Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question
I went a couple of times to a weird little sweatshop where they did big printing/binding jobs. I was there because they were listed on the Plasticoil website as a dealer. A dozen middle-aged women of dubious immigration status were squinting over piles of books that they were preparing in a dim and dingy little space that had at best a concrete floor. From the outside it is a nondescript little house in the business district of one of the older, quiet suburbs. I just wanted a few 36" coils, which the forewoman gave me out of her box without charging. Point is, if you hit at the right time they'll sometimes do something like a single book binding as a courtesy, because they aren't in the retail business. The downside is, you can't really patronize a place like that more than once or twice (at widely spaced intervals). On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:02 PM, J D Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem that can occur when taking a small job to a print shop is that > you are almost always completing with 'big runs' they already have set up. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question
The problem that can occur when taking a small job to a print shop is that you are almost always completing with 'big runs' they already have set up. I had this same issue a few years back whenever I needed an 11 x17 score bound. I always only had 2 or 3 and when I did find a print shop to do it, they acted like it was a big inconvenience and charged me up the yahoo, $$wise. My solution won't help the original post tho. I ended up buying an Akiles CoilMac which does large format bindings easily. But if you only have one or two scores, it isn't practical. *** J D Thomas ThomaStudios West Linn OR www.thomastudios.com On Jul 31, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: They can also put in two 11" combs and trim the extra. But you might have better luck with this at a proper (non-chain) print shop. Kinkos and Staples are almost uniformly awful. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 31 Jul 2008, at 9:09 PM, Carolyn Bremer wrote: See if you can find an employee at one of those locations that can help you. It is easy to put a 14" comb in the middle of the 17" side. They'll need to remove the piece that left-aligns the paper in the binder so they can get to the middle, but that's really all it takes. Well, that and an employee willing to do it. -Carolyn On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Blake Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: I recently came across the complete handwritten manuscript scores to the films ALIEN and ALIENS at the Library of Congress, and in my spare time I'm transcribing them into Finale (they not surprisingly won't let you photocopy them) with the goal of printing them out and binding them to add to my collection of film scores. The problem I've run into is that both scores have such an extensive list of instrumentation that the only practical size for the printouts is 11x17 paper. (The handwritten ALIENS score is huge-- 12x36.) Neither Kinko's nor Staples can spiral bind a 17" document-- apparently their machines can only go up to 14"-- so I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions as to where else I might look to have it done or any other helpful thoughts on binding. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] FinaleScript and doc options
After I wrote this I discovered there was a separate FS forum on MM, and it so happened that a script was given in an answer to someone else. Worked great---too cool! I didn't actually need but two sections of options. The script follows. process open docs don't process current doc import fonts options import lyrics options save Richard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] FinaleScript and doc options
I'm working with FINMAC 07 on Mac OS 10.5. I'm interested in using FinaleScript for some editing chores. I've created some with success but one that I could really use I don't seem to be able to get to work. Supposedly I can import Document Options from one document to another. If I understand right, I would have two documents open, and the active one would be the source document. When I run the script the inactive document will receive the first one's options. If I'm right so far, could someone show me how the script would be written if a complete import (every option) was desirable? And are there any good resources on FinaleScript beyond the Finale documentation, particularly with examples? (I noted that 09 seems to have an expanded section on it; i have to use 07 at the moment.) Lastly, can FinaleScript select menu items AND set preferences in dialog boxes that those menu items bring up, then OK the box? Richard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
John Howell wrote: The two bands I'm thinking of were, of course, Blood, Sweat and Tears and the original Chicago Transit Authority. Well, those bands are actually products of the late 60's, but I see where you're coming from. That said, I look at doubles as obstructions to clarity. Yeah, I read them when necessary, but because the vast majority of musicians I've worked with don't have a lot of practice with them (and some of those have been very good, but most have been jazz players), and because I've long kept to the ideal of "Keep it simple", I tend to re-spell double sharps and flats as their chromatic equivalent in the key in question. Theoreticians can quibble all they want, but I'll stick with practical use. cd ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question
At 9:05 PM -0500 7/31/08, Robert Patterson wrote: If cost is not a concern, you can get a bookbinder to make a beautiful hardcover book from your loose-leaf sheets. Bookbinders get most of their business from lawyers and libraries, so check with one of those to find a bookbinder. The last time I had one done it cost about $50, but that was some time ago. Yes, my father had that done many years ago (in the '40s) for his violin music and the piano accompaniments to it, so he would always have his fingerings and bowings in one easy to find place. Just make sure they understand that it needs to come as close to opening and lying flat as possible. The problem, of course, is that a rather large margin is needed to allow for binding, and unless you leave that margin you'll have the copy running in under the binding. I'd suggest checking with the bindery FIRST to see what they recommend. Otherwise you'll have to settle for coil or comb. Avoid the chain stores. Find a print shop that has the long coils and the long hole puncher. It's entirely possible that the chains--especially Kinko's--would refuse to handle it because it is copyrighted music. You did realize that it is copyrighted, right? And that your copying it without permission is an infringement? John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences 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 "We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question
If cost is not a concern, you can get a bookbinder to make a beautiful hardcover book from your loose-leaf sheets. Bookbinders get most of their business from lawyers and libraries, so check with one of those to find a bookbinder. The last time I had one done it cost about $50, but that was some time ago. Otherwise you'll have to settle for coil or comb. Avoid the chain stores. Find a print shop that has the long coils and the long hole puncher. On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Blake Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I recently came across the complete handwritten manuscript scores to the > films ALIEN and ALIENS at the Library of Congress, and in my spare time I'm > transcribing them into Finale (they not surprisingly won't let you photocopy > them) with the goal of printing them out and binding them to add to my > collection of film scores. > > The problem I've run into is that both scores have such an extensive list of > instrumentation that the only practical size for the printouts is 11x17 > paper. (The handwritten ALIENS score is huge-- 12x36.) Neither Kinko's nor > Staples can spiral bind a 17" document-- apparently their machines can only > go up to 14"-- so I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions as to where > else I might look to have it done or any other helpful thoughts on binding. > > > ___ > 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] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
At 5:18 AM -0400 7/31/08, dhbailey wrote: Patrick Sheehan wrote: I'll ask a bold question: Do you think musicians who complain about double sharps and double flats exemplify poor musicianship, because they're "too hard to figure out"? Anyone with me on that?I have seen double-sharps and double-flats in ALL kinds of stock arrangements, engraved or (poorly) hand-written. I do not think that such complaints reflect poor musicianship any more than I think that people who choose to use them reflect musical snobbery. Every genre of music has its own vocabulary that the majority of people comfortable playing in that genre are most used to seeing and that they expect. To bring the expectations and standards from one genre to another is to invite problems unnecessarily. You're entering their world -- don't try to force them to enter your world or you'll soon be replaced by another copyist who better understands what they're looking for. Not only is David absolutely correct, but I'd take it a step further--several steps, perhaps, although from radically different viewpoints. Take off your music theorist's hat for a few minutes, and throw it in the corner. Put on your historian's hat. Double flats and double sharps are, historically, adventures into unknown, or theoretical, or hypothetical territory. They did not exist in historical notation, and I'm talking up through the transition from renaissance to early baroque style, harmony, and theory. In fact theorists fought over whether the notes Fb or Cb were even theoretically possible, since in THEIR theory F and C were already "fa" (i.e. the lowered form of a variable pitch), the purpose of a flat was to alter a note to "fa," and the idea of making a "fa" even more "fa" was simply absurd. Secondly, take a realistic look at jazz players prior to about 1960. Some of them could read music, some of them couldn't. If they couldn't, it didn't matter, because their ears worked! If they could, they didn't let it get in their way, because it was the sound that counted, not the little picky details of how that sound was represented on paper. Harmony wasn't something you analyzed, it was something you absorbed and lived in! So why do I pick 1960 as a turning point? Simple. There were two VERY successful bands in the early '60s that pushed the limits of jazz/pop/rock'n'roll/classical styles and started a fusion movement that continued for at least 15 years (and may still be happening). They were both up at the top of the charts. And they both used something new: horn lines made up of young, talented players who had come up out of university study of their instruments and not just out of playing in bars and road houses. They had technique. They had classical tone, and classical control of their instruments, along with solid jazz style. Yes, they would have studied and understood double flats and sharps along with the rest of music theory, but that isn't the question. The proper question is whether they would have been used to seeing that kind of notation on a daily basis and sightreading it, or whether they understood it intellectually but didn't consider it terribly important for what they were doing. The two bands I'm thinking of were, of course, Blood, Sweat and Tears and the original Chicago Transit Authority. Along with everything else, they brought straight 8th notes back into jazz as an acceptable alternative to swung 8ths. In fact, they were ground-breaking on any number of levels, and I marveled every time another of their sides made it onto the charts. So, Patrick, is it your job to educate the musicians you'll be copying for, or to give them charts they'll be comfortable with? Actually, I think you've answered your own question by bringing it up here for discussion! To put it crudely, the client is right, whether you agree or not!! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences 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 "We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question
They can also put in two 11" combs and trim the extra. But you might have better luck with this at a proper (non-chain) print shop. Kinkos and Staples are almost uniformly awful. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 31 Jul 2008, at 9:09 PM, Carolyn Bremer wrote: See if you can find an employee at one of those locations that can help you. It is easy to put a 14" comb in the middle of the 17" side. They'll need to remove the piece that left-aligns the paper in the binder so they can get to the middle, but that's really all it takes. Well, that and an employee willing to do it. -Carolyn On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Blake Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: I recently came across the complete handwritten manuscript scores to the films ALIEN and ALIENS at the Library of Congress, and in my spare time I'm transcribing them into Finale (they not surprisingly won't let you photocopy them) with the goal of printing them out and binding them to add to my collection of film scores. The problem I've run into is that both scores have such an extensive list of instrumentation that the only practical size for the printouts is 11x17 paper. (The handwritten ALIENS score is huge-- 12x36.) Neither Kinko's nor Staples can spiral bind a 17" document-- apparently their machines can only go up to 14"-- so I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions as to where else I might look to have it done or any other helpful thoughts on binding. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question
See if you can find an employee at one of those locations that can help you. It is easy to put a 14" comb in the middle of the 17" side. They'll need to remove the piece that left-aligns the paper in the binder so they can get to the middle, but that's really all it takes. Well, that and an employee willing to do it. -Carolyn On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Blake Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I recently came across the complete handwritten manuscript scores to the > films ALIEN and ALIENS at the Library of Congress, and in my spare time I'm > transcribing them into Finale (they not surprisingly won't let you photocopy > them) with the goal of printing them out and binding them to add to my > collection of film scores. > > The problem I've run into is that both scores have such an extensive list of > instrumentation that the only practical size for the printouts is 11x17 > paper. (The handwritten ALIENS score is huge-- 12x36.) Neither Kinko's nor > Staples can spiral bind a 17" document-- apparently their machines can only > go up to 14"-- so I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions as to where > else I might look to have it done or any other helpful thoughts on binding. > > > ___ > 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] Score Binding Question
I don't suppose printing in landscape format would work. That would let you bind the 11-inch side. Or you might bind the top edge and make a flip score. Or is it I that's being flip? Seriously, talk to a local bookbinder or commercial printer. It'll cost, but they can probably do the job. Horace On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:52:08 -0400, you wrote: > >I recently came across the complete handwritten manuscript scores to the >films ALIEN and ALIENS at the Library of Congress, and in my spare time I'm >transcribing them into Finale (they not surprisingly won't let you photocopy >them) with the goal of printing them out and binding them to add to my >collection of film scores. > >The problem I've run into is that both scores have such an extensive list of >instrumentation that the only practical size for the printouts is 11x17 >paper. (The handwritten ALIENS score is huge-- 12x36.) Neither Kinko's nor >Staples can spiral bind a 17" document-- apparently their machines can only >go up to 14"-- so I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions as to where >else I might look to have it done or any other helpful thoughts on binding. > > >___ >Finale mailing list >Finale@shsu.edu >http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Score Binding Question
I recently came across the complete handwritten manuscript scores to the films ALIEN and ALIENS at the Library of Congress, and in my spare time I'm transcribing them into Finale (they not surprisingly won't let you photocopy them) with the goal of printing them out and binding them to add to my collection of film scores. The problem I've run into is that both scores have such an extensive list of instrumentation that the only practical size for the printouts is 11x17 paper. (The handwritten ALIENS score is huge-- 12x36.) Neither Kinko's nor Staples can spiral bind a 17" document-- apparently their machines can only go up to 14"-- so I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions as to where else I might look to have it done or any other helpful thoughts on binding. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009?
We're not yelling at YOU, we're just yelling out of frustration at the situation (behaviour changing for no apparent reason without documentation, when the original behaviour didn't seem to be broken) and the people we WANT to yell at aren't on the list. Believe me, we would be yelling the same thing if you were the addressee or not. If MakeMusic does end up sending someone officially to participate on the list, it had better be someone with rhinoceros skin... 8-) Sorry-- I know you're not yelling at me...Just got a button pushed. :-D I normally am pretty thick skinned. I did my time in CS before moving on. I think I just got a button pushed. I've asked for an official presence, we'll see what happens. I'm still pissed that clearing Staff Styles (in the Staff Tool) and measure contents (in the former Mass Edit tool) can't be done with the Clear key on Mac any more. I hate having to go to the menu for that! At least with the clicking in the Resize Tool, I know where to click now, so it isn't as big an issue as all that. I think Darcy addressed this, but you can hit delete, provided a stack isn't selected. Allen Fisher Founder and Principle Developer Fisher Art and Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Playback engine has bugs
A SLUR would normally be used in place of a tie between unequal pitches. As far as I know, unequal pitches are NEVER tied together. Yours; Bill Sinclair Enharmonic shifts: Eb tied to D# e.g. Graphically, yes a slur should be used, but playback ought to give one continuous note. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009?
On 31 Jul 2008, at 6:05 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: I'm still pissed that clearing Staff Styles (in the Staff Tool) Use the delete key. and measure contents (in the former Mass Edit tool) Use the delete key (unless a measure stack is selected. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Digital music stands
From: John Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:17:55 -0400 To: Subject: Re: [Finale] Digital music stands > And I'd really like to know where, in what version of "Fair Use," you > find permission for "the user to make a back-up copy." Yes, that's > been established long ago as it applies to commercial recordings, if > I remember correctly, but that does NOT automatically mean that it > applies to sheet music (which is defined as 'material intended to be > used up') and it CERTAINLY does not apply to computer programs, > unless I've completely misread all those legal agreements that we all > have to agree to! It actually does apply to software and recordings alike. It's not in the statute itself, but rather in the myriad court decisions that form the bulk of Fair Use law. Courts have consistently held that requiring a person to re-buy something as expensive as a software package because their computer's drive crashed is not reasonable and doesn't further the intent of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution (which is to promote innovation and the advance of the arts) and therefore one back-up/archival copy is allowed under Fair Use. Yes, those End-User Licensing Agreements (EULAs) that come shrink-wrapped around your software (or to which you must click "agree" before installing) say otherwise but several courts have ruled in favor of the consumer on this issue despite the EULA. EULAs have also been found to be invalid when they try to circumvent the First Sale doctrine. Does this Fair Use principle apply to making "back-up" copies of sheet music? Who knows? A definitive answer can't be stated one way or the other until a court somewhere rules in a case involving sheet music (or something very similar). On the face of it, however, the principle would seem to be the same: that it's unreasonable to expect the customer to re-purchase something rather expensive that they've legitimately paid for once merely because it "wears out" or is "used up". To say otherwise goes against the fundamental purpose for which copyright was included in the U.S. Constitution in the first place. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009?
Allen, We're not yelling at YOU, we're just yelling out of frustration at the situation (behaviour changing for no apparent reason without documentation, when the original behaviour didn't seem to be broken) and the people we WANT to yell at aren't on the list. Believe me, we would be yelling the same thing if you were the addressee or not. If MakeMusic does end up sending someone officially to participate on the list, it had better be someone with rhinoceros skin... 8-) I'm still pissed that clearing Staff Styles (in the Staff Tool) and measure contents (in the former Mass Edit tool) can't be done with the Clear key on Mac any more. I hate having to go to the menu for that! At least with the clicking in the Resize Tool, I know where to click now, so it isn't as big an issue as all that. Christopher On Jul 31, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Fisher, Allen wrote: It could also be argued that clicking to the left of a system is unintuitive, you are not actually clicking on what you want resize. By clicking in between staves, technically on the system, you get what you expect, as opposed to clicking on just the page. Is that a better line? ___ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 09:29 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009? Good luck on using that line. Let's see how bright the phone lines light up on this issue alone. Not that it is a terribly big deal, but the multi-page editing improvements provide no excuse. (You know which page the mouse is on, so why is the old behavior precluded?) On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Fisher, Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I get to reverse my stance ;-). Unfortunately the manual is the culprit. This was fallout from the multi-page editing improvements. I'll make sure that the critical detail of "To the right of the time sig" gets added. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
Name 3 that thought this (in its current form) was a good idea. On Jul 31, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Fisher, Allen wrote: There are several forum users who were contacted and interviewed. We also went to engravers who worked for some of the larger houses in the country. Not sure if I'm allowed to reveal names. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Dannewitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:15 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09 "From there we enlisted input from a broad spectrum of Finale professionals" Oh, you mean like people on the Finale list.or.on the forums orexactly from where where these broad spectrum of people found again? Tyler Turner wrote: --- On Wed, 7/30/08, dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't understand how the number of staff lists a person uses would in any way be an inconvenience to a publisher. How would it create more work for a publisher? Scott summarized the issues here: http://forum.makemusic.com/ default.aspx?f=6&m=230216&p=2 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale John Blane Blane Music Preparation 1649 Huntington Ln. Highland Park, IL 60035 847 579-9900 847 579-9903 fax www.BlaneMusic.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] One Last Test
Having SMTP Server Problems. Sorry for the waste of Bandwidth Allen Fisher Founder and Principle Developer Fisher Art and Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Test2
This is a Test ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Test
___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009?
It could also be argued that clicking to the left of a system is unintuitive, you are not actually clicking on what you want resize. By clicking in between staves, technically on the system, you get what you expect, as opposed to clicking on just the page. Is that a better line? ___ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 09:29 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009? Good luck on using that line. Let's see how bright the phone lines light up on this issue alone. Not that it is a terribly big deal, but the multi-page editing improvements provide no excuse. (You know which page the mouse is on, so why is the old behavior precluded?) On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Fisher, Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I get to reverse my stance ;-). Unfortunately the manual is the culprit. This > was fallout from the multi-page editing improvements. > I'll make sure that the critical detail of "To the right of the time sig" > gets added. > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009?
Wow. I can't win. I give an honest answer and I'm blasted for it. I don't respond to certain threads *right away* and I'm blasted for it. I gave the best answer that I could give. I was wrong and I corrected myself. Personally, when I want to resize the system, I click between staves. It's not as simple as you put it, sorry to say, but I can't really give you the detailed answer without violating my NDA. And I suppose I'm going to get yelled at for that too. ___ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 09:29 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009? Good luck on using that line. Let's see how bright the phone lines light up on this issue alone. Not that it is a terribly big deal, but the multi-page editing improvements provide no excuse. (You know which page the mouse is on, so why is the old behavior precluded?) On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Fisher, Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I get to reverse my stance ;-). Unfortunately the manual is the culprit. This > was fallout from the multi-page editing improvements. > I'll make sure that the critical detail of "To the right of the time sig" > gets added. > ___ 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] Some comments re Fin09
Scott explains well how the new staff lists give us advantages, but not how a piece with many staff lists would create more work for a publisher. I cannot see why this should be so. I am happy with the new behaviour for my own work, since I have always entered dynamics and the like as separate note-attached expressions. I have never needed more than 3 staff lists. I am particularly happy to be able to add items with staff lists using metatools: this wasn't possible before. Having said that for myself, I don't see why those of us who are used to working with many more staff lists should be penalised. And the staff lists are still all there in the document: you'll find them in the repeat tool, but you can no longer use them for expressions. We are allowed to create as many expression categories as we like (as a test, I created more than 40). Most users probably won't create any more than the ones that are already there, but the possibility is there for anybody who might need it. Why not keep the same possibility for staff lists? Michael On 31 juil. 08, at 18:39, Tyler Turner wrote: --- On Wed, 7/30/08, dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't understand how the number of staff lists a person uses would in any way be an inconvenience to a publisher. How would it create more work for a publisher? Scott summarized the issues here: http://forum.makemusic.com/ default.aspx?f=6&m=230216&p=2 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
There are several forum users who were contacted and interviewed. We also went to engravers who worked for some of the larger houses in the country. Not sure if I'm allowed to reveal names. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Dannewitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:15 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09 "From there we enlisted input from a broad spectrum of Finale professionals" Oh, you mean like people on the Finale list.or.on the forums orexactly from where where these broad spectrum of people found again? Tyler Turner wrote: > > --- On Wed, 7/30/08, dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I don't understand how the number of staff lists a >> person >> uses would in any way be an inconvenience to a publisher. >> >> How would it create more work for a publisher? >> > > > Scott summarized the issues here: > http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6&m=230216&p=2 > > > > > ___ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
Carolyn Bremer wrote: Here's my take. I think all notation books will agree that accidentals apply only to one octave. In usage, I find that players will play all octaves with the same accidental. Perhaps your particular ensemble is used to having an accidental show on only one octave while applying to all, but it is technically incorrect. That said, in my book, the players win. The answer is - the second octave note should have a sign in front of it, whether or not it agrees with the note in the first octave. Any other practice is asking for wrong notes. In a passage like this, where the small letters are in a higher octave: G bA G e b a it may be obvious that the composer is following the 20th century rule (that the first A flat has no effect on the higher A), but I guarantee that some players will try to follow the old rule they learned as a child and play the higher one Ab. Also, a few editors out there still follow the archaic old rule. Raymond Horton ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
On 30 Jul 2008, at 9:02 PM, Patrick Sheehan wrote: 2. Double Sharps, Double Flats: As we all know, some big band ballads or jazz chart ballads can be in some nasty keys (e.g. a lot of Glenn Miller's charts are in Db and Ab), moreso in favor for the vocalist, and my question is: if something like a chromatic scalar run in the woodwinds would have a heavy-sharped key (B Major), would you write a chromatic run as B, B-sharp, C#, C double-sharp, D#, etcORB, C-natural, C#, D-natural, D#, etc.). I would always go with the former. In chromatic scales, sharps are used going up, flats going down, but double flats and double sharps rarely. Your second example is better. This is not the same as your G# - G nat example, which is better with a double sharp, or Ab - G, depending on context. RBH ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
"From there we enlisted input from a broad spectrum of Finale professionals" Oh, you mean like people on the Finale list.or.on the forums orexactly from where where these broad spectrum of people found again? Tyler Turner wrote: --- On Wed, 7/30/08, dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't understand how the number of staff lists a person uses would in any way be an inconvenience to a publisher. How would it create more work for a publisher? Scott summarized the issues here: http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6&m=230216&p=2 ___ 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] Some comments re Fin09
--- On Wed, 7/30/08, dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't understand how the number of staff lists a > person > uses would in any way be an inconvenience to a publisher. > > How would it create more work for a publisher? Scott summarized the issues here: http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6&m=230216&p=2 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Finale 2009 Mac Firewire/Intel issue?
On 2008/07/30(水), at 後3:36, Darcy James Argue wrote: It's not all FireWire devices. My M-Audio FireWire Audiophile never had this problem. I've always had stereo playback from Finale. This only means M-Audio doesn't follow AU spec. The technical issue of this bug is that Finale doesn't treat mono stream as AU speced, meaning any interface, regardless of FW or USB, which is a multi channel device and follows AU mono stream spec gets bitten. The real question is, is this responsibility on MM or NI? -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Greater Boston http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
I approach things like this on a case by case basis and usually seek the solution that requires the fewest markings on the page. I agree completely about the F double# to G# decision, when the notes are alternating, and I can't think of any circumstance where I'd prefer G nat., G#, G nat., G#. On the subject of notes altered with accidentals and displaced by octaves: my assumption has always been that each octave is independent, but I was caught by another convention when recording a piece with the Metropole Orchestra in Holland where I had written a B flat in the lower octave and a B natural in the upper one and failed to put a courtesy natural on the second one (there were intervening pitches, by the way - though both were in the same measure). Both were played by the strings as B flats, and I was listening to so many things - mostly to balance and the emotional, dynamic shape of the piece, that I didn't notice it until the piece had been recorded. I don't know that it has a profound affect on anyone else's perception of the music, but it annoys and frustrates me every time I hear it. Please take this as a cautionary tale. "Be impossible to be misunderstood." - Bill Duncan On the subject of chord symbols - this becomes problematic as roots progress around the circle of fifths and move from flats to sharps ( or vice versa). Christopher's example of hearing complaints about Gbm7 rather than F#m7 is a good one. Is the following chord a B7? Then maybe, since they are "paired" and part of one basic sonority, either F#m7 - B7 or Gbm7 - Cb7. The question for me is usually one of where to make the switch. I work with some musicians who usually prefer spellings "in the key," but this principle becomes hard, and sometimes impractical, to maintain when the harmonic language is full of chromatic side-steps. (Horace Silver's "Strollin" - DbM/// Em7/A7/ Ebm7/Ab7/. No jazz musician in his right mind would insist on the correct spelling of Fbm7/Bbb7/.) On the other hand, a descending line in the key of Eb (single notes, not chord symbols) can be read easily as Bb, Bbb, Ab. However, chord symbols imply a pitch collection, so this is much more easily read as Bb, A nat., Ab, when chord symbols are involved (Bb7, A7, Ab7). As I said earlier, context must be a consideration. I look for the solution that requires no questions from the reader. There are more important things to be talking about; things that are not possible to notate precisely, or conveniently. My 2c. Chuck On Jul 31, 2008, at 6:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Patrick Sheehan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 21:08 Subject: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct? To: finale@shsu.edu I have a brother that plays in a prestigious big band, and I have recently been hired as the copyist for this particular band. I had done non-contracted copy work for them before, and need to clear up some notation issues with the experts, because we argue. I'm not extensive in jazz, but I know some things can't be as awkward as what he claims they are, as follows: 1. Accidentals He claims that, in a (e.g.) scalar run: (Key of Bb Major), if the clarinet plays a scalar run (with Ab accidentals only, outside of the key) starting on it's written low F (below the staff), it will play F, G, Ab, Bb, C, D, Eb, F, G, THEN... should the upper A-flat be remarked since it's in the next octave, or is it automatically assumed that it's flat, because it was flat in the lower octave? I claim that's not the practice, he claims it is. Answer on that one, please. Definitely restate the Ab. It is correct practice. Even if someone uses another convention, it is better to be completely unambiguous. 2. Double Sharps, Double Flats: As we all know, some big band ballads or jazz chart ballads can be in some nasty keys (e.g. a lot of Glenn Miller's charts are in Db and Ab), moreso in favor for the vocalist, and my question is: if something like a chromatic scalar run in the woodwinds would have a heavy-sharped key (B Major), would you write a chromatic run as B, B-sharp, C#, C double-sharp, D#, etcORB, C-natural, C#, D-natural, D#, etc.). I would always go with the former. I would go with B, B#, C#, CX, etc, since that is what is generally correct and these ARE professionals. In the absence of a key signature, I would avoid double sharps and double flats, though. My view is, the natural-then-sharp accidental fashion is much too difficult on the eye. Isn't this what double sharps and double flats (respectively) are for? That's what I think. How about if you had a figure that went inbetween a G# and a G natural for two pairs of sixteenth notes (for two counts in 4/4?). Would you want to have to read a G# G-nat G# G-nat G# G- nat G# G-nat mess?!?! Or, easier, a G#-to F-double sharp breeze-of-a-read
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
- Original Message - From: Patrick Sheehan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 21:08 Subject: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct? To: finale@shsu.edu > I have a brother that plays in a prestigious big band, and I > have recently been hired as the copyist for this particular > band. > I had done non-contracted copy work for them before, and need to > clear up some notation issues with the experts, because we > argue. I'm not extensive in jazz, but I know some things > can't be as awkward as what he claims they are, as follows: > > 1. Accidentals > He claims that, in a (e.g.) scalar run: > (Key of Bb Major), if the clarinet plays a scalar run (with Ab > accidentals only, outside of the key) starting on it's written > low F (below the staff), it will play F, G, Ab, Bb, C, D, Eb, F, > G, THEN... > should the upper A-flat be remarked since it's in the next > octave, or is it automatically assumed that it's flat, because > it was flat in the lower octave? I claim that's not the > practice, he claims it is. Answer on that one, please. > Definitely restate the Ab. It is correct practice. Even if someone uses another convention, it is better to be completely unambiguous. > 2. Double Sharps, Double Flats: > As we all know, some big band ballads or jazz chart ballads can > be in some nasty keys (e.g. a lot of Glenn Miller's charts > are in Db and Ab), moreso in favor for the vocalist, and my > question is: if something like a chromatic scalar run in the > woodwinds would have a heavy-sharped key (B Major), would you > write a chromatic run as B, B-sharp, C#, C double-sharp, D#, > etcOR B, C-natural, C#, D-natural, D#, > etc.). I would always go with the former. > I would go with B, B#, C#, CX, etc, since that is what is generally correct and these ARE professionals. In the absence of a key signature, I would avoid double sharps and double flats, though. > My view is, the natural-then-sharp accidental fashion is much > too difficult on the eye. Isn't this what double sharps > and double flats (respectively) are for? That's what I think. How about if you > had a figure that went inbetween a G# and a G natural for two > pairs of sixteenth notes (for two counts in 4/4?). Would > you want to have to read a G# G-nat G# G-nat G# G- > nat G# G-nat mess?!?! Or, easier, a G#-to F-double > sharp breeze-of-a-read? > Right. In this case, DEFINITELY G# to FX is more readable. With only one instance of a pitch (like your chromatic run) there might be a case made for natural-sharp, but here where the figure repeats, the double sharp is better, no question. > I'll ask a bold question: Do you think musicians who complain > about double sharps and double flats exemplify poor > musicianship, because they're "too hard to figure out"? > Anyone with me on that? I have seen double- > sharps and double-flats in ALL kinds of stock arrangements, > engraved or (poorly) hand-written. > > Please let me know if these two points are common (and / or > correct) in standard jazz notation. I appreciate it. Common? Maybe double sharps and double flats are not as common, but they are certainly correct. Musicians might complain about them because they haven't seen them much, but that is no reason to complain, IMO. As soon as you write ANYTHING that is newish, you get complaints, because jazz musicians are a conservative bunch, and they seem to have gotten their panties in a twist about enharmonics in particular. I've had musicians screaming at me about spelling Gbm7 instead of F#m7 (in the key of Db, no less!) and I have to just shrug and end the conversation. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009?
Good luck on using that line. Let's see how bright the phone lines light up on this issue alone. Not that it is a terribly big deal, but the multi-page editing improvements provide no excuse. (You know which page the mouse is on, so why is the old behavior precluded?) On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Fisher, Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I get to reverse my stance ;-). Unfortunately the manual is the culprit. This > was fallout from the multi-page editing improvements. > I'll make sure that the critical detail of "To the right of the time sig" > gets added. > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009?
Christopher-- I get to reverse my stance ;-). Unfortunately the manual is the culprit. This was fallout from the multi-page editing improvements. I'll make sure that the critical detail of "To the right of the time sig" gets added. Thanks! Allen Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL > PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 8:25 PM > To: finale@shsu.edu > Subject: Re: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009? > > Hi, Allen > > I'd just like to add my opinion to the others that we appreciate your > presence here on the list, even if you aren't official and can't answer > everything. And I am sorry that you act as a lightning rod for all our > complaints, because even if you aren't "official", you are still the > representative of MakeMusic for us. But don't go away just because we get > frustrated once in a while. We still love you! > > Now for your answer. > > I had clicked between staves, but I had neglected to do it in the right place > before Carolyn pointed out that the click had to be to the RIGHT of the time > signature. This is in complete opposition to what the manual said, which was > a source of frustration. Simply clicking between the staves isn't enough; it > MUST be to the right of the time sig as well. I hope the manual reflects that > in the update... > > Christopher > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Fisher, Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:16 > Subject: RE: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009? > To: "finale@shsu.edu" > >> Click in between staves. >> >> Allen >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:30 PM >> To: finale@shsu.edu >> Subject: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009? >> >> Hi all, >> >> First operation with the new FinMac 2009, so this doesn't auger well. >> >> I created a score (added a couple of staves to an existing ensemble) >> and the first thing I tried to do was use the Resize Tool to >> make the >> systems smaller by clicking next to the first system. The only >> dialogue box that I could get to show up was the Resize Page >> box. If >> I clicked a staff directly, I would get Resize Staff, but >> nowhere can >> I force the Resize System dialogue box to show up. >> >> Resize Systems in the Page Layout tool seems to work normally, so >> this doesn't stop me, but can anyone confirm the bug? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Christopher >> >> >> ___ >> Finale mailing list >> Finale@shsu.edu >> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale >> >> ___ >> Finale mailing list >> Finale@shsu.edu >> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > ___ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > ___ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
Patrick Sheehan wrote: [snip] 1. Accidentals He claims that, in a (e.g.) scalar run: (Key of Bb Major), if the clarinet plays a scalar run (with Ab accidentals only, outside of the key) starting on it's written low F (below the staff), it will play F, G, Ab, Bb, C, D, Eb, F, G, THEN... should the upper A-flat be remarked since it's in the next octave, or is it automatically assumed that it's flat, because it was flat in the lower octave? I claim that's not the practice, he claims it is. Answer on that one, please. Yes, the upper Ab should also be marked. I expect the same in "classical" or non-pop music as well. The older practice of an accidental affecting all octaves within that measure was passe when I was in music theory class in 1970! My professor then impressed on us that each octave was its own pitch and the rule for accidentals affected ONLY that single pitch it was applied to. 2. Double Sharps, Double Flats: As we all know, some big band ballads or jazz chart ballads can be in some nasty keys (e.g. a lot of Glenn Miller's charts are in Db and Ab), moreso in favor for the vocalist, and my question is: if something like a chromatic scalar run in the woodwinds would have a heavy-sharped key (B Major), would you write a chromatic run as B, B-sharp, C#, C double-sharp, D#, etcORB, C-natural, C#, D-natural, D#, etc.). I would always go with the former. Leave the double-sharps and double-flats out of such a passage as much as possible. My view is, the natural-then-sharp accidental fashion is much too difficult on the eye. Isn't this what double sharps and double flats (respectively) are for? How about if you had a figure that went inbetween a G# and a G natural for two pairs of sixteenth notes (for two counts in 4/4?). Would you want to have to read a G# G-nat G# G-nat G# G-nat G# G-nat mess?!?! Or, easier, a G#-to F-double sharp breeze-of-a-read? It's only a "breeze-of-a-read" if you're used to reading double sharps. If you're not, then it's more difficult than what you call a "mess." I'd use the G#-Gnat everytime -- the "language" of jazz musicians, from my experience, doesn't include double-sharps or double-flats except in the cases of the very esoteric jazz bands, which Miller's band was hardly one of. Kenton's band or Herman's band I would expect to be able to read double-sharps/double-flats. Toshiko Akiyoshi / Lew Tabackin Big Band is another such band. But the majority of them are used to reading music with single flats and single sharps. Lots of accidentals don't bother them, but double-sharps and double-flats aren't second nature to many musicians in jazz bands. I'll ask a bold question: Do you think musicians who complain about double sharps and double flats exemplify poor musicianship, because they're "too hard to figure out"? Anyone with me on that?I have seen double-sharps and double-flats in ALL kinds of stock arrangements, engraved or (poorly) hand-written. I do not think that such complaints reflect poor musicianship any more than I think that people who choose to use them reflect musical snobbery. Every genre of music has its own vocabulary that the majority of people comfortable playing in that genre are most used to seeing and that they expect. To bring the expectations and standards from one genre to another is to invite problems unnecessarily. You're entering their world -- don't try to force them to enter your world or you'll soon be replaced by another copyist who better understands what they're looking for. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Bugs etc……
David Dubuc wrote: I've been using Finale since 2001 and am a full-time musician. After nearly 8 years of experience with the program I can honestly say that it is the most unreliable and frustrating program I own. I refer to it as my "Blue Streak" program because nearly every time I open it I cuss a blue streak. If Pro Tools or Final Cut or the Adobe Creative Suite or even WORD were half as full of infuriating eccentricities and undocumented problems as Finale they would never have reached the competitive level. I use all of these applications and never seems to have an issue that can't be resolved in a moment or two. The fact that a program so full of glitches and bugs has become such a giant in the notation arena just goes to show that there is still not a really great notation program out there for us yet. If someone would develop a notation program that is stable and reliable I'd switch in a second for twice the price. Have you tried Sibelius? I find it very stable and reliable and very capable. But it is a different beast than Finale, and many Finale users find making the switch difficult. Of course, many find it easy also, so the best thing would be to download the demo and give it a try. And you might consider joining the sibelius group at yahoogroups for a while to read the discussions. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
