally identified it - was by showing that 5 triplet eighths - one triplet and two of another triplet - equalled the new quarter, a pretty simple increase of 2/3 it turns out. This at least gives the conductor (or performer as the case may be) a reference point, something to prepare internally based on the old tempo, the most common approach to metric modulation. This IMO, is the best approach to such moments - give a reference point in the old tempo. It's hard to imagine a situation in which this wouldn't ! be practical. Ken 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? Look, either there is a proportion or there isn't. If there is, you can put it in a tempo marking (e.g.: 8:7 faster), and if there isn't, you can't put it in a time sig. Throwing in rits. or accels. makes no difference. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ 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 4
Back in Sib 1.4, I had to do fingerings for a Liszt piece I was engraving for Carl Fischer. It was an absolute nightmare. This was before customizable keyboard shortcuts, so just creating a fingering number in the first place was a multi-keystroke process, and none of the positioning was automated. I would *hope* this task would be easier by now, but I haven't tried entering fingerings in Sib 4 yet. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 09 Jul 2005, at 10:53 AM, Ken Durling wrote: At 07:03 AM 7/9/2005, you wrote: As a Finale user I want one key shortcuts for each symbol but cannot find how to do this in the Demo with its limited documentation. How does one quickly apply fingering numbers to a succession of notes? You create your own kbd shortcut. FilePreferencesMenus and Shortcuts, and you have to create a new set. I doubt the demo explains this sufficiently, but it is covered in the manual. Is there no autopositioning of such numbers as there is for articulations in Finale? I just encountered this problem for the first time, and the jury is out. I don't usually put fingerings in my own stuff, but I'm working on a job now that requires them. So I created a shortcut. But the default is staff attachment where I think it should be note attachment. Under House StyleEdit Text Styles Fingering you get a menu with a number of tabs, and on the first there is a dialogue that actually shows an option for attachment, but it is set on staff and grayed out. That would suggest that under some conditions you could set that to Note and then under another tab set its vertical position. But I haven't figured out what that condition is. In the meantime I have to position each fingering manually. Ken ___ 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
On Jul 9, 2005, at 2:55 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:Which version of Finale, pre or post Engraver slurs. If you are using a recent version it sounds to me like your font annotation has gone crazy, or your Engraver slur settings are wrong. There are problems with Engraver slurs, but it sounds you are having addtional problems.I'm using FinMac 2005b. If my Engraver slur settings are wrong, what should they be, and how do I change them? Would that be Smart Slur Options? What should the numbers be? I haven't changed anything in there, so what I'm saying is I'm getting what I'm getting by default. The setup wizard uses the pagesizes.txt file for margins, so the ones in the default file get overlooked. Change the pagesizes.txt file, look it up in the appendix of the manual.The appendix was no help. I found the file in the Components folder. This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy about Finale. Sure, it's a powerful program, but trying to figure things out, especially when you're under the gun, can be very frustrating.Now, how do I get my instrument library to load in a file created with Setup Wizard?Thanks for your help,Lon Lon Price, Los Angeles [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hometown.aol.com/txstnr/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
Thanks Ken and Dan, As a Finale user I want one key shortcuts for each symbol but cannot find how to do this in the Demo with its limited documentation. How does one quickly apply fingering numbers to a succession of notes? You create your own kbd shortcut. FilePreferencesMenus and Shortcuts, and you have to create a new set. I doubt the demo explains this sufficiently, but it is covered in the manual. This can get you to the last menu item in the sequence, but then there is no way to shortcut to the exact articulation or text that you want. There does not seem to be the equivalent of the absolutely essential metatools that are in Finale. Indeed, unless there is another way, the Sibelius method is even slower than Finale's Articulation Tool without metatools where a double click on a note gets you immediately to the list from which to select the articulation that you want. I really would like to know if there is another way. So far Sibelius is totally unusable for this reason (and it is only the first thing that I tried!). Is there no autopositioning of such numbers as there is for articulations in Finale? I just encountered this problem for the first time, and the jury is out. I don't usually put fingerings in my own stuff, but I'm working on a job now that requires them. So I created a shortcut. But the default is staff attachment where I think it should be note attachment. Under House StyleEdit Text Styles Fingering you get a menu with a number of tabs, and on the first there is a dialogue that actually shows an option for attachment, but it is set on staff and grayed out. That would suggest that under some conditions you could set that to Note and then under another tab set its vertical position. But I haven't figured out what that condition is. In the meantime I have to position each fingering manually. I cannot find anything better. Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
At 10:29 AM 7/9/2005, you wrote: set its vertical position. But I haven't figured out what that condition is. In the meantime I have to position each fingering manually. I cannot find anything better. OK, there's a plug-in called Reposition text. I just tried it and it worked fine. There are a number of options in the plug-in, and it lined up the fingerings I entered in a way that looked right. And despite the this action cannot be undone warning, I Ctrl-Z'd back through it after I tried it and it undid just fine. I'm going to have to try that on other plug-ins, it may just be a safety feature to make people think twice. Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
At 10:29 AM 7/9/2005, you wrote: This can get you to the last menu item in the sequence, but then there is no way to shortcut to the exact articulation or text that you want. There does not seem to be the equivalent of the absolutely essential metatools that are in Finale. Indeed, unless there is another way, the Sibelius method is even slower than Finale's Articulation Tool without metatools where a double click on a note gets you immediately to the list from which to select the articulation that you want. Well, most articulations ARE available either on one of the 5 keypads or via a keyboard shortcut. Can you give an example of an articulation you could not access easily? Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
Andrew Stiller wrote: 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? Look, either there is a proportion or there isn't. If there is, you can put it in a tempo marking (e.g.: 8:7 faster), and if there isn't, you can't put it in a time sig. Throwing in rits. or accels. makes no difference. Why do they make no difference? All that I'm talking about is a transitition from one tempo, to another 9/8ths faster. What is the problem with that? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
At 01:29 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote: This can get you to the last menu item in the sequence, but then there is no way to shortcut to the exact articulation or text that you want. Richard, Once you create your own set(s) of shortcuts, it is just like Finale metatools. For example, I can select a note, strike F, and bingo -- a fermata appears, perfectly centered above the note. Dan Daniel Carno Music Engraving Services Quality work in Sibelius, Finale, and Score 4514 Makyes Road Syracuse, New York 13215 (315) 492-2987 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
At 11:22 AM 7/9/2005, you wrote: At 01:29 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote: This can get you to the last menu item in the sequence, but then there is no way to shortcut to the exact articulation or text that you want. Richard, Once you create your own set(s) of shortcuts, it is just like Finale metatools. For example, I can select a note, strike F, and bingo -- a fermata appears, perfectly centered above the note. Dan Yes, but of course you might end up replacing some default shortcuts, Find in this example. However, I've yet to find an example where i couldn't find a reasonable mnemonic shortcut when I wanted retain the default. Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
Oops, not Find but pitch F :-\ Ken ___ 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???=
Yes, Ken! Someone else corrected me so it must be true -- I was wrong! Unfortunately the email was deleted so cannot back check to see what I missed. I figure... Nonetheless there is now a 5/12 within that 5/8 of this larger 12/8 (that you derived from the original metronomic 1/3 slower 4/4) that remains 1/3 shorter and is subsequently 5/18ths of the original 4/4 but winds up 15/48th of your newly established 12/8. -i.e. an inner nested triplet and 2/3 within this metronomically accelerated 5/8. Had it been in 12/12 to 5/12 this would appear as (me logically following my own argument)- 5/18. In other words all you've done is postpone the inevitable complication. So - Your version: q=40 4/4 q=qdot 5/8 q=qdot 5/8 q=40 (VERY shorthand) 4/4 Maxima longa! My version: q=40 4/4 5/12 5/18 4/4 Longa maxima! Vis a vis all else- in total -- I too prefer experience over rationality with my music. But this was fun! Jerry On 9-Jul-05, at 5:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gerald Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote But of course this 5/8 is 1/3 longer than the required 5/12. But hey, who's counting! Please reread my previous paragraph. The 5/8 (5/Q) relates correctly to the duplets (or dotted eighths) in the 12/8 (4/Q. or 8/E.). Incidentally, this Brit has been happy with whole notes, halves, quarters etc. for some decades, except when looking for a translation of maxima and longa. -- K C Moore ___ 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...
--- Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't the fundamental problem here that the pie is not getting bigger? To some extent this is true. The number of people interested in a professional notation product increases somewhat slowly. The biggest source might be in the form of incoming and graduating college students. At the same time, MakeMusic has had success in getting their child products in the hands of an increasingly large crowd. PrintMusic has been amazingly popular, and I think it's the only MakeMusic product I've ever seen in the major retail chains like Comp USA. And I agree with you about SmartMusic. The program is experiencing a very respectable growth (something like a 70% increase over the last year I believe). And I think we're going to see that explode in the future. I believe SmartMusic will be used by millions in the not-too-distant future. 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] Another thing Sibelius has
Lon Price schrieb: On Jul 9, 2005, at 2:55 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Which version of Finale, pre or post Engraver slurs. If you are using a recent version it sounds to me like your font annotation has gone crazy, or your Engraver slur settings are wrong. There are problems with Engraver slurs, but it sounds you are having addtional problems. I'm using FinMac 2005b. If my Engraver slur settings are wrong, what should they be, and how do I change them? Would that be Smart Slur Options? What should the numbers be? I haven't changed anything in there, so what I'm saying is I'm getting what I'm getting by default. Can you send me an example of slurs not being as you want them? Unless it is font annotation I can probably tell you which settings might work. However, the font annotation problem has not been ruled out yet. If that is the problem I won't actually see it here. Do you use any other music fonts than the ones Finale comes with? If that is the case you will have to create font annotation for them yourself. The setup wizard uses the pagesizes.txt file for margins, so the ones in the default file get overlooked. Change the pagesizes.txt file, look it up in the appendix of the manual. The appendix was no help. I found the file in the Components folder. This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy about Finale. Sure, it's a powerful program, but trying to figure things out, especially when you're under the gun, can be very frustrating. I agree that it is hard to find, but here is what the manual has to say (Appendix A-20): Configuring Pagesizes.txt The Setup Wizard, the Page Layout Tool and other parts of Finale use the pagesizes.txt file to determine the page size and margins of the score. You can edit this file to get a custom page size and margin. Make sure you save the file as text only. [Page Sizes] This section contains the page size name, Width and Height (followed by a semicolon), Top Margin, Bottom Margin, Left Margin, Right Margin, and a Left Margin for single-instrument documents. The Top and Bottom margins are assumed to be negative; there is no need to put in the minus sign. Ex. Letter = 8.5, 11; .5, .5, 1, .5, .75 Now, how do I get my instrument library to load in a file created with Setup Wizard? I have no idea, actually, playback has never been one of my main concerns... Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] TAN: Metronome scale was: Ferney who? was: Creston
On 08/07/05, Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 02:44 PM 7/8/2005, you wrote: Well, standard metronomes don't have 69 as a setting, but the original marking was 60.75, not 69.75. My Seiko quartz, which I consider a standard goes 60, 63, 66, 69, 72 etc. So have the last 2 or 3 metronomes I've owned - covering the last 15 years or so. And many modern metronomes allow you to go digit by digit. But you're right about the original citation. If you're interested in the way the numbers on standard metronomes were derived, John Greschak has a great explanation of Maelzel's metronome scale in his Tempo Scales in Polytempo Music article: http://www.greschak.com/polytempo/ptts.htm -- 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] Another thing Sibelius has
On 09/07/05, Johannes Gebauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lon Price schrieb: Now, how do I get my instrument library to load in a file created with Setup Wizard? I have no idea, actually, playback has never been one of my main concerns... The default settings for instruments can be changed by editing the instruments.txt file. I don't know the particulars as I've never cared *that* much, but I do know that you can modify the defaults chosen by the Setup Wizard through the settings in that file. -- 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] The ultimate Sibelius question...
On 08/07/05, Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Download the demo, read the manual, try inputting a page of music. I tried out the Sib4 demo, and while the dynamic parts is really cool (based on tests that were fairly superficial) I still felt stymied in my attempts at numeric control over positioning. It seems that Sibelius requires you to manipulate almost all of your positioning by eye, where Finale has setting upon setting to allow you to specify exact measurements for distances. In particular, I find Sibelius's system for implementing staff names completely inadequate, especially when including a 1/2 (vertically, no slash) for multi-part staves. In Finale I can specify exactly how far from the staff to place these numbers, whether to align them on the left or the right, etc. While Sibelius seems attractive on the surface, I could never deal with the intense we know better than you do; and we won't even tell you how we're doing it approach inherent in its placement of musical and textual elements. -- 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] Sibelius 4
Well, most articulations ARE available either on one of the 5 keypads or via a keyboard shortcut. Can you give an example of an articulation you could not access easily? User defined ones for fingerings. I guess you must be able to add these to the keypad (though i cannot find how), but work flow would still be at least twice as slow as Finale. In Finale to enter fingering numbers (positioned a standard distance to the left of the notehead) I have metatools programmed so that each number takes just one click on the notehead while holding down a key. The articulation is right near the cursor so dragging is easy as is nudging with cursor keys if either are necessary. It looks like Sibelius requires clicking on the keypad plus clicking on the note - at least twice as slow. The documentation with the demo is extremely skimpy, as shown by my having to ask all of these questions here. The real user manual does not seem to be available to download. In my case, and I would guess for other Finale users exploring a possible switch, this was not a smart marketing move. I will tell Sibelius. So, in spite of downloading and trying the demo I am far from persuaded to buy Sibelius, even though I am sick of Finale's direction and policies and would very much like to find something better. Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
Thank you again Ken and Dan, Once you create your own set(s) of shortcuts, it is just like Finale metatools. For example, I can select a note, strike F, and bingo -- a fermata appears, perfectly centered above the note. How? Under File - Preferences - Menus and Shortcuts all I see are existing menus. I go through Create - Symbol and then see no way to select a particular articulation to make a shortcut to. Yes, but of course you might end up replacing some default shortcuts, Find in this example. That sounds like a severe deficiency to me. All of this reinforces my other comment about the poor documentation with the demo. There is no way to fairly evaluate Sibelius' capabilities with regard to Finale's. I have written to Sibelius and will report what I hear. Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
At 03:55 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote: How? Under File - Preferences - Menus and Shortcuts all I see are existing menus. I go through Create - Symbol and then see no way to select a particular articulation to make a shortcut to. Hello Richard! Once you are in menus and shortcuts, open the drop-down list just under the heading. Select Add feature set, name it, and you are off running. Any available single keys or key combinations not used by the program are your first (but not only) fair game, as are any that you would not use, either because you don't need that shortcut, or you don't use that feature. And, of course, you can always get them all back by going to this same dialog and choosing Standard menus shortcuts. Of course, you can have a different set for every phase of your engraving routine Next go to Menu or category and choose Keypad F-11 articulations. Choose fermata and assign a key stroke or 2. Love to chat some more, but I have to go grocery shopping! Dan Yes, but of course you might end up replacing some default shortcuts, Find in this example. That sounds like a severe deficiency to me. Daniel Carno Music Engraving Services Quality work in Sibelius, Finale, and Score 4514 Makyes Road Syracuse, New York 13215 (315) 492-2987 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Ferney who? was: Creston
On 9 Jul 2005 at 7:35, Owain Sutton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: But it tells me *nothing* about how to perform it. I just ignore the extra, useless decimal places and play Q = 60 and measure out as close to exactly 1 teaspoon as I'm able. If that's going to be the result, I just don't see what is accomplished by going into decimal places. If the decimal places were not used, it would obscure the intention, which is a 9:8 increase in tempo from the previous section. . . That criticism is only relevant if you limit yourself to metronome markings as the only way to indicate the proportional tempo increase. Indicating the change precisely, to me, makes it clear that this is what is to be attempted (and having read his writings, know that's what he intends with such indications). . . . You would automatically recognize the 60.75 as a particular ratio in comparison to the previous metronome marking? Gee, you must be one of those Rain Man math whizzes. . . . And even if the change were indicated with this ratio rather than a decimal, it would not be played precisely. Nor would Q=60, not without a click-track. If NO alternative is going to be following robotically, why not use an option which shows the ideal realisation? If it said 9:8 (Q=60.75), I'd have no objections. It's the use of the Q=60.75 by itself that is nonsense. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 8 Jul 2005 at 23:34, Ken Durling wrote: At 09:55 PM 7/8/2005, David Fenton wrote: [] I also find simple page navigation very frustrating. How do I move right in the page display? [typed later:] Well, I've discovered that there are scrollbars that can be turned on (don't know why they're off!) and that you can click on the navigation palette in a special way to navigate from page to page, but this does not feel at all comfortable to me. I cannot seem to position the view window successfully where I want it. That is, I can't seem to figure out the relationship of the position of the mouse click to where the view window ends up. I never use the navigation palette or the scroll bars. I'm entirely comfortable with a combination of click and drag and page up/down. Well, on my system, click and drag is not easily controllable. I don't know if it's a screen redrawing issue, or a mouse issue, or if my system is just too slow, but I can' reliably drag to where I want to (i.e., the drag never moves the score as far as I moved my mouse), and this is extremely uncomfortable. PageUp/Down do nothing at all except move me vertically within the currently displayed window. I can't see how to navigate horizontally except by scrollbars (which makes it pretty hard to position things, unless I set it to display one or two page widths, which is either too big or too small). [] 4. playback was very annoying. I wanted the view to be 2-page view, but every time I started playback, it switched back to 100% (or some larger percentage), which made it very, very difficult to follow playback. Ah -- I see there's a setting that was set to always play back at 75%. You can set this however you want it, even no zoom, where I have it set. Well, it was just a case where there was a setting that needed to be changed. I do kind of understand the utility of it for someone who wants to playback at a fixed size. I prefer to *work* at a fixed size and don't really want playback to alter that. I only use larger sizes in Finale for final layout, when I'm checking exact placement of items like expressions, etc. Of course, I broke my own rule for new applications -- you should always browse through the options dialogs to see what things you can change. I probably wouldn't have realized the problem going through it, but I would have remembered the setting when I ran into the to-me inexplicable behavior. 5. I tested their version of Human Playback and found that the default settings were best (espressivo with basically no rubato). But I don't like certain interpretations of how the shape of lines should be interpreted, specifically, any time a line has a disjunction (say, a leap up an octave) the first note after the leap is accented. That's musically *awful* for just about any style I can think of. If you look to Sibelius as a playback program, . . . Well, I don't look at Finale as a playback program, but it does what I need. I'm not certain yet that Sibelius does, except with a very annoying UI that I think is bad even in sequencers. . . . I think you're barking up the wrong tree. And the above behavior sounds more like a problem with your sound module than Sibelius - mine does no such accents on wide leaps. And playback is what you're criticizing - at least many here are - Finale for pursuing. It's a notation program. I am really pleased so much was implemented in this upgrade that directly addresses engraving. Well, I need playback in Finale to prep files for MIDI, since I am wedded to notation as my method for creating MIDI performances. And I don't want to have to repeatedly edit the MIDI file after exporting it from Finale -- I want as much as possible done in Finale. And I'm not asking for perfection -- just something that's good enough for general MIDI files to play on anyone's synthesizer (because of that, I don't tweak things overly carefully, like setting much in the way of balance between instruments, since I don't know what sounds they'll be playing back on). I liked certain things about the Sibelius live playback, but there was definitely an accent on the top notes. It's not a problem with my sound module, either, because it doesn't happen anywhere else -- it's something that Sibelius is specifically choosing to do to the performance before it sends it to the synthesizer. It's not a huge thing, though it would mean I'd never use it. And, to be fair, I haven't really heard Finale's Human Playback. I might be equally dissatisfied with it. My concern was that someone implemented into Sibelius's idea of how music should sound an idea that is antithetical to everything I've ever been taught about musicality. [] 8. responsiveness of the UI on my 500MHz P4 with 768MBs of RAM is ABYSMAL. Everything is extremely slow. Playback in Sibelius's page view gets way ahead of Sibelius's ability to redraw the screen. Finale does a far better job of this
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 9 Jul 2005 at 8:35, dhbailey wrote: Unfortunately, Sibelius tries to make that gorgeous output and easy to use right out of the box claim which leads to frustration in many beginners. Equally unfortunately, Finale has a known history of a steep learning curve (which has gotten to be far less steep as the years have passed) which it seems unable to shake. They're both equally complex to learn if a person wants to reach a professional engraving level. I've tried very hard to edit out of my comments anything that I knew was just my trying to put a Finale paradigm on Sibelius. But I also think that the Sibelius reputation for having an intuitive UI is not deserved. Aside from the problems with the concept of intuitive interface (nothing on the computer is truly intuitive unless you've already got a huge base of knowledge behind it), I don't think Sibelius's UI is any more intuitive than Finale's. Indeed, there are many cases where Finale implements an easier UI of operating directly on what you're editing, whereas Sibelius gives you a dialog box with lots of settings to adjust. If I took out the names and replaced them with ProgramA and ProgramB I'd bet that just about every Finale and Sibelius user would guess wrong precisely because of the respective reputations of the two programs. I don't think Sibelius's intuitive or easy-to- learn reputation is deserved, and I don't think Finale's non- intuitive and hard to learn reputation is deserved, either. As you say, both programs are complex and difficult to learn. But somehow Sibelius has magically gained a reputation that I simply don't believe is warranted, at least not from my experiences with the demo. And my objections here are not about *how* things are done, since that's obviously going to be different from Finale -- my objections are in how the UI is designed and how functionality is implemented. The key difference seems to me to be in discoverability -- Sibelius makes it harder to find answers than Finale does, it seems to me, partly because Sibelius doesn't give as easy access to the properties of objects. This is not a criticism based on my inexperience with Sibelius, but based on observation of how things are done in Sibelius. There are also a number of areas that Sibelius doesn't feel like a professional program to me (the edit boxes in the dictionary edit were one of those), and the visual feedback seems very, very poor to me (I can't tell from looking at the screen what in the word is going on, since I can't always clearly see what's selected, or can't tell where my typing is going to appear onscreen). And performance on my PC is abysmal compared to Finale. I've never been a fan of Finale's screen redraw, but it seems much better than Sibelius's. My PC is not new, and not fast, but it's also not a laggard in the field of all the other applications that I use. Sibelius is markedly slower than any other application I've got installed. So, I don't believe I'm being unfair here. I'm trying to bend over backwards to avoid the kind of temper tantrums that come from simply not having absorbed the paradigms and organization of a different program. Maybe I'm not very successful at that. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 9 Jul 2005 at 9:33, John Howell wrote: At 12:55 AM -0400 7/9/05, David W. Fenton wrote: Anyway, that's enough for now. Most of the notational aspects I could probably figure out how to configure, but I find the user interface is, overall, really poorly done, with lots of places where it's extremely hard to find how to control things (they just aren't located anywhere on any of the menus that would make sense to me). Also, there seems to be very little in the way of context-sensitive menus. I would expect that if I right click on a text expression I'd get some shortcuts to commands that are specific to the type of object I'm clicking on, but there's nothing there. Gee, that describes exactly how I feel about Finale, coming to it from Mosaic. IT'S WHAT YOU'VE LEARNED!!! (And, of course, what you HAVEN'T yet learned!) But when did you make that switch? Finale was markedly less user- friendly before about Finale 97. Since that time, there have been vast improvements in basic usability and discoverability. I've tried every single menu choice in Sibelius in the process of hunting for things, and haven't been very successful in finding a lot of things. And it's pretty clear that initiating playback from a particular point has *no* non-keyboard UI, other than the bad one I complained about (which, to be fair, is exactly like a lot of sequencers, which doesn't make it good, just common). The greatest problem for me is the poor implementation of onscreen feedback about what you're operating on and where your typing is going to end up, as well as problems with simple navigation around a file. Nothing behaves the way standard Windows programs are supposed to operate, and this makes it quite difficult and frustrating. That's not a Finale-based criticism at all. -- 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: You would automatically recognize the 60.75 as a particular ratio in comparison to the previous metronome marking? Gee, you must be one of those Rain Man math whizzes. You expect everything to be sightreadable? That must be very limiting. If it said 9:8 (Q=60.75), I'd have no objections. It's the use of the Q=60.75 by itself that is nonsense. But after the accel, 9:8 would *not* be an accurate indication - it's the ratio of what happened several bars earlier to what happens now. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
On 9 Jul 2005 at 12:43, Richard Yates wrote: The documentation with the demo is extremely skimpy, as shown by my having to ask all of these questions here. The real user manual does not seem to be available to download. In my case, and I would guess for other Finale users exploring a possible switch, this was not a smart marketing move. I will tell Sibelius. Yes, they really should provide the full manual for download, because the demo manual is about as inadequate as could be imagined. I don't think I've actually answered a single one of my questions by looking in it. -- 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 4
Next go to Menu or category and choose Keypad F-11 articulations. Choose fermata and assign a key stroke or 2. Love to chat some more, but I have to go grocery shopping! Thanks. I also got groceries. Lots of good fruit around here (Oregon) now. Okay. I am closer in my quest for a finger number. I defined a staff style, used this to redefine an existing articulation (I changed the fermata to a '4'), and got that articulation programmed to the 'F' key shortcut. Almost there! Problems remaining: ---'Erase background' in the staff style does not seem to carry over to the articulation. ---Vertical positioning in the staff style does not seem to carry over to the articulation although I have the horizontal about right. ---Even with horizontal positioning correct for most cases, sometimes it needs to be tweaked, but articulations cannot be dragged left and right as far as I can tell. (Actually it is worse than that. The fingering number is placed relative to the notehead and cannot be dragged to the left of a sharp sign. I could drag it down so it went behind the sharp and then could not grab it again to move or delete it.) ---Even though I have changed the name of the articulation to '4' from 'Fermata (pause)', that name does not change in the shortcuts menu. So if I changed articulation definitions for a whole bunch of existing articulations I would have to have keep track of what they all were in order to program the shortcuts. (Maybe that list resets when the program is rebooted, but I have not tried with the demo in case I would lose all I have changed so far.) ---There are not enough existing shortcut articulation slots to accommodate the fingerings and other signs that I need (and still keep the regular articulations that I would need). ---BIG PROBLEM: You cannot use more than one instance of an articulation on a chord. So if there is a guitar chord for which I want to have two '0' to show open strings Sibelius will not do it. I appreciate your patience and hope that this exchange can give others on the list some insight into Sibelius' capabilities and limits. Richard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
The documentation with the demo is extremely skimpy, as shown by my having to ask all of these questions here. The real user manual does not seem to be available to download. In my case, and I would guess for other Finale users exploring a possible switch, this was not a smart marketing move. I will tell Sibelius. Yes, they really should provide the full manual for download, because the demo manual is about as inadequate as could be imagined. I don't think I've actually answered a single one of my questions by looking in it. David W. Fenton I have quizzed Sibelius about it and will let you know what I hear. In the meantime: http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/manual.jpg Richard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Cadencing in the next movement...
Hi all I've run into a bit of a quandary with the finale to a work I'm currently trying to finish (which has been ongoing for about five years). The fourth movement (of five) is a lovely passacaglia and the bass line (on which the whole movement is based) only ever cadences when another repetition follows it (it ends with a V7 and starts with a i chord), so naturally, come the end of the movement, the cadence is nowhere to be found. My intentions are to have an attacca into the fifth movement and have the final i chord of the passacaglia kick off the finale (of course, modulating to the new key). Here's my problem. The passacaglia is in D minor and the Finale is in B minor. What key signature should I use for the start of the Finale? Should I use D minor to easier show the modulations, or should I notate the whole thing in B minor (the modulation will only take a few bars, so by bar 10, it will be in B minor). I see it as kind of pointless to use a key signature for only ten bars and then change it... What would you recommend? Taris ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
At 10:36 AM 7/9/05 -0500, Jim wrote: The Synclavier system was the basis for Graphire, IIRC. Is Graphire being produced/supported?? No. It has a support group, but no active development. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
At 10:30 AM 7/9/05 -0500, Robert Patterson wrote: There was that ultra-expensive Synclavier system that some were working on in Dartmouth in the early eighties. That was what was renamed Graphire when the programmer took it independent. It predated Finale, and was never to my knowledge marketed as a competitor until its waning days. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 01:48 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote: How? I don't know how to create a metronome marking. I can choose your sequence of commands, but I have no idea what I'm supposed to type to get a valid metronome mark. Q=158? If I go to the Sibelius Demo help file (which is remarkably stupidly provided as a phenomenally slowly-loading Java applet, instead of either as a Windows Help File or as HTML, and one that even more stupidly copies the horrid interface of Windows HTML Help), I get no help on this topic. But I do find that Q=158 actually works. The problem, of course, is that I'd *never* want that appearing in a score -- I'd want the quarter note symbol. I haven't a clue how to insert that. When you R-click in CreateText Metronome Mark , you get a context menu that has a Q note, as well as others, which you can select and then follow with =158 or whatever. Likewise, the real thing that should be happening is that I should be able to define my tempo markings (like Allegro Vivace) to control tempo. I understand the concept of the dictionary (I think), but can't seem to get it to work reliably in having tempos set by them. . . . Ctrl-right or left arrow will move you measure by measure where plain arrow goes note to note - just like the old Wordstar command. Pretty basic. Wordstar! I haven't used Wordstar since the 80s, and it wouldn't at all occur to me as a model for navigation commands for playback. Well, my point is that every word program since has used the same commands. Ctrl as a magnification of a command is a basic Windows principle. Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 01:48 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote: Also, I have major problems with understanding where my typing is going when I do something like Ctrl-Alt-T (to insert text) -- there is no onscreen indicator of where the text is going to appear, and there is a huge pause between my typing and the actual appearance of the text onscreen. There just isn't enough visual feedback here for me to be able to understand what's going on. Yes, there is an on-screen indicator: If you select an object before typing Ctrl-Alt -T for Tempo text, a cursor will appear above the selected object. If you don't select something, you get a loaded mouse arrow which you can insert anywhere by clicking. Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 9 Jul 2005 at 17:06, Ken Durling wrote: At 01:48 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote: How? I don't know how to create a metronome marking. I can choose your sequence of commands, but I have no idea what I'm supposed to type to get a valid metronome mark. Q=158? If I go to the Sibelius Demo help file (which is remarkably stupidly provided as a phenomenally slowly-loading Java applet, instead of either as a Windows Help File or as HTML, and one that even more stupidly copies the horrid interface of Windows HTML Help), I get no help on this topic. But I do find that Q=158 actually works. The problem, of course, is that I'd *never* want that appearing in a score -- I'd want the quarter note symbol. I haven't a clue how to insert that. When you R-click in CreateText Metronome Mark , you get a context menu that has a Q note, as well as others, which you can select and then follow with =158 or whatever. Ok, I can do that, after about 10 tries. The problem is, yet again, there is no clarity whatsoever to the insertion point, which, for whatever reason, doesn't appear until, well, I don't know when it appears. It appeared at a certain point, and once it was there, I could right click and get the context menu. After I started typing? After I doubleclicked? I don't know. What I do know is that this behavior for typing text is completely foreign to any program I've ever used, of any kind. There is no model for this kind of behavior that I'm aware of. And I feel like I'm skating on thin ice, not having a clue what results are going to happen (this would not be so bad if the undo were more sensible -- I find that I almost always have to undo several times to undo what seems to me like a single action). Also, I haven't even mentioned the fact that I can't tell where the item is going to end up, so I always need to move the item after creating it. If I click and drag, it takes about a full second for the item to move. That's bloody ridiculous. Likewise, the real thing that should be happening is that I should be able to define my tempo markings (like Allegro Vivace) to control tempo. I understand the concept of the dictionary (I think), but can't seem to get it to work reliably in having tempos set by them. . . . Ctrl-right or left arrow will move you measure by measure where plain arrow goes note to note - just like the old Wordstar command. Pretty basic. Wordstar! I haven't used Wordstar since the 80s, and it wouldn't at all occur to me as a model for navigation commands for playback. Well, my point is that every word program since has used the same commands. Ctrl as a magnification of a command is a basic Windows principle. ??? Why would word navigation be an obvious model for moving the playback starting point? -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 9 Jul 2005 at 17:09, Ken Durling wrote: At 01:48 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote: Also, I have major problems with understanding where my typing is going when I do something like Ctrl-Alt-T (to insert text) -- there is no onscreen indicator of where the text is going to appear, and there is a huge pause between my typing and the actual appearance of the text onscreen. There just isn't enough visual feedback here for me to be able to understand what's going on. Yes, there is an on-screen indicator: If you select an object before typing Ctrl-Alt -T for Tempo text, a cursor will appear above the selected object. . . I can't get it to work reliably. I select a note, and see no insertion point. If I select a time signature (to type in a tempo marking), I get the blue arrow when I hit Ctrl-Alt-T, but no selection point until I click somewhere. And even then, there's a 1 second delay between the click and the appearance of the cursor. Completely unusable! . . If you don't select something, you get a loaded mouse arrow which you can insert anywhere by clicking. The blue arrow, yes, and my complaint is that the destination that the text ends up does not appear predictable to me. And the 1-second delay for the appearance of the cursor means it's just completely not at all usable -- I could never begin to get any work done with that kind of lag in the interface, and it appears everywhere throughout the program. Sorry, but if that's as good as Sibelius can do performance-wise on my PC, then I'm not considering buying it. Finale has no such lag problems, and never has, so there's nothing inherent in the process of what's being done that should disqualify my system as too slow for this kind of work. It's clearly something about Sibelius's coding that is not working on my system. As I'm not replacing this PC any time soon, Sibelius is disqualified. I just tried the Sibelius 3 demo to compare, and it exhibits none of the lag time that the Sibelius 4 demo shows. I'm sure glad I didn't commit to Sibelius with version 3, given how unacceptably slow version 4 is! It also seems to me that the appearance of the score in Sibelius 3 is vastly superior to that of Sibelius 4. I'm just comparing the two sample files of Mendelssohn's Hebrides Overture, and Sibelius 3 looks *much* better than Sibelius 4. The selection colors are also much, much clearer to me (the blue of the selected notehead is much clearer. Also, it seems to me that the older music font is much more attractive. -- 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] MOTU Updates vs. MakeMusic Updates
Looking that MOTU just updated Digital Performer to 4.6 for free to it's 4.5 users, and seeing all the GREAT improvements, it makes me laugh at MakeMusic and Finale. My God, there are a lot of useful, functional features that I can get for FREE updating to 4.6. Congrats MOTU! Honestly, this latest Finale update should have been for free...makes me wonder about MakeMusic...Couldn't they have updated Finale 2005 with the textured paper feature? Or some of these other things? Like the Handbell chart? I don't get the reasoning here Maybe if MakeMusic was also selling a truckload of 2408's, 828's 24IO's, 96HD's, and other assorted hardware interfaces, they might be able to afford a free Finale update here and there. -- Rocky Road - in Oz Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny, the last Battlestar, Galactica, leads a ragtag, fugitive fleet, on a lonely quest, for a shining planet known as Earth. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 05:18 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote: When you R-click in CreateText Metronome Mark , you get a context menu that has a Q note, as well as others, which you can select and then follow with =158 or whatever. Ok, I can do that, after about 10 tries. What, are you trying to do it with your feet??Come on. Anyway. I'm not trying to convert you, just address some basic misapprehensions. Enough bandwidth already. Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 9 Jul 2005 at 19:46, Ken Durling wrote: At 05:18 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote: When you R-click in CreateText Metronome Mark , you get a context menu that has a Q note, as well as others, which you can select and then follow with =158 or whatever. Ok, I can do that, after about 10 tries. What, are you trying to do it with your feet??Come on. Well, the problem is caused by the lack of clarity of what is selected and what is not. I still don't know what I did right to get the context menu that allows me to insert a quarter note. I haven't a clue. Anyway. I'm not trying to convert you, just address some basic misapprehensions. Enough bandwidth already. Well, I think it's quite clear from my having gone back to try the same things in the Sibelius 3 demo that there are quite serious performance problems in Sibelius 4. There is certainly a substantial reduction in responsiveness of basic UI interaction, and that's the source of most of my problems -- the cursor comes up eventually, but I have to wait for it. It's obviously never going to work for me unless they do an update that fixes the performance problems. -- 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
[Finale] Finale in the Education Market (Was Dynamic Parts)
David (and then Darcy) wrote: If Finale doesn't start listening to its core users and stop dicking around with fancy playback issues, it's going to lose the entire educational and professional market, plain and simple. David, this is a baseless assertion. First, hardcore engravers don't drive sales of Finale. Second, what on earth makes you think the educational market isn't interested in playback? Third, Finale is only just now catching up to (and, in some was, surpassing) Sibelius in terms of playback capabilities. Sib has had it together on playback for a while now, which is why they were able to be innovative in other areas, like the new Dynamic Parts. My school here in Sydney, Australia uses Finale, but this is because I like it and I introduced it here when we brought computers into the music department some years back (being head of music has its privileges :-) ). However, all around us, it seems to be all Sibelius. Most Music Technology and Music Education stores sell both, but only seem to push SIbelius. The nearest Music Education store regularly promotes Sibelius in their literature and technology training days (and the other Sibelius - linked products like Auralia). They are quite happy to sell you Finale products, but you usually have to ask specifically. So I would conclude that most music teachers who didn't have any previous notation software experience would end up as Sibelius uses here in Sydney. The only difference could be what software is being used in the Universities in around Sydney that offer Music Ed degrees (and I don't know what that is now - when I went through it was Notator Logic on Atari and Master Tracks Pro on a Mac Plus!) This school semester I even got a potential new parent asking why we didn't use Sibelius - they assumed it was what school's use (They had not ever heard of Finale!). I hear a lot of baseless comments among music teachers at other schools, and also among our own students (stemming from their private teachers) about how Sibelius is better - but when you dig deeper it nearly always comes down to what they heard off some sales rep or at a conference trade display rather than experience with both software packages. I don't at all mind that some (or many) people prefer Sibelius, but I hate when the marketing engines drive the buzz instead of reality. I am probably going to have to buy a copy of Sibelius soon, just so that our school can cater for students who already have this package at home and are more used to it. If a student from our school goes to a shop without talking to me first, they always seem to be directed to Sibelius. Later in the thread Matthew Hindson wrote: However unless they've integrated Scroll View into Sibelius, made articulations draggable, added handles to slurs and other items, add a graphics creator/editor and release a free Notepad version of Sibelius for my students, (amongst many other things) then I will for the time being stay put. The hours of frustration from these missing/malfunctioning items will not quite compensate for saved hours in linking revisions in parts to score, as tempting as it seems: though it is getting much closer... Finale is going to have to lift its game. Notepad free is also a clincher for me. To be able to tell all our elective students to go home an download for free something that will look just like the expensive software at school is a great bonus, and has been the prime reason that computer technology has caught on among our music students. Some of these students go on to buy the full Finale at the education price (currently AUD$299). I doubt many parents would have paid that without seeing its use first. You (and I) might stick to Finale, but I don't think you are the typical education user (you make your own fonts for goodness sake!). The average B.Mus/B.Ed from UNSW or Sydney or Newcastle or the Crematorium are still not greatly technology savvy (or interested) and will go with the marketing flow. Even if Finale lift their game they will need to win over the Retailers and Trade Show marketers. -- Rocky Road - in Oz Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny, the last Battlestar, Galactica, leads a ragtag, fugitive fleet, on a lonely quest, for a shining planet known as Earth. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Not to mention EPS export, broken for years and years, and probably never to be fixed. I must say I'm very tempted to switch, at least for some projects. It's also quite amazing that many of us got more attention from Sibelius than from MM. Dennis You might be a different Dennis but I'm sure there was a Dennis on this forum swearing he'd never upgrade software that used Challenge-Response copy protection. Isn't Sibelius CP even more Draconian? (Does it allow more than one copy?) -- Rocky Road - in Oz Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny, the last Battlestar, Galactica, leads a ragtag, fugitive fleet, on a lonely quest, for a shining planet known as Earth. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
Robert Patterson wrote: Meanwhile, I suspect Finale has a poor track record of stealing users from Sibelius. I do not say this because I think Sib is better or worse. I'm just reporting my personal impressions of fact. I would submit that there are two additional reasons Sibelius did a better job of stealing customers form Coda / Net4Music / MakeMusic! than C/N/M did in stealing customers from Sibelius, besides the reasons Robert mentioned. First, while Sibelius offered a competitive discount to Finale owners, to my knowledge, C/N/M has never offered Sibelius users a competitive discount. Second, because of the openness of the ~.ETF format, it was trivial for Finale users to switch to Sibelius: save your Finale work as ~.ETF, and open it in Sibelius. However, sinc Sibelius has a closed data file format, and does not write the ~.ETF format, there was no good way to go backwards. And under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, it is a crime in the U.S. to reverse engineer the data file format which is copyright and proprietary. There is also the issue of just how accurate Sibelius' claim of 1 users switching from Finale to Sibelius really is. I would expect that it is true that 1 users took advantage of the competitive upgrade; however, this was painless, as C/N/M keeps track of their own user base and ships out upgrades based upon its own records, there is no penalty to sending in the distribution CD (especially if you send in an older redundant version, or first burn a back-up copy). So there is no way to know how many of the claimed 10,000 users who Sibelius claims switched, actually use the program, and how many purchased the competitive upgrade, and still are using Finale instead, even newer versions. I would also note that in the various forums in which I participate, since the first of the year, I have seen by actual count, a dozen different users who wrote to the lists, saying that they had originally used Finale, had switched to Sibelius, been disenchanted, and had switched back to using Finale because of Sibelius' shortcomings. I believe Finale's fundamental dilemma is manifest in their upgrades of late. They are diversifying Finale and integrating it with a suite of products, notably Smart Music. I don't think one can overllook the impact of Smartmusic. As I understand it, Smartmusic files are MIDI files with proprietary extensions, and these extensions have not been published, which means that no one (e.g., Sibelius) can produce a smartmusic file without licensing the technology from MakeMusic!, and that they cannot reverse engineer the SmartMusic data format without themselves being in violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, I would expect that aspects of the SmartMusic extensions are also patented, and probably in such a way that Sibelius cannot develop a competing product for at least another decade, or decade and a half, without running the risk, of a patent infringement suit. It occurs to me, too, that there is an aspect to some of these things that may affect certain items. I have not explored in any detail, the Sibelius software patents, and if there are any that relate to items like dynamic parts linking, or house styles, it may be that MakeMusic! may choose to ignore these items for the duration of the patent, rather than risk an expensive lawsuit in which they are charged with infringement. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
At 06:30 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote: ---'Erase background' in the staff style does not seem to carry over to the articulation. ---Vertical positioning in the staff style does not seem to carry over to the articulation although I have the horizontal about right. ---Even with horizontal positioning correct for most cases, sometimes it needs to be tweaked, but articulations cannot be dragged left and right as far as I can tell. (Actually it is worse than that. The fingering number is placed relative to the notehead and cannot be dragged to the left of a sharp sign. I could drag it down so it went behind the sharp and then could not grab it again to move or delete it.) ---Even though I have changed the name of the articulation to '4' from 'Fermata (pause)', that name does not change in the shortcuts menu. So if I changed articulation definitions for a whole bunch of existing articulations I would have to have keep track of what they all were in order to program the shortcuts. (Maybe that list resets when the program is rebooted, but I have not tried with the demo in case I would lose all I have changed so far.) ---There are not enough existing shortcut articulation slots to accommodate the fingerings and other signs that I need (and still keep the regular articulations that I would need). ---BIG PROBLEM: You cannot use more than one instance of an articulation on a chord. So if there is a guitar chord for which I want to have two '0' to show open strings Sibelius will not do it. Richard, All of the above is true. For your needs I would clone a shortcut-activated text expression and set it up to center horizontally on the notehead, with the option to precisely place it vertically where the mouse is clicked (rather than a default position, which is always measured from the notehead. This would necessitate typing the number each time (though you could set up all the numbers in a word menu and assign shortcuts, but why bother. These could be moved in all directions, and be made to erase the background. And they, including their precise positioning, can be copied. This is what I usually do for fingerings, but I usually don't have to do that many. Dan Daniel Carno Music Engraving Services Quality work in Sibelius, Finale, and Score 4514 Makyes Road Syracuse, New York 13215 (315) 492-2987 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
At 09:41 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote: ---BIG PROBLEM: You cannot use more than one instance of an articulation on a chord. So if there is a guitar chord for which I want to have two '0' to show open strings Sibelius will not do it. ? sure it will.I'm working on a job right now for a violin cello duo. In a few places the composer asks for double stop open strings to be indicated by fingering - a parallel case to your need for two open guitar strings. Invoke the fingering text style, enter a 0 for open, hit Enter/return and enter another 0. Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius 4
At 09:41 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote: (Actually it is worse than that. The fingering number is placed relative to the notehead and cannot be dragged to the left of a sharp sign. I could drag it down so it went behind the sharp and then could not grab it again to move or delete it.) Could this be a demo limit?? . I have no trouble dragging fingerings L-R , either with the mouse or with the arrows. 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 wrote: Er, doesn't Sibelius have a little copy protection/activation code problem that ought to prevent you from switching, given that you won't upgrade past Finale 2003? Yep, they've got the same call-response sort of activation scheme that Finale has. Sibelius was very helpful when I needed to get back one of my 2 installs due to a hard-disk change, as was Finale. Do they allow two locations like Finale do from the one purchase? I have Finale on my laptop for mobile work and on a desktop computer for office work. -- Rocky Road - in Oz Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny, the last Battlestar, Galactica, leads a ragtag, fugitive fleet, on a lonely quest, for a shining planet known as Earth. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
