Re: [Finale] erratic playback volume

[Craig Parmerlee]

I had a lot of problem with this sort of thing when I was using Finale 
regularly.  It had to do with the software setting the mod wheel more or 
less randomly, and never being reset to the zero position.  I guess that 
is still a problem.  I eventually found myself having to add hidden 
notes (or maybe they were expressions, I can't remember) to reset those 
mod wheels.  It was a real pain.





On 8/15/2019 5:07 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:

On 8/15/2019 4:41 PM, Don Hart wrote:

Well, Built-in Output level had been reduced to about half.  I never
touched it, I swear. :)

Thank you, Robert, but Human Playback is off the hook this time,


[snip]

Check any expressions which are in the music close to where the 
changes in volume appear.  At some point you may have simply 
duplicated and edited an expression that had playback assigned to 
velocity or volume but forgotten that over time.  I know I've done 
that -- simply click the duplicate and then the edit buttons and 
change the expression, but forgotten to see if the original had any 
playback function.







---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Long first ending

[Craig Parmerlee]

Just for the record, MuseScore and Dorico (and I'm pretty sure Sibelius) 
treat endings, regardless of length, as a single object of variable 
length, not as a collection of lines that the user has to nip and tuck 
to get to look right. They all display endings properly, regardless of 
length, without any special effort on the user's part.



On 8/15/2019 2:57 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
I'm with you, David.  I am certain this worked in the past.  I just 
tried it with 25.5 and it does not work -- my results are as John 
Robert described.


I have only 25.5 installed on my computer and haven't really used it 
for almost a year.  So I can't say what version last worked in this 
regard.  I am pretty sure 2012 worked. at least as far as allowing you 
to stretch the bracket in scroll mode and display the bracket 
correctly in page layout.  But even when it "worked" it was still 
really crappy.  It was difficult to get the brackets to line up 
correctly, so most scores looked very unprofessional if they had 
endings more than a couple of measures.  One would have thought 
sometime in the 30-year history of the product they would have fixed 
this.


If having endings look correct is important, I'd strongly suggest 
switching to a product that does them correctly and automatically.




On 8/15/2019 9:35 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:

On 8/15/2019 8:29 AM, John Roberts wrote:
That’s the first thing I tried, David - I got a very long line on 
the first system that stretched way off the page.


JR


Is this something you have to do for a client or is it your own 
project?  If it's your own project, might it be better to use some 
sort of D.S. structure instead of a long first ending?


I just tried my solution and it doesn't work -- sorry.

I guess you just have to place it in page view, where the start of 
the ending bracket will show on the first system included in the 
ending, and the end of the ending bracket will show on its system and 
you'll simply have to place graphic lines on the in-between systems.


I could swear my solution used to work alright when placing it in 
scroll view, but I may be confusing Finale with Sibelius, where it 
definitely is much easier to accomplish what you want.






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Long first ending

[Craig Parmerlee]

I'm with you, David.  I am certain this worked in the past.  I just 
tried it with 25.5 and it does not work -- my results are as John Robert 
described.


I have only 25.5 installed on my computer and haven't really used it for 
almost a year.  So I can't say what version last worked in this regard.  
I am pretty sure 2012 worked. at least as far as allowing you to stretch 
the bracket in scroll mode and display the bracket correctly in page 
layout.  But even when it "worked" it was still really crappy.  It was 
difficult to get the brackets to line up correctly, so most scores 
looked very unprofessional if they had endings more than a couple of 
measures.  One would have thought sometime in the 30-year history of the 
product they would have fixed this.


If having endings look correct is important, I'd strongly suggest 
switching to a product that does them correctly and automatically.




On 8/15/2019 9:35 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:

On 8/15/2019 8:29 AM, John Roberts wrote:
That’s the first thing I tried, David - I got a very long line on the 
first system that stretched way off the page.


JR


Is this something you have to do for a client or is it your own 
project?  If it's your own project, might it be better to use some 
sort of D.S. structure instead of a long first ending?


I just tried my solution and it doesn't work -- sorry.

I guess you just have to place it in page view, where the start of the 
ending bracket will show on the first system included in the ending, 
and the end of the ending bracket will show on its system and you'll 
simply have to place graphic lines on the in-between systems.


I could swear my solution used to work alright when placing it in 
scroll view, but I may be confusing Finale with Sibelius, where it 
definitely is much easier to accomplish what you want.






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] MuseScore 3 is available now -- free (as it always is!)

[Craig Parmerlee]

I use Transcribe! regularly.  I don't rely much on the chord recognition 
because it isn't all that accurate.  If I am having trouble hearing a 
particular harmony, I might look at what Transcribe has detected.  
Sometimes it is helpful, but not nearly enough to generate MIDI notes 
accurately.


Recent versions of Band-in-a-Box come with the ability to detect chords 
and tempos from most pop music tracks.  This actually works surprisingly 
well once one learns a few tricks for pointing the software in the right 
direction.  I tested it when it first came out, enough to be really 
impressed. In my projects, I often reharmonize things, so I don't really 
save time by having BIAB analyze chords.  But it is really neat and can 
be instructive.


Probably the best note recognition in the industry as of today is in 
Celemony's Melodyne.  It can recognize polyphonics, but not in a full 
production with many instruments.  If you have a string quartet, for 
example, it might do a decent job of recognizing most of the notes.


On another plane, Izotope RX7 has a new feature that can "remix" a WAV 
or MP3.  It uses some AI processing to try to isolate vocals, bass, and 
percussion from the other musical elements, allowing you to boost or cut 
any of those.  It actually works pretty well in some cases.  But it 
doesn't identify individual notes.  Instead, it is looking for the 
overtone patterns that are typical of voices, bass, and percussion.


Ultimately, it should be possible for software to combine what Melodyne 
(individual note recognition) and RX7 (overtone analysis) do to "hear" 
as a human hears and make more sense out of it.  I don't think we are 
real close to that, however.  That's probably a decade away, but 
ultimately, it might be possible for software to listen to a recording 
and create a MusicXML score we could use as a starting point for a project.


I think the point of all of this (IMHO) is that some of the notation 
products seem to be managed as if they are at end of life.  I believe we 
are actually at the BEGINNING of an era.  I'd say the products to watch are


* Musescore, because of its widespread use and possibility of a very 
broad developer base if the project is managed aggressively.


* Notion, which is not very advanced compared to Sibelius, Finale and 
Dorico, but is leading in the integration with the DAW world (StudioOne 
in that case.)


* Dorico, because it is under very active development, is under the 
well-funded Yamaha umbrella, and benefits from Steinberg's deep DAW roots.


The other products seem to be mostly static.  If they do what one needs, 
stick with them, simple as that.  But I don't expect them to move into 
these new dimensions very quickly, if at all.





On 3/18/2019 6:12 PM, Graeme Gerrard wrote:

There is a program called Transcribe! that is intended as an aid in aurally 
transcribing music.  It has so many useful features in this regard.
But it can also generate a piano roll style notation that works reasonable 
well, even of polyphonic pieces. He has some contextual smarts in there for 
determining chords I think.
I have tried to encourage the designer, Seven Strings Software, 
https://www.seventhstring.com/, to elaborate on this to save the piano roll out 
as a midi or musicXML file.  He says he is not interested in doing this because 
he says it is important for people to do things aurally.  That’s all well and 
good, but I can’t help feeling like this would be a fantastic feature too.  
Someone will do it.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] MuseScore 3 is available now -- free (as it always is!)

[Craig Parmerlee]

Thanks for that brief synopsis.  The PDF import feature is very 
interesting.  I know that there are many people in each of the camps 
(Finale, Sibelius, Dorico et al) who really just want to see the best 
notation.  And of course, nobody is against having the best notation 
output possible.  But I believe strongly that all the products are 
converging around the ultimate in notation (one never gets there, but 
all products are pretty good).  The real differences in the future will 
be features that save time and improve the quality/accuracy of work.


That experimental PDF conversion is one such example.  Other examples 
might include:


* Handwriting recognition (on a touch screen)
* Polyphonic audio-to-notation
* Tighter integration with DAWs for the best possible playback
* "Harmonically aware" input modes (guiding to "proper" harmonies and 
voicings)

* Etc.

I don't claim that all these are easy or even completely possible.  But 
I do think there is a huge space available for the products to continue 
to add value way beyond the basics of notation.  In the past, Finale has 
been a leader in some of these areas, such as with the BIAB harmonizing 
(good idea that never really worked great) and the drum groove plug-in 
(again, a good idea never really taken to a high-quality result.)




On 3/14/2019 6:06 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:
there's even an experimental "Import PDF" function whereby you upload 
a PDF of music to the musescore web-site and an on-line converter 
tries to convert the PDF to a functional MuseScore file.  Once 
converted you can download the converted file to your local hard-drive 
and open it in MuseScore.  My simple trial returned excellent results! 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Sale: Dorico Pro 2 and Dorico Elements 2

[Craig Parmerlee]

If Finale were doing any significant developments to their product I'm 
sure we would be happy to talk about that.  It is the fact that Finale 
is basically frozen in time that causes people to think about what other 
options are available and practical.


In the case of this thread, the main question seems to be how difficult 
it would be to make a move to Dorico if a person uses the various FInale 
plug-ins very heavily. If this doesn't interest you, that's OK, but it 
seems to be a rather important question for those who depend on the 
plug-ins.


Those Finale plug-ins don't always have a direct counterpart in Dorico.  
That's why it is necessary to talk in some depth about how Dorico operates.




On 1/31/2019 3:14 AM, Paolo Alberto Rismondo wrote:

Hi all,

It seems to me that this is 'Finale mailing list', not '... mailing 
list'.


Thank you in advance for your kind attention,

all best,

Paolo A. Rismondo



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Dorico test importing Finale XML

[Craig Parmerlee]

Thanks, Geraldo.

I will keep that in mind.  My only concern is that if this is system 
tempo or tempo markings (i.e. text that will appear for all players), it 
has to be on the downbeat or else it will break up multi-measure rests.




On 1/30/2019 1:35 PM, Gerardo Delgado wrote:

  I can move the elements manually to relieve the stacking,

but the staffs remain spaced apart.  They don't adjust themselves after
I relieve the stacking.  So I may have to adjust some of the staff
spacing manually.


Hi Craig.

I am working in some projects with Dorico and in cases like that I move the
texts ("Trumpet solo" o "legato") in Write Mode in order to assign them to
other elements (for instance, a neighbour note or rest). It makes the
staves to respace automatically. Then, in Engraving Mode, I move the text
to the proper place. Generally, no further manual staff spacing is required.

Kind regards.

Gerardo Delgado
Musician, Music Editor, Conductor
Buenos Aires, Argentina


El mié., 30 ene. 2019 a las 3:01, Craig Parmerlee ()
escribió:



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Sale: Dorico Pro 2 and Dorico Elements 2

[Craig Parmerlee]

Just to add a tidbit or two, there is currently no way in Dorico to have 
2 parts share a staff in the score and still have them go to separate 
parts.  As Steve says, it is actually pretty easy to write two separate 
parts, then add a third player. Select all the music from the two 
separate parts and Paste Special -> Implode into that third player.  And 
then include only that third player in the score layout.  But of course, 
any subsequent changes will not be synchronized.


I believe what Dorico is working on is a framework where you can tell 
the score layout to automatically combine certain players -- in other 
words, automating the process I described above, and automatically 
keeping things in sync.  This would be philosophically opposite the 
Finale approach.  In Finale, you write both players into a single staff 
and then tell Finale how to split that into two parts for printing.


My guess is that this will be in the next major (paid) release of 
Dorico, but I really have no way of knowing.  That's just a guess.  As 
you can imagine, there could be quite a lot of complication to this 
process.  The Steinberg team does a pretty good job of handling most of 
the complications by default and giving you tools to address the cases 
where the default behavior is not good enough.



On 1/28/2019 8:57 AM, Steve Parker wrote:

Hi Christoper,

This is something that is promised.

On 28 Jan 2019, at 13:45, Christopher Smith  
wrote:

... Are you saying that Dorico handles two instruments per score staff, but 
with individual parts separated, including cues and solos, very well?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Dorico test importing Finale XML

[Craig Parmerlee]

It seems that Dorico did not include some (maybe all) text expressions 
in its import.  When I ran the XML into Finale, the text expressions 
show but mostly collide with other elements.  Dorico doesn't really have 
"text expressions" in the same sense that Finale uses them.  With 
Dorico, you have regular text (single staff) and system text (applies to 
all staves).  Dorico also has tempo markings and playing techniques.


The things people put into text expressions in Finale would go either 
into regular text , tempo markings or playing techniques with Dorico, 
and evidently there is no such conversion in the XML importer.  But had 
those elements been brought in through the import, they would not have 
collided. By default, nothing collides.  You can forcibly make elements 
collide by manually placing them in ENGRAVE mode, or you can disable the 
"avoid collisions" property.  I have heard of some cases where this 
doesn't perfectly avoid collisions, but I have never seen any collisions.


There is a downside, however.  I tend to use a lot of rehearsal marks, 
and I also often include either a tempo marking or system text at the 
same barline where the rehearsal mark is placed.  For example, rehearsal 
mark C might also say "Trumpet solo".  In those cases, the collision 
avoidance seems to stack these elements vertically.  It doesn't collide, 
but it may place the staffs very far apart in order to avoid the 
collision.  I can move the elements manually to relieve the stacking, 
but the staffs remain spaced apart.  They don't adjust themselves after 
I relieve the stacking.  So I may have to adjust some of the staff 
spacing manually.


But a key point is that by default, the parts are all completely 
playable, even if not ideally laid out. If you are racing to get a piece 
done in time for a rehearsal, you don't have to leave an extra hour or 
two to fiddle with parts just to make them playable.



On 1/30/2019 12:08 AM, Raymond Horton wrote:

Impressive results! Thanks for sharing!

​Raymond Horton
Composer, Arranger
Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) United Methodist Church
Retired Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra, 1971-2016
Visit us at rayhortonmusic.com

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 10:28 PM Craig Parmerlee 
OK, here are the results
Score: https://app.box.com/s/n7pi05swx2hve4wk71znvg409geju45b
Parts: https://app.box.com/s/slp2py2olo3404gcpnlq9i30w3m4h0g9

I emphasize I did ZERO EDITING.  All I did was:

1) Open Dorico
2) Import your XML file
3) Print score
4) Print parts

That all took about i minute.  I chose to use Dorico's internal PDF
creator which is really very nice and extremely fast.  But one
shortcoming is that it creates a separate PDF for each part, so I also did

5) Opened PdfSAM Visual to merge all the parts into one file.  That took
about 3 minutes -- longer than it took to create the parts in Dorico.

The layouts aren't perfect.  I'd certainly edit them a little.  But a
key point is that in almost every case, the parts are usable without any
editing if you are in a big rush to get something out for rehearsal.


On 1/28/2019 4:21 PM, Thomas Schaller wrote:

Hi Craig,
thanks for volunteering to do a little test.
Here is an orchestra job that has a bit of everything, yet not long.
Not sure what will translate, maybe there is too much information in
this XML file.
Let me know if I should prepare it differently to get a better result
(for test purposes).
But I’m really anxious to see how little one needs to touch to get a
good result.
Thanks again,
Thomas
PS - I took out title and credits and copyright to be on the safe side.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

[Finale] Dorico test importing Finale XML

[Craig Parmerlee]

OK, here are the results
Score: https://app.box.com/s/n7pi05swx2hve4wk71znvg409geju45b
Parts: https://app.box.com/s/slp2py2olo3404gcpnlq9i30w3m4h0g9

I emphasize I did ZERO EDITING.  All I did was:

1) Open Dorico
2) Import your XML file
3) Print score
4) Print parts

That all took about i minute.  I chose to use Dorico's internal PDF 
creator which is really very nice and extremely fast.  But one 
shortcoming is that it creates a separate PDF for each part, so I also did


5) Opened PdfSAM Visual to merge all the parts into one file.  That took 
about 3 minutes -- longer than it took to create the parts in Dorico.


The layouts aren't perfect.  I'd certainly edit them a little.  But a 
key point is that in almost every case, the parts are usable without any 
editing if you are in a big rush to get something out for rehearsal.



On 1/28/2019 4:21 PM, Thomas Schaller wrote:

Hi Craig,
thanks for volunteering to do a little test.
Here is an orchestra job that has a bit of everything, yet not long. 
Not sure what will translate, maybe there is too much information in 
this XML file.
Let me know if I should prepare it differently to get a better result 
(for test purposes).
But I’m really anxious to see how little one needs to touch to get a 
good result.

Thanks again,
Thomas
PS - I took out title and credits and copyright to be on the safe side.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Sale: Dorico Pro 2 and Dorico Elements 2

[Craig Parmerlee]

Everything I have has been edited at least a little.  Maybe a good 
demonstration would be for somebody to send me a MusicXML file.  I'll 
import it into Dorico and post the score and parts with no editing.





On 1/28/2019 10:13 AM, Thomas Schaller wrote:

Craig, would you consider posting PDFs of a score and a part page and show us 
what Dorico produces without having tweaked much?
Personally I’m more interested to see an orchestra piece.

Thanks,
Thomas Schaller


On Jan 27, 2019, at 8:08 PM, Craig Parmerlee  wrote:

Yes, it is a big learning curve.  I never really learned Sibelius, and I 
haven't learned MuseScore, so I can't really compare the size of the learning 
curve.  My guess is the Dorico learning curve is more difficult for advanced 
Finale users of long standing:

1) Because Dorico is considerably more sophisticated than either Sibelius or 
MuseScore.
2) Because Dorico uses a fundamentally different architecture (notes are abstracted away 
from the music "canvas" and many operations are driven by a very large set of 
rules.
3) Because of Dorico's rapid development, the documentation simply has not kept 
pace.

I have found it necessary to compile my own personal user guide so that I can 
quickly find my way back to the pertinent options, settings and procedures I 
rely on.  I do this for most software products just to help me learn them.  But 
in the case of Dorico, I still find myself referring to this document every 
single session, and I usually add something to the document every day I use the 
program.  It is now 30 pages long, and that is mostly my own shorthand.  My 
table of contents has about 50 topics.

My point is that this really is a major learning commitment, and many Finale 
users will find they are happier staying with what they know and what is 
working for them.   Nothing at all wrong with that.


On 1/26/2019 6:56 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:

Craig,

Thank you for sharing these thoughts.  You have made much more progress with 
Dorico than I have made, so I didn't feel qualified to respond. But I'm glad 
you were able to make the comparisons.

I know that becoming better acquainted with Dorico is in my imminent future, 
but most of the projects I've been working on lately have had short timetables 
so learning a new software hasn't been possible.

soon . . .

Thanks,
David


On 1/26/2019 5:01 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote:

Here are some observations about each of the plug-in examples.  Let me 
stipulate that the Finale plug-ins might provide some unusual visual results 
that aren't directly matched by Dorico, so I am not claiming equivalence on any 
of these.

1. Copy arbitrary material regardless of barlines, etc.  This is inherent in Dorico, and 
I think you would find this far more productive in Dorico.  Dorico does not provide any 
drag-and-drop, but the cut and paste model is extremely powerful.  It even allows 
1-to-many pasting, and pasting to discontinuous staffs and so on.  Also there is a very 
powerful capability where you can select any material, press "R" and it 
automatically duplicates the material placing it immediately to the right of the 
selection, which still expressing everything correctly with no touch-up required.

2. Mass relink.  This is inherent in Dorico.  Moreover, Dorico seems to make 
better assumptions about when to automatically reflect score changes in parts 
and vice versa.

3. Autocreate MM rests.  This is always automatic.  You never "create" any MM 
rests.  It is inherent. There are some options for visual appearance.

4. Multiple sets of not spacings.  I am not aware of anything line this in 
Dorico.  Of course you can edit the parts directly to apply any spacing you 
need.

5. Designate certain text as titles. There is only "text" and "system text" in Dorico.  There is no 
hierarchy of text objects, such as an outline mode in a word processor.  However, you have a great deal of control over 
the formatting of any text object and you can freely copy and reuse any of your text items.  So if you have a text 
object formatted as a "title", you can copy that anywhere else you need a similar title to appear.  Moreover, 
Dorico has a higher level of abstraction for these situations. Your file can consist of multiple "flows", 
which are like movements. And each flow can have a title, with options how and when to display those titles.

6. Mass align hairpins.  There is no mass alignment, but if you have a 4-bar passage, you can 
enter the dynamic as "F" and Dorico will enter that dynamic as a group 
that is all aligned.  And if you copy that group to other staves, they will be aligned (taking 
in to account the collisions).  So if you enter it properly, you never need to go back and fix 
it.  Dorico moves the groups around (maintaining the alignment) as needed even if the music 
changes to create a new collision.

7. Various fixes.  Most of these situations just do

Re: [Finale] Sale: Dorico Pro 2 and Dorico Elements 2

[Craig Parmerlee]

Yes, it is a big learning curve.  I never really learned Sibelius, and I 
haven't learned MuseScore, so I can't really compare the size of the 
learning curve.  My guess is the Dorico learning curve is more difficult 
for advanced Finale users of long standing:


1) Because Dorico is considerably more sophisticated than either 
Sibelius or MuseScore.
2) Because Dorico uses a fundamentally different architecture (notes are 
abstracted away from the music "canvas" and many operations are driven 
by a very large set of rules.
3) Because of Dorico's rapid development, the documentation simply has 
not kept pace.


I have found it necessary to compile my own personal user guide so that 
I can quickly find my way back to the pertinent options, settings and 
procedures I rely on.  I do this for most software products just to help 
me learn them.  But in the case of Dorico, I still find myself referring 
to this document every single session, and I usually add something to 
the document every day I use the program.  It is now 30 pages long, and 
that is mostly my own shorthand.  My table of contents has about 50 topics.


My point is that this really is a major learning commitment, and many 
Finale users will find they are happier staying with what they know and 
what is working for them.   Nothing at all wrong with that.



On 1/26/2019 6:56 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:

Craig,

Thank you for sharing these thoughts.  You have made much more 
progress with Dorico than I have made, so I didn't feel qualified to 
respond. But I'm glad you were able to make the comparisons.


I know that becoming better acquainted with Dorico is in my imminent 
future, but most of the projects I've been working on lately have had 
short timetables so learning a new software hasn't been possible.


soon . . .

Thanks,
David


On 1/26/2019 5:01 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
Here are some observations about each of the plug-in examples.  Let 
me stipulate that the Finale plug-ins might provide some unusual 
visual results that aren't directly matched by Dorico, so I am not 
claiming equivalence on any of these.


1. Copy arbitrary material regardless of barlines, etc.  This is 
inherent in Dorico, and I think you would find this far more 
productive in Dorico.  Dorico does not provide any drag-and-drop, but 
the cut and paste model is extremely powerful.  It even allows 
1-to-many pasting, and pasting to discontinuous staffs and so on.  
Also there is a very powerful capability where you can select any 
material, press "R" and it automatically duplicates the material 
placing it immediately to the right of the selection, which still 
expressing everything correctly with no touch-up required.


2. Mass relink.  This is inherent in Dorico.  Moreover, Dorico seems 
to make better assumptions about when to automatically reflect score 
changes in parts and vice versa.


3. Autocreate MM rests.  This is always automatic.  You never 
"create" any MM rests.  It is inherent. There are some options for 
visual appearance.


4. Multiple sets of not spacings.  I am not aware of anything line 
this in Dorico.  Of course you can edit the parts directly to apply 
any spacing you need.


5. Designate certain text as titles. There is only "text" and "system 
text" in Dorico.  There is no hierarchy of text objects, such as an 
outline mode in a word processor.  However, you have a great deal of 
control over the formatting of any text object and you can freely 
copy and reuse any of your text items.  So if you have a text object 
formatted as a "title", you can copy that anywhere else you need a 
similar title to appear.  Moreover, Dorico has a higher level of 
abstraction for these situations. Your file can consist of multiple 
"flows", which are like movements. And each flow can have a title, 
with options how and when to display those titles.


6. Mass align hairpins.  There is no mass alignment, but if you have 
a 4-bar passage, you can enter the dynamic as "F" and Dorico 
will enter that dynamic as a group that is all aligned.  And if you 
copy that group to other staves, they will be aligned (taking in to 
account the collisions).  So if you enter it properly, you never need 
to go back and fix it.  Dorico moves the groups around (maintaining 
the alignment) as needed even if the music changes to create a new 
collision.


7. Various fixes.  Most of these situations just don't happen in 
Dorico.  And you have complete control over the rhythmic position and 
length of every object, so anything like this is very easy to fix.


8. Movements.  See 5 above.  it is far more elegant than in Finale.  
And flows have other uses.  I often keep extra flows in my score as 
scratchpads or two different versions of a harmonization until I am 
sure I have it right.  I just did a big band chart that has a 16-bar 
a cappella fugue in 4 voices.  That was very tedious as I am not a 
fugue

Re: [Finale] Sale: Dorico Pro 2 and Dorico Elements 2

[Craig Parmerlee]

Here are some observations about each of the plug-in examples.  Let me 
stipulate that the Finale plug-ins might provide some unusual visual 
results that aren't directly matched by Dorico, so I am not claiming  
equivalence on any of these.


1. Copy arbitrary material regardless of barlines, etc.  This is 
inherent in Dorico, and I think you would find this far more productive 
in Dorico.  Dorico does not provide any drag-and-drop, but the cut and 
paste model is extremely powerful.  It even allows 1-to-many pasting, 
and pasting to discontinuous staffs and so on.  Also there is a very 
powerful capability where you can select any material, press "R" and it 
automatically duplicates the material placing it immediately to the 
right of the selection, which still expressing everything correctly with 
no touch-up required.


2. Mass relink.  This is inherent in Dorico.  Moreover, Dorico seems to 
make better assumptions about when to automatically reflect score 
changes in parts and vice versa.


3. Autocreate MM rests.  This is always automatic.  You never "create" 
any MM rests.  It is inherent. There are some options for visual appearance.


4. Multiple sets of not spacings.  I am not aware of anything line this 
in Dorico.  Of course you can edit the parts directly to apply any 
spacing you need.


5. Designate certain text as titles. There is only "text" and "system 
text" in Dorico.  There is no hierarchy of text objects, such as an 
outline mode in a word processor.  However, you have a great deal of 
control over the formatting of any text object and you can freely copy 
and reuse any of your text items.  So if you have a text object 
formatted as a "title", you can copy that anywhere else you need a 
similar title to appear.  Moreover, Dorico has a higher level of 
abstraction for these situations.  Your file can consist of multiple 
"flows", which are like movements. And each flow can have a title, with 
options how and when to display those titles.


6. Mass align hairpins.  There is no mass alignment, but if you have a 
4-bar passage, you can enter the dynamic as "F" and Dorico will 
enter that dynamic as a group that is all aligned.  And if you copy that 
group to other staves, they will be aligned (taking in to account the 
collisions).  So if you enter it properly, you never need to go back and 
fix it.  Dorico moves the groups around (maintaining the alignment) as 
needed even if the music changes to create a new collision.


7. Various fixes.  Most of these situations just don't happen in 
Dorico.  And you have complete control over the rhythmic position and 
length of every object, so anything like this is very easy to fix.


8. Movements.  See 5 above.  it is far more elegant than in Finale.  And 
flows have other uses.  I often keep extra flows in my score as 
scratchpads or two different versions of a harmonization until I am sure 
I have it right.  I just did a big band chart that has a 16-bar a 
cappella fugue in 4 voices.  That was very tedious as I am not a fugue 
person, so I created a separate flow just for those 16 bars.  That 
16-bar flow was reduced to only 4 players plus a chord playback staff so 
I could get all the counterpoint working.  Once that was right, I coped 
those 16 bars to the main flow and expanded the voices to let that 
section build over the 16 bars.  This is all very straightforward under 
Dorico.  You can certainly do something like that with Finale 
programming a view, but I'd probably put the scratchpad in a completely 
separate MUSX file.  Either way works, but it is much faster in Dorico 
because all of the above is just a few mouse clicks in setup mode.


9 Transfer page payout.  There is no template capability in Dorico, 
which is a bit of a weakness. However, if you have a score set up the 
way you like it, you can easily copy that and use that as the basis for 
your new project. And you can do that after the fact by exporting your 
flow(s) from one score and importing the flow(s) into the score that has 
the layout your want.  And as far as parts go, Dorico has a "master 
page" structure where you can develop a master page that can be used by 
any number of parts.  This area of Dorico is rather complicated, but 
looks very powerful.  I haven't used it much.


10.  TG Tools.  No questions on this one.

11. Proportionately scale staffs.  I don't know about this.  There are 
lots of options in Dorico for this kind of thing, but I don't know that 
any of them do what you want here.


12. Modeless plug-in problem.  I don't know about that.  There aren't 
any plugins in Dorico.  You can, however, do hot key assignments for any 
of hundreds of commands. And there are folks who are using the "Stream 
Deck" keypad to really boost their productivity.  I haven't done that 
yet.  That's not a direct replacement for plug-ins, but enables a 
different kind of workflow that may enable even greater productivity 
than you get from plug-ins.


I'm not trying to 

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Sale: Dorico Pro 2 and Dorico Elements 2

[Craig Parmerlee]

It is very difficult to compare Dorico with the other products because 
Dorico operates on a different plane.  Whether that different plane is 
good for a person might depend  on many factors.  I am not here to claim 
it is better for everybody, but I definitely am far more productive with 
Dorico than I have been with any other notation product.  I don't do 
anything very exotic in my scores.  I mainly write jazz band 
arrangements, straightforward full-orchestra pieces, lead sheets and 
similar things.  I don't do any "experimental music" that might call for 
daring, unconventional or very complex notation. So I cannot comment on 
how well Dorico does with those things.


There is one major architectural piece that makes a big difference.  
Beyond that, my productivity comes from a minute saved here and there.  
It all adds up.  The big architectural piece is that you don't actually 
enter notes in the traditional sense.  You give Dorico pitches that have 
a starting place and a length.  They don't even have to be within 
measures that have a distinct time signature.  Dorico uses its own rules 
(that are highly customize-able) to express that information as notes.  
So it seems like directly entering notes, just like any other program.  
All programs let you easily change pitches.  But the big difference is 
that Dorico makes it very easy to change the starting point and duration 
of any item.  And here's the big thing: it is IMPOSSIBLE for the updated 
information to be notated badly because Dorico is in charge of 
expressing the notes, separate from the internal storage of the music.  
With Finale, when you drag and drop a passage, if it ends up in a 
different rhythmic place, you may have to spend several minutes cleaning 
up the notes to make them show correctly.  You never do that with 
Dorico.  Similarly, things like cautionary accidentals are applied 
automatically in real time.  It is impossible to miss a cautionary 
accidental or do it wrong.  There are more cases like this.  This really 
makes a big difference and obviates the need for most of the situations 
for which people have relied on plug-ins in Finale.


Similarly, chords have an internal and external representation.  There 
is only one internal representation for Maj7 for example.  However, you 
can select rules that govern how you want the chords displayed (e.g. 
Cmaj7, CM7, Ctriangle7, etc). It is impossible for the symbols to be 
displayed incorrectly, and you can change your rules at any time without 
ever having to change your score.  It instantly re-draws according to 
the rules.  And chord entry is far more forgiving in Dorico.  You can 
type in chord spellings using any of the typical conventions and Dorico 
will handle it.  It is as easy to enter chords into Dorico as into 
Band-in-a-box, if you are familiar with that.  Huge time savings for me 
on that item alone.


Lots of little things.  You can copy any text element and place the copy 
anywhere you need it; and this is rich text that has lats of formatting 
control.


The big time savings come from the final parts layout.  I literally 
spend 5-10 minutes per 2-page part in Finale editing the layout.  You do 
very little of this in Dorico.  Most automatic decisions are pretty good 
and you can quickly tweak the things you don't like.  On a big band 
chart with 17 parts, I will easily save an hour in final editing, 
usually more than that.


I know you are deeply invested in plug-ins.  I'd bet half of the current 
Finale plug-ins would not be needed at all in Dorico, but some of the 
others might be badly missed.  So it becomes a question of whether the 
necessary changes in workflow would give you a faster, higher-quality 
end product. I cannot answer that.  I know the trade-off is heavily in 
Dorico's favor for the things I do, but it might not be so clear cut for 
others.






On 1/25/2019 11:03 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:

I would be very interested to know more specifics about the things that are
"well beyond Fin/Sib". Graphically, I know about flexible slurs, and I
would be curious to know if lines (like 8va) also have multiple inflection
points.

Beyond that, I would be curious to know what makes Dorico so much more
superior for part layout.

Do you use any 3rd party plugins with Finale? In my experience, working
without key 3rd party plugins in Finale is the slag mines. But I've
developed a workflow using several key plugins that is very fast for many
of the things you mentioned. In fact, it is difficult to imagine them being
much faster.

ymmv




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Sale: Dorico Pro 2 and Dorico Elements 2

[Craig Parmerlee]

I would also note Sibelius 2019 was announced this week.  It seems to be 
roughly the same magnitude of the Finale 26 release.  I am sure the 
improvements are welcome, but really, this is a minuscule amount of 
improvement for a paid release.  Dorico is adding capability 10-to-100 
times faster than either Finale or Sibelius.


Dorico has a steep learning curve, and it is getting steeper all the 
time as layers of capability are added.  It still lacks a few things 
that the other programs have. For example, there is not yet any 
automatic way to have a single line in the score (e.g. FHorn 1&3) break 
out to separate parts for Fhorn 1 and FHorn 3.  And Dorico's automatic 
playback isn't as advanced as Finale Human Playback.  But Dorico already 
does some things that are well beyond Finale and Sibelius.  Moreover, 
the architecture is more elegant, particularly in the ability to lay out 
music intelligently in a minimum amount of time.  On the playback side, 
many people are using Note Performer with Dorico and claiming very good 
results.  I don't care that much.  The playback is good enough for what 
I do.


I still have Finale 25 installed in case it is required for a 
collaboration, but I am doing all my new projects in Dorico now.  I find 
a typical project is taking about half as long with Dorico as I would 
have spent in Finale.  Much of that comes at the back end where I had to 
spend hours in final editing of part layouts.  With Dorico I typically 
spend about one minute per page for part layout -- sometimes no editing 
at all. But Dorico also provides big opportunities for time saving 
during the note entry and harmonization processes.



On 1/22/2019 8:21 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:

Hello Finale and Sibelius Friends,

I'm forwarding this message to both the Finale and Sibelius groups, in 
case anybody is interested in exploring Dorico.  Using the code 
DORICO30 you can get 30% off of either Dorico 2 or Dorico Elements 2 
(a lighter version of Dorico) for this week only apparently.


Both of those programs also have free demo versions you can download 
and explore.


I'm not trying to push it on anybody but I know some people might be 
curious.  Version 2 brought many major improvements over version 1.


I freely admit that I am still not very fluent in Dorico, knowing that 
it will take me a lot of work to master it, but I also know there are 
people in both Finale and Sibelius groups who have taken to Dorico and 
are doing major projects in it.


There is a forum at steinberg.net for people who want to get a sense 
of how users are faring with the product.


Dorico still uses their elicenser software or their extra-cost USB 
dongle, so for people who are vehemently opposed to such anti-piracy 
methods, nothing has changed and you probably won't want to explore 
Dorico beyond the demo versions (I don't know if those have any 
anti-piracy methods since they're freely distributed by Steinberg.)


However, given the lack of forward motion in Sibelius and the lack of 
substantive improvements in Finale beyond the automatic stacking of 
articulations, Dorico may well be the future of professional level 
computer notation software.


Just wanted to let you all know,
David H. Bailey 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Ricoh AP 2610 printer and Windows 10

[Craig Parmerlee]

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] What's the Equivalent to Finale Notepad?

[Craig Parmerlee]

And this is exactly why there is so little being done with Finale.  In 
the good old days, it was very common for universities to buy lots of 
Finale licenses.  Indeed, there was usually an annual upgrade timed to 
fit the procurement cycles of academic institutions.  I don't have any 
data, but I think it is pretty safe to assume there was a time when the 
academic use of Finale was far more revenue than the retail use of the 
product, especially considering so many of the non-academic users went 
for years between upgrades.


I think it is also pretty safe to assume that with MuseScore, the amount 
of academic revenue for the Finale notation product has dropped 
precipitously.


It is a different situation with SmartMusic.  This product remains 
successful in education.  Indeed it is ONLY for education.  And most 
importantly, it is a product that works great at the high school level 
-- and there are far more high school seats than college seats.  If you 
look at the websites, Finale is off to its own island.  SmartMusic is an 
entirely separate website and they don't mention Finale at all.


Looking back to the day that the Minneapolis-based company sold out to 
the Colorado Springs-based company, the new CEO talked about the 
acquired products not as tools for artists, but as training tools 
equivalent to sports training.  I thought this might have reflected a 
lack of understanding of the Finale product line.  In retrospect, it is 
clear that they fully understood what they were buying.  The only 
product they were interested in was SmartMusic and they viewed Finale as 
a cash cow to milk for a few more years.  I am not criticizing these 
decisions.  These are probably the best business decisions available.  
But I cannot imagine anybody paying $600 (or the discounted $350) for a 
new Finale license.


That's pretty much the life story right there.  Fortunately there are 
two outstanding products that are each evolving quickly (Dorico and 
MuseScore).  Everything else is a dead end, IMHO.




On 11/8/2018 5:39 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:
Musescore is totally free, very capable and if you install it on your 
computer you can simply view your students' assignments without a need 
for them to save them as musicxml for you to open in Finale.


There isn't a free program that saves in Finale file format besides 
NotePad, and as you point out that's only a Windows program.  So the 
best free option is for all of you to install and use MuseScore for 
your assignments.


David H. Bailey 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

[Finale] Scoring Notes review of Finale 26

[Craig Parmerlee]

This article presents more detail than I have seen elsewhere.

https://www.scoringnotes.com/reviews/finale-26-review/


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

[Finale] Finale 26 -- Opinions?

[Craig Parmerlee]

It officially launched today at an upgrade price of $150.

It seems that the upgrade mainly consists of a few improvements to 
collision avoidance.  Perhaps there is much more than immediately meets 
the eye, but this seems like a rather thin upgrade for $150.


I may upgrade, but I have been doing most of my work in Dorico lately, 
which already does 10x more automatic collision avoidance than Finale.


I'd appreciate hearing about any experience from people doing upgrades 
or using the demo version.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

[Finale] Finale version 26

[Craig Parmerlee]

I am surprised there has not been any discussion of Finale's "preview" 
of Version 26:


https://www.finalemusic.com/blog/coming-soon-finale-version-26/

There are no details in the announcement, but some broad 
characterizations: "Generally speaking, improvements will focus on 
streamlining your workflow and will begin with the time it takes to 
install and get up and running with the new version. You’ll enjoy 
smarter default engraving, performance enhancements, new features, bug 
fixes, and refinements to included resources such as templates and 
libraries."




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Dorico 2

[Craig Parmerlee]

Personally I would appreciate if my various plug-in vendors all supplied 
VST3 implementations.  It makes things cleaner.  That isn't just a 
Dorico issue.  VST2 will soon have its 20th birthday.  VST3 has been out 
there almost a decade.  It is high time that vendors move forward.


By the same token, Steinberg should embrace the ARA extensions to VST3.  
It is only hurting Cubase to not offer the richest Melodyne experience.  
I certainly agree that Steinberg should not be so proprietary.  But I 
don't want them to go out of business.  That strikes me as an astounding 
statement to be made on a forum that is very interested in music 
notation.  We have, on one hand, a company that has made a huge 
investment in modernizing the world of notation.  And we have another 
company that has made minimal investments in the past decade.  If I had 
to choose a company to survive, it would be the one that is investing in 
the technology.


I believe it is a moot point.  There are no indications whatsoever that 
Peaksware ever intends to make a significant investment in its product.  
They seem to be focused on SmartMusic.  Nobody should be surprised by 
that.  Simply go back and read the Peaksware announcement at the 
acquisition time.  It is perfectly clear in hindsight that the CEO was 
talking only about SmartMusic and not Finale when he went on about 
"deliberate practice".  This was what the company already did for 
athletics with TrainingPeaks.  It clearly is the only product they have 
much interest in from MakeMusic.

https://www.scoringnotes.com/news/makemusic-joins-peaksware/

And note this acquisition from 2015.  Again, it is all about 
SmartMusic.  Finale simply is not a key product for the company now.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150709005064/en/MakeMusic-Acquires-Weezic

If Peaksware were serious at all about Finale, the company would have 
given us a road map years ago.  Doesn't it seem a little peculiar that 
Dorico would have gone through its entire development life cycle. and 
several major releases since Peaksware acquired MakeMusic, and not a 
single word in terms of how the company intends to position against 
Dorico?  So really, I would not wish the more innovative company to go 
out of business.  It isn't likely anyway considering they are owned by 
Yamaha.





On 7/12/2018 5:05 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:

On Thu, July 12, 2018 1:45 pm, Steve Schow wrote:

Steinberg has had a strict stance
on copy protection for a very long time with Cubase and has documented very
well that this is just how it is, and how it will always be.  Of course of
Steinberg goes out of business, which is unlikely to happen any time soon

Based on their very recent attempt to bludgeon users into VST3 licenses by
revoking VST2 licenses, I am absolutely never touching a Steinberg product. I
can only hope they go out of business.

Now let's please concentrate on Finale.

Dennis


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Dorico 2

[Craig Parmerlee]

Regarding the questions about Dorico support and how typical this is of 
Steinberg in general, I'd say Dorico is the anomaly here. Steinberg has 
a reputation for being a bit arrogant.  As a relatively recent Cubase 
user, I'll say that I didn't find Steinberg warm and fuzzy, but there 
are enough people working with the product to get your questions 
answered.  All these products depend heavily on community support.


Dorico is a special case because it is a brand new product that has a 
very steep learning curve.  Because of this, Daniel's team is working 
exceptionally hard to make sure the early users are successful.  I do 
not expect that level of attention to continue as the product matures.


I found the dongle mildly irritating.  I wasn't that put off by the idea 
of a dongle.  I was mainly put off because it it s PROPRIETARY dongle in 
a world that has industry-standard dongles available.  And that seems 
rather typical of Steinberg.  So I have two dongles.  It isn't a big 
deal.  I never touch them.  I figure as a paying customer, it is in my 
interests that everybody else also pays for the product rather than 
being pirates.  If the dongle helps Steinberg reduce piracy, I'm OK with it.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Dorico 2

[Craig Parmerlee]

I agree with everything David has said, especially "Dorico is not for 
everybody."  Certainly there are some rough spots and missing pieces 
that are deal breakers for some people today.  My personal deal-breakers 
were addressed in 2.0, but others have different needs.  And even if 
Dorico could do 100% of what everybody could ever want, that doesn't 
mean everybody should convert.  That is very much a personal decision 
and I am not here to pump Dorico or to attack Finale.  My only purpose 
is to give something of a 'Dispatch from the battlefront" in case others 
are thinking about moving at some stage and don't want to take the time 
to work through the 30-day demo right now. And really, 30 days is not 
nearly enough to understand or appreciate any product like this.


I would like to amplify David's comments about the 5 modes (Setup, 
Write, Engrave, Play and Print).  To me, this is a very coherent way of 
looking at things.  It is conceptually similar to Finale's decision to 
require you to work in a particular tool (articulations, speedy entry, 
expressions, lyrics, etc.) at any moment.  It is just that Dorico 
divided it along different dimensions.  While in Write mode, you can do 
all the note entry, articulations, expressions and so on.  In Engrave 
mode, you tweak the layout (only if necessary, and often, little is 
necessary). And while in Engrave mode, you cannot change notes by 
accident. Personally I had no difficulty grasping that work flow.  The 
difficulty is in remembering all the things you can do in Write mode.


A subtle, but to me, very revealing aspect of this era of technology is 
that it is practically real time.  You can switch between the 5 modes 
instantaneously -- even while playback is underway.  You can change 
window zoom and vertical scroll while playback is underway.  Perhaps 
this does not make a big difference in productivity, but I think it 
represents a major advancement -- almost like going from DOS commands to 
a GUI.


Similarly, most of the appearance-related things are controlled by rules 
(aka preferences).  They are extraordinarily numerous.  I think Dorico 
has broken new ground in organizing vast numbers of options.  
Practically all of the options are displayed in panels that have useful 
graphical representations of what the option does.  And here's a key 
point that may not immediately be apparent.  These preferences windows 
are "MODELESS".  That is a technical term that simply means you can 
leave the options window open while you are editing your score.  Let's 
say you have two or three monitors.  You can open some preferences on 
your secondary monitor while the score is open on your primary monitor.  
You can make changes in the options and observe how this changes the 
look of the score instantly.  This is one of those points of elegance 
that gives a real feeling of empowerment while using the program.


Likwwise, Play mode is quite similar to what most DAWs deliver today -- 
albeit a small fraction of "full DAW capability".  A key point is that 
you can contour the sound in Play mode, with your changes happening 
interactively -- just like with full DAWs.


The message here is that this really is a clean slate approach using 
technologies from 2018.  It isn't fair to either Finale or Dorico to try 
to do a point-by-point comparison.  Dorico is an altogether different 
experience.



On 7/3/2018 1:53 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:

Thanks, Craig, for this great review.

Regarding the playback of D.S., D.C., Fine, Coda, etc. -- when I first 
started working with Sibelius (version 2.11) it couldn't handle 
playback of those either.  But eventually it came (I can't recall if 
it was with version 3, 4 or 5).  Since Daniel Spreadbury was leading 
the development on Sibelius and is leading the development in Dorico I 
have faith that the playback of such things will happen soon in Dorico 
as well.


There are still two major aspects about Dorico that people who haven't 
investigated it yet need to be aware of in my opinion since they might 
be deal-breakers for some people:
1) Very strict anti-piracy!  Product activation takes place in either 
of two ways -- by use of a USB dongle (costs extra) which can then be 
moved from computer to computer so it can be installed on as many 
computers as the user wants but only one installation at a time can be 
used; or by use of the e-licenser software, whereby you activate the 
installation on a particular computer using software.  Then when you 
want to use the program on a different computer you have to 
de-activate it on the first computer and then activate it on the 
different computer.  That all entails being connected to the internet, 
whereas the USB dongle doesn't.  Both systems are a pain in the butt, 
but I can say that should a computer crash and need something major 
replaced like a motherboard, the Steinberg web-site is fast and easy 
to navigate to re-enable the software activation.
2) Very different 

Re: [Finale] Dorico 2

[Craig Parmerlee]

I am a month into my serious usage of Dorico 2 and thought I'd provide 
an update on my experience. Everything about Dorico is more elegant.  
But that means it is radically different from the mode of operation 
deeply ingrained in long-term Finale users.  Many of us have learned 
Finale over a span of 10 or even 20 years.  There is a big learning 
curve with any product of this complexity.  There are many resources for 
Dorico information (help pages, a comprehensive manual, YouTube videos, 
monthly Facebook live sessions etc.)  The product is evolving so quickly 
that none of these sources is definitive and up to date.  So the user is 
on his or her own to assemble one's own best practices and workflow.  In 
my case, I started compiling a Word document of tips and techniques for 
everything I do regularly.  Otherwise I would not be able to remember 
most of it. Over the course of the month, this document has grown to 
about 30 pages and 100 procedures, but I don't have to refer to it very 
often now.


The heavy Dorico user relies on PC keystrokes and shortcuts. These can 
be hard to remember until you develop muscle memory. Once you have that, 
I think productivity with Dorico is far greater than Finale because 
Dorico takes care of so many of the tedious details automatically.  For 
example, there is an "Engraving" mode in Dorico where you can make your 
final layout changes.  With Finale, this part of the process often 
represented 20% of my time.  Layout decisions with Dorico are far beyond 
Finale and Sibelius.  I have done some projects that literally required 
no layout changes whatsoever.


There has been practically no investment in Finale functions most of the 
past decade, and I believe we should not expect much from the company.  
People who are completely satisfied with what Finale does for them today 
may have no reason to look at Dorico.  People who spend many hours per 
week doing composing, arranging or engraving really can increase their 
productivity (and possibly income) by learning Dorico.  I do think there 
is a threshold of use needed to make it worthwhile to take on this new 
learning curve.


The big issue is this.  Almost everything Dorico does is more productive 
and more elegant than the equivalent processes in Finale.  While Dorico 
probably does 90% of the things you can do with Finale today (and a 
great many things you cannot easily do with Finale,) that last 10% can 
be a real roadblock.  I have not seen a comprehensive list of the things 
that a Finale user would not be able to accomplish in Dorico, but here 
are a few examples.


* Playback in general is not advanced.  There is no support for D.S., 
D.C. and similar variations.  You can engrave these with text symbols, 
but playback will not recognize that.


* There is no ability to set swing in playback

* If you are heavily dependent on Staff Styles in Finale, there is no 
real equivalent (other than the slash regions and bar-repeat regions, 
and they don't have the flexibility associated with Finale Staff Styles)


* Chord support in Dorico is light years ahead of Finale and you can 
really fly through that part of a project that requires chord symbols.  
However, it is very difficult to have different chord spellings for 
different instruments.


There are more issues.  I'm not trying to be comprehensive. However, I 
have reached the point that I am so much more productive with Dorico 
that I probably will not be creating any new Finale projects.


A couple more observations to wrap up.  There many bugs in Version 2.0.  
The Steinberg team is large and heavily engaged in fixing these things.  
There should be a patch release out in the next few weeks that will 
bring the product up to a normal "stable production" level.  Also, there 
is a very active, and growing, user community, and that definitely helps.





On 6/2/2018 12:45 AM, Craig Parmerlee wrote:

On 5/31/2018 3:40 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:
While I'm disappointed that the major thrust of Dorico version 2 
seems to be scoring to video, I realize that's a very large and 
growing segment of the notation/composition software market so it 
should be a means to even better cementing Dorico's future.


I did the free trial of Dorico 1.  I used it to do a re-transcription 
of several orchestral pieces that had multiple movements ("flows" in 
Dorico-speak) and some irregular meter / beat patterns.  It was slow 
going because of the learning curve but I was struck at how well the 
music layout happened, almost completely automatically.  I find myself 
spending many hours fiddling with Finale parts to get them to lay out 
reasonably.  It is clear to me that Dorico does many things (including 
layout) better and will save a lot of time.


However, for me, I must have slash notation and rhythmic notation 
because mostly I do jazz band arrangements.  And those things were not 
there in Dorico 1.  The final release of Dorico 1 include

Re: [Finale] Dorico 2

[Craig Parmerlee]

On 5/31/2018 3:40 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:
While I'm disappointed that the major thrust of Dorico version 2 seems 
to be scoring to video, I realize that's a very large and growing 
segment of the notation/composition software market so it should be a 
means to even better cementing Dorico's future.


I did the free trial of Dorico 1.  I used it to do a re-transcription of 
several orchestral pieces that had multiple movements ("flows" in 
Dorico-speak) and some irregular meter / beat patterns.  It was slow 
going because of the learning curve but I was struck at how well the 
music layout happened, almost completely automatically.  I find myself 
spending many hours fiddling with Finale parts to get them to lay out 
reasonably.  It is clear to me that Dorico does many things (including 
layout) better and will save a lot of time.


However, for me, I must have slash notation and rhythmic notation 
because mostly I do jazz band arrangements.  And those things were not 
there in Dorico 1.  The final release of Dorico 1 included chord 
symbols, and they did a fantastic job with that -- much more coherent 
than Finale.


Dorico 2 adds slash and rhythmic notation, so I bought the crossgrade 
and am now working on my first jazz band project.  It is unfortunate 
that the product does not play back DS al coda, but that is not required 
in this project.


Anyway, I actually wanted to respond to your comment about video being 
the focus of 2.0.  Certainly that is part of it.  But a big portion of 
the "video support" is a better structure for varying tempos, and this 
can be useful even without video.  And this tempo business has been one 
of the most troublesome parts of Finale playback.  It seems we have been 
told more than a year ago that this was a big focus of Finale 
development, yet we haven't seen anything in that time.


Apart from video, I'd say there was a major effort to address 
jazz/pop/commercial writers as noted above.  And also there was a big 
focus on playback.  That is not just the Note Performer integration.  
They also have added depth to the "DAW portion" of Dorico with support 
for automation curves and unlimited controller functions.  This adds to 
the existing capabilities for MIDI editing separate from the notation 
itself (e.g, if a note sounds just a little too long, you can change the 
MIDI very easily without having to change the notation)  These things 
add up to major advancements.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] What is the Finale strategy?

[Craig Parmerlee]

It seems that must of the function that Finale users have with Staff 
Styles is lacking in Dorico at the moment.  I don't think there is any 
support for slash notation or rhythmic notation, for example.  That 
rules it out for me for the time being.

I cannot find any reference to one-bar and two-bar repeats in Dorico.  
If it is there, I cannot find it.

I think this reflects a very strong bias toward classical engraving.  
But they certainly are working to incorporate the things that are needed 
for contemporary music.  The most recent release added chord support.  
The chord support is very nice. They are thinking through these things 
very well, but I would have to agree with you that the product is not up 
to professional use yet, at least for contemporary music.  I cannot 
conceive of very many projects I would do that does not require at least 
some slash bars, rhythmic notation, or bar repeats.

On 4/21/2018 8:33 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
>
> Wait. Is Dorico at the truly professional level? All I've heard is that it
> has the potential to be but isn't there yet.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] What is the Finale strategy?

[Craig Parmerlee]

Steve, I am a little confused.  As I understand it, all the licenses 
have the same functionality.  If you qualified for the educational 
license, doesn't that give you full use of Dorico?  I don't understand 
why you would duplicate the work in Finale.

This is relevant to me because most of my use of notation programs is 
for an educational charity.  Steinberg recognized that organization to 
qualify for the educational pricing with Cubase and I assume I could do 
the same with Dorico.  I just want to make sure there aren't any 
restrictions I am not expecting.


On 4/21/2018 5:25 PM, Steve Parker wrote:
> The only reason I’m still re-doing in Finale is that I bought an 
> educational licence for Dorico (I’m a postgrad…).
> When the next paid upgrade comes, I will move to a full licence.
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] What is the Finale strategy?

[Craig Parmerlee]

Anybody who can do ANYTHING with percussion parts with ANY of these 
products has my boundless admiration.  I find all the products 
unbelievably tedious when it comes to percussion parts.  There must be a 
better way.

Regarding Dorico being ready for professional use, I agree with David 
that it depends on how you define "professional".  I am convinced that I 
could produce a publication-quality big band chart with it given where 
the program is today.  And if I knew Dorico as well as I know Finale, I 
think I would save about 20% of the time on such a project, mostly 
because of less fiddling with layouts.

If I were doing a orchestra score with 4-part choir, vocal soloist, 
Theremin, piano and harpsichord, I have no idea which product would be 
faster to use.

And one thing I have not tried to do yet, is get my 3-page transcription 
down to 2-pages while keeping the music font reasonably large.  This is 
where I get into a world of hurt with Finale.  If you are willing to let 
Finale print with its default spacing, sometimes the layout isn't too 
laborious.  But in most cases, I want big band parts to be 2 pages on an 
8-1/2x11 sheet (and if using more than 2 pages, I must lay out very easy 
page turns.)  That quickly becomes a dreadful experience with Finale. 
Tomorrow evening I will have some time to go through that process with 
my Dorico demonstration project.  That will show very clearly whether or 
not Dorico has made a major advance in layout.


On 4/21/2018 10:21 AM, Ryszard Pusz wrote:
> I have followed this thread with interest. I continue to use Finale because I 
> am too lazy to learn any other, but I use it quite detachedly. As a 
> percussionist I would like to be able to notate a much greater range of 
> nuances than the program allows, and then to have the sounds played back.
>
> I don't know why the untuned percussion sounds are locked into such a rigid 
> system. Surely it would be possible to have each untuned instrument notated 
> anywhere on the staff, say in a "two-octave" range and have those sounds tied 
> to the neutral clef. Secondly, the strokes used to play them could also be 
> more flexibly notated and played back
>
> But probably NIML (not in my lifetime)…
>
> Ryszard
>
>
> On 21/04/2018, at 11:32 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:
>
>> And ultimately it all boils down to each of us finding and using the
>> tools which allow us to get the desired result with the minimum of
>> effort for us so that most of our effort can be put into the creative
>> side of things.
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] What is the Finale strategy?

[Craig Parmerlee]

I take your point that they "could" do some of the abstraction that is 
inherent in the newer programs.  I am not seeing anything that suggests 
to me they are at all interested in matching up to Dorico.  Indeed, the 
only recent statements I could find were very much oriented to 
SmartMusic and not Finale.  If they actually are making a significant 
investment in the program (which I question), I suggest it would be wise 
for them to take note of the major advances in the past 2 years in both 
Dorico and Sibelius, and communicate much more openly with the Finale 
user base.



On 4/20/2018 5:57 PM, Robert Patterson wrote:
> I'm saying you are selling Finale short. While I agree 100% that
> cautionaries (for example) are a problem, you are sellling it way short to
> characterize it as a mere note paint program. (Accis in particular, are now
> completely controlled by code, as opposed to relying on the document data,
> so all it would take is for them to add the code for cautionaries.) Finale
> has always had a paradigm that was designed for dynamic adjustment to
> revisions. There is absolutely nothing stopping Makemusic from implementing
> much of that right now. It just has not been their priority for many
> frustrating years.
>
> Where Finale is fundamentally limited is in being chained to barlines. To
> the extent Dorico capitalizes on its (presumed) lack of such limitation,
> Finale will struggle to keep up, no matter how committed the company
> becomes to catching up. But I also am unsure how much it matters for the
> huge majority of music notation users.
>
> Finale could do so much more for its users and always could have. I share
> your frustration. But I also work very quickly in it and have developed a
> workflow that often lets me do (for example) page layout of linked parts in
> just a few clicks. (That really depends on the complexity of the music.) I
> know they have not stopped working on it, and they still have many senior
> developers. I wouldn't count them out yet.
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] What is the Finale strategy?

[Craig Parmerlee]

I didn't really mean that as an exact date or even a comment 
specifically about Finale.  What I should have said is "the 1980s way of 
doing things."

All of the notation products of that generation (Encore, Overture, 
Finale, etc) can reasonably be called "note paint programs".  That is to 
say, they all provided ways to paint notes, rests, and other musical 
markings onto a canvas.  Once painted, much of this was static.  There 
was some ability to "float" items, say, by inserting measures.  But 
basically, what you painted remained as it was painted until you 
explicitly painted something different. Along the way, some clever 
people produced some powerful plug-ins that allowed certain re-painting 
operations in bulk.  It worked OK, and still does for many people.  But 
this static painting/re-paining approach has some fundamental 
limitations, especially in the area of layout.  There have been some 
attempts in Finale to automate the layout and collision avoidance.  
Despite all the effort, I consider that mostly a failure because part 
editing remains a very tedious process that often requires 30% of the 
project time.

And some of that just doesn't work.  I am a stickler for cautionary 
accidentals.  IMHO, the only way to do this reliably in Finale is by 
hand, painstakingly checking every single note. There is a plug-in that 
is supposed to apply cautionary accidentals, but it isn't reliable and 
often does more damage than it corrects.  Moreover, it is always a batch 
process.  If you add new passages, they don't get cautionary accidentals 
automatically.  The same can be said for many operations in Finale.  
(e.g. multi-measure rests.)  These are batch processes, not real time.

Today's way of doing things separates the idea of "music entry" (as 
opposed to "note entry") from the process of presenting the score and 
parts.  The layout is governed by rules, and these rules are applied in 
real time to all current AND FUTURE material in the score.  I have very 
limited usage of Dorico at this stage, but everything I have seen tells 
me it works very well and reliably.

I would compare this to the first generation of WAV editors like 
CoolEdit and Audacity.  You could use these tools to make 
transformations to a sound file, such as applying compression, 
normalizing, or equalizing.  But it is always a batch process. You have 
to do the transformation manually, then go back and listen to know if 
the results were as intended.

Today, anybody serious about sound sculpting uses a DAW (Cubase, 
StudioOne, Cakewalk, Protools, etc).  With any DAW, you operate on the 
material in real time -- even while the sound files are playing -- to 
dial in the results you want.A person can use Audacity, and some people 
still do.  But the world has mostly moved on to real time.


On 4/20/2018 1:04 PM, Robert Patterson wrote:
>> the 1985 way
> In fairness, the 1985 way was ProCo. If you mean the 1989 way, it was this
> 
> .
>
> While I'm the first to recognize Finale's limitations, I think you a being
> overly harsh.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] What is the Finale strategy?

[Craig Parmerlee]

David, I think you have very accurately captured the situation with the 
text I excerpted below.  And if we go back to the commentary offered by 
the new CEO upon acquisition, many of us thought his comments were truly 
bizarre, as they seemed to describe music notation as a fitness coach 
would describe weight lifting. In retrospect, it seems he was talking 
mainly about SmartMusic and had very little interest in Finale per se.

As recently as 18 months ago, I thought Sibelius was on a similar dead 
end, so I was just waiting for Dorico to become mature enough for my 
needs.  The big missing piece for me was chord support, which came with 
1.2 (or was it 1.1?)  But I was intending to wait until release 2 to 
begin the commitment to the learning curve.

I have had a Sibelius license forever but never really learned the 
product.  The last time I seriously tried, there was no scroll view, and 
I just could not get past that.  Of course they have had scroll view for 
a long time now, but then it looked like development was dead, so I 
didn't want to invest time in a dead product.  But it appears to me that 
Finale has responded to Dorico by deciding there is no point competing, 
whereas Avid has responded to Dorico by making a real investment.  So 
now I have to decide which product I want to invest the learning curve 
time in. Money for the license isn't a big deal.  The big issue is the 
learning curve time, which is 100 times greater than the license money.

I have a small transcription project to do with 2 weeks to complete it.  
I could probably knock it out in 3 hours with Finale.  I'm starting the 
Dorico 30-day trial this weekend and will tackle this project while 
learning the Dorico basics.


On 4/19/2018 3:48 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:
> with SmartMusic, and its
> subscription-only business model, it sits on a cash cow.  As far as the
> company is concerned, I'll bet they consider Finale necessary primarily
> as a tool for people to create SmartMusic accompaniment files and it can
> already do what it needs to for that without further investment in the
> minutiae of avant-garde notation and without improving long-standing
> bugs which will never get fixed.
>
> ...However,
> for band directors and other music teachers in academic situations, it's
> something that gives them objective data on which to assign grades to
> students, and it takes very little effort on the band director or music
> teacher's part.  And once the assignments have been created the teacher
> no longer needs to schedule time to hear every student, and students
> can't complain "Mr. So-and-So doesn't like me so he gave me a D, when
> SuzyQ, who got an A, doesn't play any better than I do!"
>
> That's been the course of the company for the past several owners.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] What is the Finale strategy?

[Craig Parmerlee]

I used BIAB harmonization a lot, especially to get a quick draft of an 
arrangement.  I usually re-harmonized manually for the final copy, but 
it was a very useful way to get something going quickly.

Over time, this degraded.  Eventually it became very destructive, as 
whenever you would run the tool on a range of measures, it would mess up 
the beaming for other measures on the same instrument, even measures not 
in the selected range.  Because of this rather serious bug, it really 
isn't productive to keep a version of F2012 installed to be able to run 
the BIAB plug-in.

And that bug illustrates a difference between a 1980s era program like 
Finale and a modern program like Dorico.  In Dorico, the beaming and 
ties are completely automatic, following the notation rules you 
establish.  If you move notes around in time, the music automatically 
re-casts itself to be notated correctly with regards to beams and ties.  
Every year that Finale does nothing, it gets another year behind the 
state of the art.  It seems doubtful to me Finale will ever return to 
anywhere close to the state of the art.  Moreover, I don't see any 
indication the company even considers that a goal.



On 4/19/2018 1:46 PM, Robert Patterson wrote:
> Tempo tool and BIAB were significant features? Color me surprised. I'd be
> interested to know if others found them to be significant. Personally I
> never used BIAB even once, and the Tempo Tool only rarely and only up until
> Human Playback was a thing. But I admit I'm not that fussy about playback.
> Obviously ymmv.
>
> FWIW: I recompiled JW Tempo for 64-bit macOS. It works just fine in
> MacFin25. (Basically, the Tempo Tool was removed from the F25 U.I. but not
> the underlying support for tempo changes.) It's a free download on my
> website if you think it might be useful. I always found it to be more what
> I wanted out of tempo changes than the Tempo Tool.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Craig Parmerlee <cr...@parmerlee.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Tempo tool.  BIAB harmonization.
>>
>>
>> On 4/19/2018 9:10 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
>>
>>> Which functionality was lost v25? I've been on it so long I forgot.
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] What is the Finale strategy?

[Craig Parmerlee]

Tempo tool.  BIAB harmonization.


On 4/19/2018 9:10 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
> Which functionality was lost v25? I've been on it so long I forgot.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

[Finale] What is the Finale strategy?

[Craig Parmerlee]

The current owners took over the company in 2014.  They delivered 
version 25, which provided 64-bit support and a few other odds and ends 
-- while dropping some rather significant functionality.  I did find 
Version 25 to be a little more stable, so I have lived with the feature 
deprecation.  Since that time, there have been a couple of small patches 
-- literally a few dozen bug fixes in 3 years and minimal new capability.

In the same time frame, Avid dismissed the Sibelius development team and 
moved to development to Russia.  They went several years with minimal 
product improvement, so Finale and Sibelius both seemed both to be on 
the same dead end track.

Meanwhile MuseScore continued to evolve rapidly. And Presonus made an 
investment in Notion. The big move was Steinberg/Yamaha hiring the 
Sibelius team to develop Dorico.  During most of the past 4 years, that 
was a "skunk works" or a very immature early product release for 
enthusiasts.

But now that we are well into 2018, the notation world has changed 
significantly. It appears to me that Finale is still on a dead end, and 
the company is making no effort to communicate any significant plans.  
The most revealing thing I could find was this from January:

https://www.scoringnotes.com/news/namm-2018-makemusic-smartmusic-finale/

To summarize that article, it sounds like most efforts are in 
SmartMusic, with practically nothing happening with Finale.  It is 
revealing that they are saying they are not planning anything in 2018 
that would be significant enough to charge an upgrade price for.

Dorico recently delivered version 1.2, which brings it fairly close to 
what one could consider a full-function, commercial-grade product.  It 
is still lacking in a few areas, such as playback, but is a very viable 
product in its own right.  And it appears they will launch a major 
upgrade with Version 2 in the next few months.

In the past 12 months, Avid has been very active with Sibelius 
development, putting out a series of updates, including the most recent 
8.4 last week.  These releases track with Dorico in making the layout 
much more flexible and the spacing much more automatic.  Meanwhile, it 
has been roughly a decade since we saw the last real improvement in 
automatic layout in Finale.  I increasingly see Finale as a huge 
time-waster.  It has become typical for 20% of my time on a project to 
be consumed in final edits that are now mostly automatic within Dorico 
and Sibelius.

If you can pardon my rant, my real question is if anybody sees any 
reason to be optimistic that Finale is going to be anything more than a 
dead end.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Quickest chord entry methord

[Craig Parmerlee]

I have tried to post this information twice with links to the libraries 
on box.com. But these messages seem to get stuck in moderation.



On 3/25/2017 11:24 AM, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
> Sorry I have been slow in responding. I'll try to get this uploaded this
> weekend. As far as I know, this library should work on any of the recent
> Finale versions, certainly 2012 onward, probably much earlier than that.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] courtesy accidentals

[Craig Parmerlee]

There is a plug-in for that.  And you can do it manually.  As I recall, 
in speedy edit, you hit * to show the accidental that would be hidden by 
default. And it is a good practice to parenthesize any cautionary 
accidentals. You can do that by hitting p in speedy edit.



On 3/20/2017 4:04 PM, Linda Worsley wrote:
> Fin Mac 2014.5
> How do I make a courtesy accidental?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Linda
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
>
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Quickest chord entry methord

[Craig Parmerlee]

Sorry I have been slow in responding. I'll try to get this uploaded this 
weekend. As far as I know, this library should work on any of the recent 
Finale versions, certainly 2012 onward, probably much earlier than that.


On 3/14/2017 12:17 PM, Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre wrote:
> If this library works in F2014, I would be a happy receiver too.
>
> Klaus in DK
>
> Sendt fra min iPad
>
>> Den 14. mar. 2017 kl. 14.57 skrev Dr. Raphael D. Thöne 
>> <raphael.tho...@drraphaeldthone.onmicrosoft.com>:
>>
>> So am I! :-)
>>> Am 14.03.2017 um 14:51 schrieb Martin Nickless <mnnickl...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>> That would be great would you mind sending it to me
>>> Thanks
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On 14 Mar 2017, at 13:44, Craig Parmerlee <cr...@parmerlee.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a link.  I use a library that I build based on a very
>>>> comprehensive library somebody else made years ago. I wish I could give
>>>> credit because it was obviously an enormous amount of work. They
>>>> meticulously built just about every chord suffix you could ever need
>>>> into a nice-looking "handwritten" format.
>>>>
>>>> I believe I took that and eliminated redundant entries that were styles
>>>> I would not use, and then I reorganized the numbering scheme to group
>>>> related entries. There are 144 in this library.
>>>>
>>>> Once the library is imported unto your score, you can enter most chords
>>>> by typing the suffix (such as "Eb7(#9)"). Some are ambiguous, so you
>>>> might have to specify the suffix by its number. For example, in my case
>>>> "C:112" gets me C"(Add #9 Add b9).
>>>>
>>>> Importing is non-trivial. You should remove all the chords from your
>>>> score first, which actually ends up being a little complicated. I have
>>>> documented the procedure on another computer that I can't access at the
>>>> moment. Once the default chords are gone, you import the comprehensive
>>>> library.
>>>>
>>>> I would be happy to provide the library I use along with a PDF that is a
>>>> 2-page reference chart if anybody is interested.  I caution that there
>>>> are multiple nomenclature systems in use. I think this one is fairly
>>>> consistent with Berklee.
>>>>
>>>> This all seems far more complicated then it deserves to be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/14/2017 4:34 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:
>>>>> Can you give some links to better user-built chord libraries which are
>>>>> circulating out there?  Specifically to ones which contain the chord
>>>>> suffixes he was asking about?
>>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Finale mailing list
>>>> Finale@shsu.edu
>>>> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
>>>> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
>>> ___
>>> Finale mailing list
>>> Finale@shsu.edu
>>> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
>>> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
>>
>> ___
>> Finale mailing list
>> Finale@shsu.edu
>> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>>
>> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
>> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Quickest chord entry methord

[Craig Parmerlee]

In my most recent experience with F25, I couldn't transpose chord 
symbols at all, if you mean using Utility-Transpose.

Finale will transpose chords if you copy to a transposing instrument. 
And Finale will transpose chords if you change the key signature, but 
Utility-Transpose changed notes, but not chords. That's how it worded 
(or rather, didn't work) for me.



On 3/14/2017 8:46 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
> Also, don’t transpose chords by a DIATONIC third! Make it a minor third! 
> That’s very important. It’s only coincidence that it worked with a C note; it 
> won’t work with an E, for example.
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Quickest chord entry methord

[Craig Parmerlee]

I don't have a link.  I use a library that I build based on a very 
comprehensive library somebody else made years ago. I wish I could give 
credit because it was obviously an enormous amount of work. They 
meticulously built just about every chord suffix you could ever need 
into a nice-looking "handwritten" format.

I believe I took that and eliminated redundant entries that were styles 
I would not use, and then I reorganized the numbering scheme to group 
related entries. There are 144 in this library.

Once the library is imported unto your score, you can enter most chords 
by typing the suffix (such as "Eb7(#9)"). Some are ambiguous, so you 
might have to specify the suffix by its number. For example, in my case 
"C:112" gets me C"(Add #9 Add b9).

Importing is non-trivial. You should remove all the chords from your 
score first, which actually ends up being a little complicated. I have 
documented the procedure on another computer that I can't access at the 
moment. Once the default chords are gone, you import the comprehensive 
library.

I would be happy to provide the library I use along with a PDF that is a 
2-page reference chart if anybody is interested.  I caution that there 
are multiple nomenclature systems in use. I think this one is fairly 
consistent with Berklee.

This all seems far more complicated then it deserves to be.




On 3/14/2017 4:34 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:
> Can you give some links to better user-built chord libraries which are
> circulating out there?  Specifically to ones which contain the chord
> suffixes he was asking about?
>
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Quickest chord entry methord

[Craig Parmerlee]

On 3/11/2017 5:26 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:
> Instead of asking this list, you really should just try things.
I don't really think that is adequate advice.  Finale is really quite 
obtuse in several areas, specifically chord symbols and percussion.

It seems to me the key to having success with chords depends on having a 
good chord library installed. The library that comes by default is 
pretty lame.  There are better user-built libraries circulating out there.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Jump to 25 for Windows?

[Craig Parmerlee]

Your computer must be running in 64-bit mode or else Finale V25 cannot 
launch.


On 1/2/2017 2:01 PM, Douglas Brown wrote:
> Yes, I remember that v25 is 64-bit, but remind me why it matters.  I've been 
> getting ready for DMA comps and wrecking the holidays for a major project -- 
> my mind is fuzzy on anything that doesn't resemble J.S. Bach, score analysis, 
> or Modernism.  My desktop is running Windows 10.  I suppose that will be a 
> problem on my dinosaur Vista laptop, though.
>
>
> I have not noticed the HP problems with V25. I haven't had to tweak the
> MIDI for a long time, but I haven't done any specific testing for those
> bugs.
>
> I assume you are aware that V25 is 64-bit only.
>
>
>
>
> On 1/2/2017 12:13 PM, Douglas Brown wrote:
>> I've been thinking about upgrading my FinWin2012 to 25.  One question I have 
>> is whether the Human Playback bug got fixed.  Up though version 2012 (and 
>> starting in 2008 or 2009, not sure exactly) I know that Windows users had to 
>> disable HP when starting playback in the middle of the piece, especially in 
>> larger projects, in order to prevent Finale from randomly playing back from 
>> an earlier point.  The double playback would overlap and thus destroy the 
>> purpose for it.
>>
>> I know the upgrade issue has been hashed out a bit on here.  I like HP, yet 
>> I like Fin2012.  I stayed away from 2014 (and .5) when I read about how 
>> buggy it was.  Did Finale fix the playback problem in Windows?  Is there a 
>> good argument for jumping to v25?
>
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
>
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Jump to 25 for Windows?

[Craig Parmerlee]

I have not noticed the HP problems with V25. I haven't had to tweak the 
MIDI for a long time, but I haven't done any specific testing for those 
bugs.

I assume you are aware that V25 is 64-bit only.




On 1/2/2017 12:13 PM, Douglas Brown wrote:
> I've been thinking about upgrading my FinWin2012 to 25.  One question I have 
> is whether the Human Playback bug got fixed.  Up though version 2012 (and 
> starting in 2008 or 2009, not sure exactly) I know that Windows users had to 
> disable HP when starting playback in the middle of the piece, especially in 
> larger projects, in order to prevent Finale from randomly playing back from 
> an earlier point.  The double playback would overlap and thus destroy the 
> purpose for it.
>
> I know the upgrade issue has been hashed out a bit on here.  I like HP, yet I 
> like Fin2012.  I stayed away from 2014 (and .5) when I read about how buggy 
> it was.  Did Finale fix the playback problem in Windows?  Is there a good 
> argument for jumping to v25?
>
>
> Douglas Brown
>
>
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
>
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Re(2): Dorico?

[Craig Parmerlee]

On 10/22/2016 6:03 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:
> I am also just as certain that Steinberg's front office finally said to
> the development team (probably over some protests from them but I can't
> state that as fact) that they needed to have a product on the market by
> a specific date to try to recoup some of the major investment that
> Steinberg had made in hiring them and giving them a few years (has it
> been 2 or 3?) of "free play time" without the necessity of earning their
> keep.


Undoubtedly it was the case that Stienberg drew the proverbial line in 
the sand.  After all, this Dorico project is taking resources away from 
the Cubase/Nuendo development team.

Regarding cash flow, this can cut both ways.  A rough, 
back-of-the-envelope calculation tells me they need more than 10,000 
licenses per year just to cover their ongoing costs, and that wouldn't 
begin to cover the 4 years of development costs.  I doubt they have 
brought in anything like that with the initial wave, and they may hit a 
wall very quickly as people conclude this is very far from being a 
production tool.  I really hope this product succeeds because I do think 
the world needs what they are developing, but there is a possibility 
that Steinberg/Yamaha will look at these early results and conclude 
there is no profit in this business case.

This is the kind of product I would normally buy in the early stages.  
However, I concluded there were far too many things missing for me to 
even remotely consider it for productive use. All I could really do with 
the first release is get a little experience with the learning curve.  
But I learn best when I am working toward a production goal, which is 
not possible with this product.  I am not sure you can even call it a 
"product" at this point.  it is more of a proof of concept.

We are probably another year away from it being marginally adequate for 
some production use.  In this case, I am going to wait until it is a lot 
closer to prime time.  I bet there will still be decent crossgrade 
prices at that time -- because they need to sell 10,000 ( probably a lot 
more) per year.


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] To Craig Parmerlee and others using SmartScore X2 Pro

[Craig Parmerlee]

It has been several years, so I don't really remember.  I do not recall 
any difficulties with activation.  I assume you are talking about 
registering the program as a stand-alone product.




On 9/2/2016 1:28 PM, Thurletta Brown-Gavins  wrote:
> Thanks for your reply, Craig. Did you have any problem Activating your 
> SmartScore? That's where I had the problem.
> Thanks again.
> Thurletta
>
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] To Craig Parmerlee and others using SmartScore X2 Pro

[Craig Parmerlee]

I run the Windows version.  I never uninstalled the lite version, but I 
never use the lite version either.  When I scan, I launch the pro 
version as a stand-alone app and do most of the clean-up editing in the 
pro app before sending the Finale.



On 9/2/2016 12:22 PM, Thurletta Brown-Gavins wrote:
> Greetings, Craig, and anyone else using the full version SmartScore X2 Pro on 
> a Mac.
>
> After reading that Craig was using SmartScore Pro I immediately purchased the 
> upgrade from the SmartScore Lite 8.1.1 that is part of our Finale 2014 for 
> Mac because scanning has been removed from all future versions.
>
> The initial installation went well. Then, when I got to the activation panel, 
> "Guitar Version" was already preselected and I could not move the drop-down 
> to indicate that I had purchased and installed the Professional version. When 
> I contacted Musitek, I was told that I had either installed the Guitar 
> version previously or I had accidentally installed the Guitar version this 
> time. They told me to remove ALL versions of SmartScore from my Mac and try 
> the installation again.
>
> I replied that I did not know how to remove SmartScore Lite 8.1.1 without 
> also removing Finale 2014 and I certainly did not want to do that. I asked 
> for instructions on how to do that, but I have not heard anything else from 
> Musitek.
>
> Fortunately, I had just done a SuperDuper backup prior to the installation, 
> so I simply did a restore to effectively remove/uninstall my new SmartScore 
> X2 Pro for Mac.
>
> Craig and others: did you have a similar problem? Were you required to remove 
> the SmartScore Lite from Finale? If so, how did you do that?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Thurletta Brown-Gavins
>
>
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] New Finale

[Craig Parmerlee]

It would be great if you could download the free trial and tell us if 
any of those bugs have been fixed.




On 8/17/2016 9:35 PM, Allen Cohen wrote:
>
> I would so much like to be optimistic about the new version--especially that 
> the bugs from 2014 will be fixed! But all of this discussion makes me feel, 
> shall we say, somewhat skeptical...
>
>
> Just for fun, here is a list of bugs I am constantly encountering in 2014.5 
> for Mac (with El Capitan). Please feel free to correct me if I've missed a 
> fix--or double the fun, and add the bugs you've discovered to the list!
>
>
> -Harp parts with glissandi in both hands don't play back correctly in Aria.
> -Harmonics play back correctly in some staves but not in others.
> -Smart Shape metatools can't be changed.
> -Text blocks do not display properly in Page View, except in Column View. (Or 
> sometimes Book View.)
> -Sometimes Page View just refuses to change pages. Only switching to Scroll 
> View gets me to the proper place. This happens (and disappears) unpredictably.
> -Contrary to the User Guide, Command-Home and command-End do not work in Page 
> View.
> -At least when converting older versions to 2014, EPS graphics do not display 
> properly.
> -The Tempo tool no longer allows more than one tempo in a bar! (There are 
> some very kludgy workarounds.)
> -Playback controls do not work well; in particular, you have to hit either 
> Stop or the space bar many times to get playback to stop.
>
>
>
>
> Allen Cohen
> Professor of Music, Fairleigh Dickinson University
>
>
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
>
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Finale 25 - What's removed?

[Craig Parmerlee]

Yes, I believe I could keep 2014.5 installed and do the auto-harmonizing 
there.  But that begs the question what would be my motivation to go to 
V25 if I have to bounce between apps.

In your case, this 64-bit version *MAY* resolve the speed problems you 
have been having on large scores.  If that is the case, then the upgrade 
would be a clear winner.

There might be a time I'd want to run ReWire, but it isn't all that 
likely for the kinds of projects I have been doing in Finale.

I'd appreciate hearing from anybody with the demo installed, regarding 
whether the many problems with HP have been fixed.

And as of this moment, the Makenusic forum is still rejecting the IP 
address from my Comcast connection (whether I use my PC or a cell phone 
over WiFi on that connection.  If I disable WiFi on my cell phone 
(forcing it through the AT network, it gets to the forum OK.  Seems 
like a bad day to have big website problems.

And speaking of that, if you go to the Makemusic site, there is not a 
single word about the new Finale version on the home page.  And if you 
click into the Finale section, still nothing other than a link to  an 
"oh by the way ..." note about the new release.  I would have thought 
with 2+ years to plan this release, they might have wanted to mention 
SOMETHING about it.



On 8/16/2016 10:21 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:
> Could you do the auto harmonizing in an older version and then import it?
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Finale 25 - What's removed?

[Craig Parmerlee]

I just stumbled across this article that was put out about 3 weeks ago. 
it seems to say these items are removed from the new version:

* Band-in-a-box auto harmonizing

* Mirror tool (i.e. ie no more mirrored measures)

* Tempo tool

* Music scanning

This sounds like a net DOWN-grade to me.

I have the pro version of SmartScan, which I can use with XML, and I 
never used mirrored measures.  But I use the auto-harmonizing all the 
time.  It is a quick way to get an arrangement up and running.  My final 
arrangements rarely use the notes exactly as put out by that plug-in.  I 
will generally scrub it to do better voice leading and improve the 
harmonies (the plug-in seems to go crazy adding 6ths).  But The ability 
to quickly populate a soli section is valuable, IMHO.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Finale 25

[Craig Parmerlee]

Well, if it is any consolation, the content of V25 is not going to draw 
a lot of people to crossgrade.

It isn't as if a person wavering about the switch would say "Wow, a 
didgeridoo?  I guess I had better make the switch."



On 8/16/2016 6:55 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:

> What really hurts about the upgrade price is that it's the same as a
> crossgrade price from a competitor's product, so people who have never
> used Finale before but who have used Sibelius pay only the same amount
> that we faithful Finale users pay for this new(?) version of Finale.
> How's that for corporate loyalty to its customers?
>
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Finale 25

[Craig Parmerlee]

The company forum seems to be down.  When one goes to 
http://forum.makemusic.com

It comes back with "Your IP Address is banned from accessing this forum."

I got the same result when using a proxy from the Netherlands, so 
something is wrong.

Personally, I'll probably upgrade, hoping that there are enough bug 
fixes in HP and elsewhere to make it worthwhile.  But I would like to 
see some comments before I pay for the upgrade.

Also, there have been some occasions where ReWire support might have 
come in handy.  The recent editions of SONAR have great support for 
automatically generating a tempo map from recorded audio.  With ReWire I 
can use SONAR to play a recorded program and then have Finale play 
additional parts I created new.  This would save me the time of having 
to re-enter all the prior material into Finale to get combined playback. 
  I realize there are several ways to skin that cat, but ReWire would be 
a nice option to have available.

Mostly I am grateful that they maintained MUSX file level compatibility.



On 8/16/2016 3:06 PM, j...@thomastudios.com wrote:
> Never mind, found it.
>
> ***
> J D Thomas
> ThomaStudios
>
>
>
>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 12:05 PM, j...@thomastudios.com wrote:
>>
>> Anyone know if a demo version is available to try?
>
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
>
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Dorico

[Craig Parmerlee]

I suppose it is still subject to change, and there could always be 
special offers, but they have indicated the crossgrade price will be 
$299 Euros.  See https://www.steinberg.net/en/products/dorico.html

It appears the first release will not have chord support and will not 
have much or anything in the "human playback" area.  I view the first 
release as non-production -- an opportunity to learn the software if one 
is interested in that.  I guess people who don't care about playback and 
who don't use chords might be able to use the first release more 
productively.


On 5/19/2016 3:38 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:
> On 5/19/2016 10:39 AM, Matthew Naughtin wrote:
>> I saw the demo of Dorico at the Major Orchestra Librarians' Organization
>> conference in Helsinki this week. Looks very promising, and many of us
>> librarians had little flecks of drool on our chins afterward. The
>> interface is clean and logical, and the work flow makes more sense in
>> some ways than Finale or Sibelius. It will be 64-bit native, so should
>> go fast.
>>
>> The presenter Daniel Spreadbury admitted that it's still a work in
>> progress and there are lots of details to be ironed out before the
>> official release. I expect that the chord symbol issue will be worked
>> out before then, and Daniel said that the crossgrade price wasn't set in
>> stone as of now. One attraction for me is that evidently a version of
>> the Cubase sequencer and Steinberg sound libraries will be incorporated
>> in the program.
>>
>> Definitely worth a look, at least in a demo version, and I'll be
>> interested to see how well my Finale and Sibelius files migrate.
>>
>
> I'm looking forward to the release of Dorico.
>
> Daniel has said in the Dorico forum at steinberg.net that the migration
> will have to be by way of MusicXML and he said that probably it will be
> best to keep working on projects which are nearing completion in their
> original programs rather than trying to migrate them.  He mentioned that
> if page layout has begun on the project, definitely keep it in its
> native program because that information doesn't translate over MusicXML.
>   But if projects are fairly new and still in the data entry stage and
> not at the page layout stage, then MusicXML should migrate them well.
>
> It's good to hear from someone who has seen Dorico in action -- it has
> sure sounded as if Daniel and his team have spent a lot of time
> rethinking the workflow that should be best for most users.  And I'm
> eager to see the new music font in action!
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us -- especially the part where he
> said the crossgrade price isn't fixed in stone.  I'd love it to be $100
> or more cheaper than the initially listed price!
>
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Finale failings

[Craig Parmerlee]

It is interesting to me how different traditions have evolved in 
different parts of the musical universe to accomplish similar ends.

The first time a conductor explained what he wanted in solfège, I was 
pretty confused.

That 7#9 construct is very common in funk and modern jazz, but it isn't 
played the way it looks.  The rootless voicing is normally very open as 
in (bottom to top) for C7(#9)
- E (major third)
- Bb (dom 7)
- D# (sharp 9th = minor third an octave above)

with no 5th of course.  That internal major 7th (E to D#) gives the 
chord a lot of "grit" -- very unresolved, and the dom7 adds to the 
un-resolution.  If I had to move to a desert island and was allowed to 
take only one chord with me, the 7#9 would be it.  But I would probably 
be insane inside of 3 hours (if not already).

Similarly the 13 chords in jazz are often voiced with that internal 
major 7th.  A C13 can be voiced (bottom to top):
- Bb (dom7)
- E (third, up an octave)
- A (13th - 6th up an octave)

No 5th again and usually no 9th.  That gives you an internal maj7 (Bb to 
A) and an internal tritone (Bb to E) which moth make this a very gritty 
chord)

Not everybody uses that open voicing for the 13 chord, so maybe there is 
a better way to write that to get the desired tension.





On 2/15/2016 10:57 AM, Jeffrey Quick wrote:
> Oh yeah, you could do that. I don't think in chord symbols, and I try
> not to think in 12tET, so the #9 kludge didn't occur to me.
>
> If I were writing polychords for "continuo" in a big band context, I'd
> probably use 2 instruments (Guitar and piano maybe) and split the triads
> between them, so they were timbrally separated. Otherwise, they aren't
> really polychords, but extended tertian structures (not that there's
> anything wrong with that...)
>
> On 2/15/16 10:16 AM, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
>> On 2/15/2016 8:58 AM, Jeffrey Quick wrote:
>>> Things could be
>>> dicey if you had both major and minor 3rds (as in an Eb/C pentad).
>> Isn't that simply C7#9?
>>
>> Conventionally the major (E) is voiced a major 7th below the minor (Eb).
>>
>> ___
>> Finale mailing list
>> Finale@shsu.edu
>> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>>
>> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
>> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
>
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
>
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Finale failings

[Craig Parmerlee]

I guess the conventions are evolving.  I have seen loads of charts that 
used the horizontal line as alternate bass, not polychord, but these 
were mostly older charts from an era when polychords weren't really even 
discussed.

The convention you describe makes sense.  However, in my circle of 
players, I would have to explain that to most of them.  :)


Another naive question: If you have

D
---
C

does that imply any particular voicing?  Would a piano player normally 
play a C triad in the left hand and a D triad the next octave higher in 
the right hand?



On 2/15/2016 1:56 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> Craig,
>
> When the two chords are stacked vertically, with a horizontal line separating 
> them, they are played as a polychord, e.g.
>
> F#
> —
> C
>
> Chord inversions and chords with an alternate bass are both displayed with a 
> diagonal slash, e.g.,
>
> F#/C
>
> (Sometimes the alternate bass is subscript but the important variables here 
> are the diagonal slash and the lack of vertical stacking.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> - DJA

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Finale failings

[Craig Parmerlee]

On 2/15/2016 8:58 AM, Jeffrey Quick wrote:
> Things could be
> dicey if you had both major and minor 3rds (as in an Eb/C pentad).

Isn't that simply C7#9?

Conventionally the major (E) is voiced a major 7th below the minor (Eb).

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Finale failings

[Craig Parmerlee]

On 2/13/2016 2:15 PM, Dr. Raphael D. Thöne wrote:

> have a look here.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZymO9ZdtwQ

Just a point of curiosity, when your music shows

D
---
C

How do you keep the musician from interpreting that as a D chord with a 
C bass?

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Printing finale 2012

[Craig Parmerlee]

Staff tool.  Apply Staff Style, "Blank Notation with Rests"




On 2/2/2016 3:03 AM, Raymond Horton wrote:
> How do you set the measures to a Z style?


> On Feb 2, 2016 1:11 AM, "Craig Parmerlee" <cr...@parmerlee.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> As an alternative, if you have some information you want to keep in
>> those bars (such as notes used for playback only) but wish the part to
>> display multi-measure rest, I believe you can set the measures to the Z
>> style, then create a MM rest.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Printing finale 2012

[Craig Parmerlee]

On 2/1/2016 5:45 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:
> I believe you only get the multimeasure rest if the 12 bars are actually
> empty (i.e. displaying the Finale default whole rest).
>
> If you manually entered the whole rests yourself then you won't get the
> multimeasure rest until you highlight those 12 bars and hit backspace to
> clear them of all your entries.
>
>

As an alternative, if you have some information you want to keep in 
those bars (such as notes used for playback only) but wish the part to 
display multi-measure rest, I believe you can set the measures to the Z 
style, then create a MM rest.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

[Finale] Overture 5

[Craig Parmerlee]

Some people may be interested that Overture has a new release:

http://sonicscores.com/overture/

I haven't seen a side-by-side feature comparison.  I assume there are 
plenty of major notation differences that would cause most Finale users 
to not look seriously at a switch.

I would note, however:

1) Unlike Sibelius and Finale, this actually represents a very big 
enhancement for Overture, not just a few near-trivial features and fixes.

2) Like Presonus/Notion, Overture is putting a really big emphasis on 
the playback side, providing much better MIDI editing, VST support and 
DAW-style control than you get with either Finale or Sibelius.  They 
have also added some basic support for touch screens.  You cannot enter 
music or articulations, but you can do scrolling and zooming with 
gestures.  That's a start.

The whole universe of "Music Technology" is evolving rapidly. Notation 
no longer stands on its own in most university environments.  Finale 
would be wise to take note of these developments with Overture and Notion.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Running Both Finale 2014d and 2014.5

[Craig Parmerlee]

On 11/23/2015 9:56 AM, Michael Mathew wrote:
> I have successfully run both versions on my desktop iMac with Yosimite
> and on my MacBook Pro El Capitain, with nothing apparent in any 
> configuration, yet.

I have done likewise on Windows 8.1 with now problem switching between 
versions.  Unfortunately it may be the case that we have to do that a 
lot.  It does seem that some of the manged parts stuff is smoother in 
2014.5, although I can't quite put my finger on it.  It also seems as if 
the playback might be a little better.  Again, I can't prove that.

But there are certainly some bugs in 2014.5.  So far, these haven't been 
critical or annoying enough to force me to retreat to 2014, but I am 
keeping both version installed for that reason.  And when I find a new 
problem, I try it on 2014 to see if it was common to both versions. 
Unfortunately most of my problems seem to be very intermittent, so it is 
hard to be conclusive.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] New Bugs 2014.5

[Craig Parmerlee]

On 11/22/2015 3:53 PM, Chuck Israels wrote:
> Because you mistyped 2015.5 :)

Must be a Freudian slip.  Let us hope so anyway.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] New Bugs 2014.5

[Craig Parmerlee]

On 11/22/2015 9:06 AM, Rafael Leonardo Junchaya wrote:
> Wonder why they have released a version that is so buggy. I came back to
> 2014d because 2014.5 makes a lot of problems...
>

I didn't keep a good list of all the things that were really messed up 
in 2014, so I can't say that one release is quantitatively better than 
the other.  My gut feel is that 2015.5 is a little better than 2014 on 
balance, but it is disappointing to see so many of the real problems not 
addressed, and new bugs introduced.

If this is the beginning of a process to take the product quality 
seriously, then it will be the best news in several years.  If, on the 
other hand, we are looking at another year before anything else is 
fixed, that would not be good.

I hope we can hear from the company with some idea about how they plan 
to proceed.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] New Bugs 2014.5

[Craig Parmerlee]

On 11/22/2015 9:09 AM, Steve Parker wrote:
>
> I’ve beta tested notation products before and understand that things need 
> prioritising and that pro users are often not the significant user base but..


Sure, but I don't see any excuse for:

- Not fixing the HP problem with overlapping note-on note-off causing 
notes to go silent

- not fixing the failure to save music spacing.

These are quite fundamental and affect nearly every user.  I believe 
these are both bugs that were introduced in 2014, and among the top 
reasons for 2014's bad reputation in the market.  I would have thought 
these would be at the top of the fix list.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] New Bugs 2014.5

[Craig Parmerlee]

I don't understand that comment.  Both 2014 and 2014.5 are available. 
Can you please elaborate?


On 11/22/2015 2:16 PM, Jari Williamsson wrote:

> My gut feel is that you are using a product that isn't available.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] GPO volume problem

[Craig Parmerlee]

There seem to be some bugs in this area and they aren't fixed with 
2014.5.  I have frequent problems with instruments going way too quiet, 
and I have been completely unsuccessful at finding a cause.

If by the "GPO Mixer" you mean Aria, you can't use the volume sliders 
there.  That corresponds to a different MIDI controller that is used 
dynamically by Finale for volume adjustments (crecendos etc.)

If your two parts are on different layers, you can and should split 
these out to 2 separate GPO instruments.  You can do this in Score 
manager.  There is a pull-down arrow on the instrument line that expands 
to show the separate layers and you can put your bass clarinet on a 
different GPO channel.  And also in the Score Manager, you should be 
able to set the base volume for that layer.




On 11/20/2015 10:53 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:
> Windows finale version 2014, Finale GPO: I added a bass clarinet  line  in
> the middle of working on a piece  but it is playing back  much too loudly .
> I lower the volume in the GPO mixer, but when I play back the slider goes
> back to the top. I can't lower it in the Studio view because it is sharing
> a staff with clarinet 2.  What am I missing? Thanks for any help.
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
>
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] GPO volume problem

[Craig Parmerlee]

On 11/21/2015 11:29 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:
> Ok, now I see that Craig said base volume score manager, not Aria.  I
> recall seeing volume settings in score manager in an earlier life but I
> don't see it now. Thanks for all suggestions


There is a button on the score manager that allows you to select the 
columns you want to see.  It seems that with 2014.5, they left the 
volume off by default.  But you can select it.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] GPO volume problem

[Craig Parmerlee]

Yes, you can set that volume in the Score Manager, not in the Aria 
Mixer.  DO not use the Aria Mixer volume sliders.  They are controlled 
dynamically by Finale to adjust playback nuances.

Go into score manager and assign instruments at the layer level, not at 
the staff level.  In the Score Manager, there is a button that lets you 
choose the columns you want to see.  One of those columns is the base 
volume.  If you have put the Bass Clarinet layer into its own 
instrument, you can set the base level for that instrument as you wish.



On 11/21/2015 8:32 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:
> Ok, I don't see any base volume control in the Aria mixer, but the
> modulation control helped quite a bit.
>
> Does anyone have any system for setting volumes and balance with GPO? I
> keep running into instances where instruments do not respond to dynamics in
> the music, etc, and balance changes when I'm not looking.
> Thanks!
>
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] GPO volume problem

[Craig Parmerlee]

Regarding my cases of instruments getting too quiet, i have always 
suspected spurious MIDI data.  But I recently went to the trouble of 
building my whole score from scratch, then doing a copy in of just the 
notes, not any of the MIDI data.  And the problem soon returned (after 
just a few minutes)

A shutdown and restart of MIDI doesn't clear it.  The only thing I have 
found that clears the condition is to go into the Aria panel and EMPTY 
the instrument, then load it again.  Simply RELOADing does not clear it.

And here is a curious observation.  The problem happens most often on 
Trombone 3.  It is possible that it ONLY happens on Trombone 3, as there 
may have been good explanations for any volume issues on other 
instruments (mute keyswitches on, etc)  I switched to the JABB3 Trombone 
4 sounds and so far have not had the problem at all.

On 11/21/2015 10:11 PM, Williams, Jim wrote:
> I am wondering if some random MIDI data found its way into the file. Have you 
> tried to clean out data using the MIDI tool?
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] New Bugs 2014.5

[Craig Parmerlee]

FWIW, I have been keeping a list of the bizarre behaviors I have seen 
with 2014.5.  I have about 10 new bugs that never happened to me before 
now and several of the most annoying prior problems that have not been 
addressed.

One of the things that drove me crazy was the bugs in the Cautionary 
Accidentals.  Supposedly this was fixed in 2014.5, but it isn't.  The 
plug-in does far more harm than good.  I used this on every score back 
in 2012.  Now I have to do all that manually to make sure it doesn't get 
screwed up.  The fact that this was on the list of fixes tells me there 
isn't a very good understanding of some of the problems.

On balance, I think 2014.5 is at least a small step forward.



On 11/21/2015 6:34 PM, Steve Parker wrote:
> Flipped ties keep reverting. Staff styles also keep going back to initial 
> state.
>
> Steve P.
>
>> On 21 Nov 2015, at 19:23, Steve Parker  wrote:
>>
>> I seem to have a few new bugs in 2014.5.
>>
>> Some expressions are un-deletable with the delete key, but delete if 
>> selected then deleted from the control-click menu.
>> Sometimes stop and pause (and the spacebar) won’t stop playback which 
>> continues for a few bars or to the end.
>>
>> Finale also seems to be loading up instruments that are not in the score.
>>
>> Steve P.
>> ___
>> Finale mailing list
>> Finale@shsu.edu
>> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>>
>> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
>> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
>
>
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Superficial comment on Finale 2014.5

[Craig Parmerlee]

My comments below


On 11/18/2015 9:40 AM, Jan Angermüller wrote:
>
> Have you checked the HP settings for portamento/chromatic gliss ?
> Maybe they changed the default setting ? But I can't believe that you
> open a file that was set to chromatic gliss now automatically becomes a
> portamento. At least it should be easy to change in the HP settings
> (HP->Glissandi/Bends->Type: Chromatic).

You are correct.  The setting was "automatic"  Evidently the handling 
for "automatic" changed.  I set it to "chromatic" and it plans as 
before, which is preferable in this case.  Thanks for that tip.

One of the bug fixes involved the criss-crossed use of two different 
MIDI controllers (I think these affected volume and not pitch), so it 
seems they were in that area of code at least to some extent.


>> but they didn't fix the main HP bugs
>> that have to do with note-on/off timing.
> I haven't tested it myself yet. But if they didn't fix the long known
> note-on/off bug that accidentally skips notes in playback,

I would agree.  I have not tested this personally and am relying on a 
(reliable) user who posted at the Finale forum.

The reality here is that this is essentially a new company and mostly a 
new set of developers inheriting a huge and quite complex code base. 
Having done that a few times in my career, I can tell you this is really 
scary.  Coincidentally, Sibelius was in exactly the same position.  The 
Sibelius people opted to not touch the main code and to put out a "7.5" 
that was almost entirely cosmetic.  It was a "statement of support" but 
not real support.

The Finale people wanted to demonstrate something a little more 
substantial, and took an extra 18 months for that.

I can't say which strategy was correct.  The fact is that there are 
still big bugs needing fixes and important improvements needed.  At this 
stage we have more evidence that the Finale people can make improvements 
than we have from the Sibelius people.  But if we are looking at another 
18 months before the next set of bug fixes, that will be really 
disappointing.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Superficial comment on Finale 2014.5

[Craig Parmerlee]

Yes, it is a mixed bag.  So far, the biggest problem I have seen is that 
it knocks out VST playback after doing an export to WAV.  I have to 
restart Finale to get sound going again.

They seemed to have done a few things affecting HP.  For example I am 
working on an arrangement where the flutes gliss an octave, so I notated 
this with the straight line smartshape.  In 2014, it plays distinct 
notes in that run, which is how the flute will sound.  In 2014.5, it is 
a portamento.  That's OK for this project.  Anyway, my point is that 
they did something in that area, but they didn't fix the main HP bugs 
that have to do with note-on/off timing.

The good news is that the new team is able to make some changes that are 
more than superficial without completely ruining the product, so they 
should be in a position to fix more of the bugs.




On 11/18/2015 2:05 AM, Dave Lang wrote:
> I don’t understand how things like this get rolled out in 2015. We were 
> laughing about it when I was still working in tech back in 1992. 
> Disconcerting. Like a trumpet player who shows up without any valve oil.
>
> I’m happy the update was released.  While this version has introduced new 
> bugs, it did squash some others that directly affected me every time I worked 
> on a file.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Superficial comment on Finale 2014.5

[Craig Parmerlee]

A lot longer than 30 seconds for me.  If you do "check for updates" from 
within Finale, then you get useful instructions, but none of that is in 
the Readme or in the announcement email.

You won't find this in the downloads section like other patches.  The 
procedure is to log onto you account at the Finale site.  By to "your 
software"  That will indicate  Finale 2014 available for download.  Even 
though it says it is 2014, it is actually 2014.5.




On 11/17/2015 6:24 PM, Steve Parker wrote:
> It confazzled me for 30 seconds too…
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

[Finale] Finale 2014.5 by end of November?

[Craig Parmerlee]

This article

http://www.finalemusic.com/blog/finale-and-os-x-el-capitan-update/

says "it was our hope that Apple would resolve this incompatibility, but 
if they didn’t we’d provide a solution in Finale 2014.5, a 
free-of-charge update for owners of Finale 2014 scheduled for release by 
the end of November."

Is there any further information on the contents?

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Export To Audio

[Craig Parmerlee]

It may not have been created at all -- that's the issue.  I had a 
similar bug.  It appeared to do something, gave no error message, but 
created no file (if my memory is correct).  I cannot remember exactly 
how this was resolved, but we eventually found a combination of 
parameters for the audio setup that allowed the render to work.

I always render to WAV, FWIW.



On 11/5/2015 8:56 AM, Anne Erickson wrote:
> Glen - can you do a *command F *to find out where the file has gone?
>

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Epson large format printer

[Craig Parmerlee]

Brother MFC-j6710DN does 11x17 duplex.



On 9/5/2015 10:22 PM, Ryan Beard wrote:
> Dennis, does your Epson have a duplexer that prints the large sizes?

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Windows Surface Pro 3/StaffPad Update

[Craig Parmerlee]

My conclusion is identical to Robert's and David's.

Staffpad is quite an impressive product, and I expect handwritten 
notation entry to be a very viable approach in the future.  But it is 
just too tedious now.  Not ready for prime time, but worth $50 to see 
where the state of the art is today.

One of the things that is most irksome is that there are cases where I 
have entered 8 notes in a bar and I know that some of them are good 
enough to be recognized, but NONE are.  Other times some of the notes 
are recognized and the others are left as scribbles.  This behavior is 
really annoying.  The program should give better clues about what it 
cannot recognize.

I expect that by 2017, this will be to the point it makes sense to use 
in some cases, particularly early in the composition cycle.



On 8/15/2015 3:53 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:
 I agree with Robert's findings about StaffPad to a point -- it is
 possible to practice more and get it to respond better over time, but I
 know I don't have that kind of time.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Lyrics entry [was: Re: Part prints at 1/16 size of page]

[Craig Parmerlee]

You may be right.  If so, that sounds like a terrible choice of a 
shortcut default.  Is there some way to turn off that @#^%$% thing?  I 
see you can edit keyboard shortcuts in Simple Entry, but I don't see any 
way to modify shortcuts in general.

Moreover, this is the least of the problems with lyrics.  There are all 
sorts of situations where the Lyric window gets completely out of sync 
with the lyrics displayed on the part.  I have cases where you can't use 
the lyrics window at all -- this often happens when I have imported a 
scanned document via MusicXML.

I know.  The answer, like everything else, is Don't do that.

Every software title I own has some bugs, but Finale is the worst by 
far, and the company simply doesn't do anything about them.


On 8/7/2015 7:49 AM, John Roberts wrote:
 If I'm entering lyrics too quickly for my own good, when I enter I, I
 fail to come off the shift key before hitting the space bar to the next
 syllable. Shift-space sends the cursor back one syllable, instead of the
 forward that I was aiming for. It does screw things up when you're not
 expecting it.
 John



 On 8/7/15 5:55 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:


 On 8/7/2015 12:19 AM, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
 [snip] which is almost completely dysfunctional in F2014.  For example,
 if you
 enter I a a word in a lyrical line, the cursor jumps backwards two
 syllables and messes everything up.  And there are several other really
 bad bugs in lyrics.


 Are you using a Mac?

 Because I just ran a test on the Windows version of Finale2014:
 1) Started a brand new document, using the default template
 2) entered two measures: 4 quarter notes and a whole note in 4/4 time
 3) entered directly into the score: Some-one should I call (they didn't
 need to make sense, just had to include several syllables before the
 word I which you say is a problem) -- there was no jumping of the
 cursor.  The word I stayed right where I entered it.
 4) opened the Lyrics window and created verse 2 with the words What
 should I do now?
 5) click-assigned verse 2 beneath my directly entered lyrics -- again,
 there was no problem at all.
 6) went back into verse 1 and highlighted the word call and typed I
 and again there was no problem.

 So if you're on Mac, it's a Mac issue.  If you're on Windows, it's not a
 problem with Finale but rather with whatever file or files you've tried
 to use the word I in the lyrics tool.

 Once you get your list of bugs typed, you should post it here before
 submitting it to Finale so that we can all test them to see if they
 really are bugs or are somehow only bugs on your system or when using
 your templates.




 ___
 Finale mailing list
 Finale@shsu.edu
 https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

 To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
 finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Part prints at 1/16 size of page

[Craig Parmerlee]

Very interesting.  I had something similar happen a couple of times.  I 
always print my Finale material to PDF using PDFCreator.  I never 
print directly from Finale.  There were a couple of times where one part 
out of 20 was super small in the PDF.  If I would run it a second time, 
it always came out correctly, so I never picked up the pattern.  I had 
always assumed it was a quirk in PDFCreator, but now it seems that it 
was actually a Finale bug.

On a separate note, I have started compiling a list of the most annoying 
bugs in Finale in the hopes that maybe these will be addressed in 
2014.5.  At first, I was intending to offer a top-10 list for 
consideration, but since I have been writing these down, there are way 
more than 10 really annoying bugs.  Yesterday I was working with lyrics 
which is almost completely dysfunctional in F2014.  For example, if you 
enter I a a word in a lyrical line, the cursor jumps backwards two 
syllables and messes everything up.  And there are several other really 
bad bugs in lyrics.

Has anyone else compiled such a list?  Maybe I will share mine once I 
have it organized.



On 8/6/2015 12:59 PM, Williams, Jim wrote:
 If my memory doesn't fail, the problem is somehow connected to printing when 
 an auto-save is occurring.
 If you are going to mass-print, you might consider turning off auto-save, 
 closing/relaunching, then printing.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] OT: Low end Surface Pro 3 with StaffPad

[Craig Parmerlee]

I went through this evaluation myself and ended up in a completely 
different place than I expected.  I found a video out there where a guy 
benchmarked the Surface 3 against the Surface 3 Pro running a bunch of 
DAW configurations.  Both machines ran these power-hungry DAWs 
surprisingly well.  The Pro could do more extreme stuff, but I don't 
think you will ever see a meaningful difference when running StaffPad.

And ironically, the video seemed to actually recommend the cheaper 
non-Pro model because the Pro model's CPU speed is unpredictable as 
Intel keeps zapping it to give it a boost.  In heavy DAW applications, 
you really want consistent performance, not necessarily the maximum peak 
performance.

And the reviewer noticed a real oddity, which was that the sound levels 
coming out of the built-in speakers were about twice as loud on the 
cheaper non-Pro.  Go figure.  The reviewer surmised that there was 
probably some setting he needed to adjust.  I took some MIDI files into 
Best Buy and tried them on both machines and sure enough, the cheaper 
non-pro was MUCH louder.  It wasn't close. The basic Surface 3 sounded a 
lot louder and a lot better.

Obviously the Pro has a larger display.  For me, that larger display 
makes it a little less pad-like so to speak.  If you are going to be 
working a lot with StaffPad on scores where the display space is really 
important, they I guess the Pro might be worth something, but I couldn't 
see spending the extra bucks for a machine that, to me was LESS functional.

I would definitely NOT recommend the 64GB.  That doesn't leave very much 
room for OS and apps.  If you really think you will never do much more 
than use StaffPad, then 64GB is OK.  But I would look seriously at 128GB.





On 7/5/2015 2:53 PM, Robert Patterson wrote:
 For those of you out there using StaffPad, is the low-end Surface Pro 3 (i3
 64GB model) powerful enough to run StaffPad. My main interest in it is as a
 music reader and for StaffPad.
 ___
 Finale mailing list
 Finale@shsu.edu
 https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

 To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
 finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] OT: Low end Surface Pro 3 with StaffPad

[Craig Parmerlee]

Robert,

I think you will be very happy, especially considering the deal you got.

I set mine up as David did, with the MicroSD card being the D: drive for 
user files, and the in-board SSD being for the OS and apps.  I have used 
about 33GB of the on-board SSD, so if you aren't running loads of apps, 
your 64GB will be OK, even if Windows 10 makes the footprint a bit larger.

But an important point of clarification: the MicroSD card will be D: 
It does not add to the size of the C: drive.  So for practical purposes, 
you need to get the OS and apps to live on your C: drive.  I don't think 
that will be a problems given how you have described your usage.

If a person wanted to be really clever, they could install apps to the 
D: drive and also direct browser case and other big storage users to the 
D: drive.  But that would mean you would really need to leave the same 
MicroSD card installed all the time, which is OK for most people.

I have not installed Finale on the pad, but there is no reason why it 
should not run.  If you have big sound libraries, those should probably 
go on the MicroSD.




On 7/6/2015 7:46 PM, Robert Patterson wrote:
 FWIW: The StaffPad guy says it works great on the i3 Surface Pro 3. Also, I
 figure if I need more storage than 64GB (and probably will) I can spend $25
 on a micro SD card. I know the 4 might be announced next month, but who
 knows when it would show up in the points store: probably many months from
 now.



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] OT: Low end Surface Pro 3 with StaffPad

[Craig Parmerlee]

Thanks, Darcy.

I hadn't even thought of that because I had no interest in pads until 
Staffpad came out.  previously I had an ASUS notebook with a 
touchscreen, which is halfway like a pad.  The Surface with keyboard 
cover is really nice.

Now that you mention it, I do remember that the 3 has only been 
advertised recently.  That explains the better speakers, I think.  One 
normally assumes the model XYZ Pro is better than the plain model XYZ, 
but it is not clear cut in this example.

I love this pad.  I think Microsoft really got it right this time.

I still mainly use desktops, but I use the pad for lots of stuff, I have 
LibreOffice on it for any kind of document work.  I use Evernote, which 
is integrated with my desktop and phone.  And I use the pad now for any 
music running through the PA system before shows or during breaks.  As 
it is a full function Windows machine, it has the full Media Player, so 
it is good for playing MIDI files, which I have done in a few solo or 
duo gigs.

Re: Staffpad, there was a new release last week, which seems nice.  It 
is coming along impressively.  I still find it too poor on recognition 
for me to use regularly, but I think that will come.



On 7/6/2015 7:31 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
 Keep in mind the Surface 3 is actually a much newer machine than the Surface 
 3 Pro — the Surface 3 Pro was released over a year ago, while the Surface 3 
 came out in May of this year. While the Pro machine has more raw power, the 
 Surface 3 has the benefit of an additional year's worth of RD, which is a 
 lifetime when it comes to these devices.

 Also keep in mind that the Surface 4 Pro is expected in August.

 Cheers,

 - DJA

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

[Finale] StaffPad experience

[Craig Parmerlee]

I got this product yesterday.  My opinion so far is:

a) It is marvelous and represents a very important direction for the future

b) it is completely useless in its current form.

I am finding it extraordinarily tedious to do even the most simple 
things such as adding a dot to a quarter note.  I tried 35 times on one 
measure and never did get it to work, but curiously when I completely 
deleted the measure and entered the measure again, it took the dot the 
very first time.  It won't let me write 3 above a triplet in some 
cases if the notes are already above the staff.  I was able to put a 3 
in a weird place on the stem side and it picked it up.

I guess with enough patience a person could learn how to fiddle with 
this, but at present, its detection isn't anywhere close to what 
SmartScore can do, and SmartScore explicitly states that it is not 
suitable for handwritten scores.

To be fair, SmartScore has had a decade to improve their algorithms.  I 
await similar improvements in StaffPad.  It is clear to me at some 
stage, this will be a really important tool, and it was worth $60 for me 
to see the future even if I am not so likely to use it much in the near 
term.  It is an amazing amount of capability for $60, even if it really 
isn't ready for prime time.  It isn't far off.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] StaffPad has released a great update! (lengthy update to my previous review)

[Craig Parmerlee]

On 5/9/2015 9:26 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:
 Please excuse the cross posting and apologies to those who will receive
 this update to my previous StaffPad review multiple times.

 I know that for users of Sibelius and Finale, regular updates of the
 software are very important and in recent years have been less than
 overwhelming as corporate politics and financial problems have gotten in
 the way of offering real improvements to the software.

Thanks for these updates.  The speed of their execution is most impressive.

Several days ago, I listened to this extensive interview with Daniel 
Spreadbury.
https://youtu.be/VBhPyTNkXKI

My take-aways were:

1) This effort is still years from producing a commercial product.  They 
don't have much of a GUI at present, for example.

2) The Steinberg team seems totally obsessed with the finest intricacies 
of extreme engraving, and doesn't seem to care nearly as much about 
things like improved playback and integration with the rest of the 
modern musician's workflow.

I have nothing against somebody trying to reach the karma of engraving, 
but I must admit I don't find that of much practical use.  Some of their 
ideas would be broadly usable, such as more of a rules-based approach to 
how rhythms are notated.  But I was left with a feeling that this is an 
enormous amount of effort to put into a program that endeavors to 
capture that last 1 percent of engraving sophistication.  I would have 
thought there are very few people in the world that would be heavily 
motivated by that last 1% -- probably fewer than 1000 copyists.

Of course, if the Steinberg program advances notation that last 1% AND 
also does many other things better, then it will be of interest.  But it 
is hard for me to reconcile the scope of the Steinberg effort with the 
very impressive delivery of Staffpad function by what appears to be a 
much smaller team over a much shorter time period.

I realize these are apples and oranges, but nonetheless, Staffpad is the 
most impressive thing I have seen in the field in a decade.


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] emailing pdf

[Craig Parmerlee]

PDF contents can be compressed.  That can cause variations.  Also there 
are many options for how to handle graphics.  There have always been 
major variations in PDF size for what seem to be equivalent renderings.


On 5/10/2015 5:49 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:

 I wonder why that is -- the same is true of files produced by
 WordPerfect.  If I use the publish to PDF function within WordPerfect
 the file is much larger than if I simply print to an external PDF
 printer driver.



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] emailing pdf

[Craig Parmerlee]

I have always found first violins to be more than a little temperamental.



On 5/8/2015 5:52 PM, Lawrence Yates wrote:
 Thanks - no, there are no illegal characters but amazingly, since I sent my
 email to the forum, the file has been sent successfully.  I've no idea what
 the problem was.

 Ah well, another problem solved!

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] I an angry

[Craig Parmerlee]

is this Windows?  I had a similar problem.  Ultimately this seems to be 
connected with my audio interface and we came up with a setting that 
circumvented the problem.  I wish that Finale had stepped up to fixing 
the root cause, but my operation has been reliable since that time.

I cannot recall from memory what the setting was, but I can probably 
figure that out from some old notes.

What kind of audio interface do you have?

FWIW, exporting to audio never worked reliably for me in any prior 
release.  Now it works great, even though there is a big bug lurking out 
there.



On 4/13/2015 11:47 PM, Alberto Guzmán Naranjo wrote:
 It is very unfortunate and I am rally angry about Finale2014 operation. The
 program closes unexpectedly and trying to export a file as audio is a
 calamity. As I have said many times is not acceptable this malfunction in a
 software for which I paid a considerable amount of money.
 I think Finale users are too patient.
 (Estoy mamado de luchar con esta porquería de programa) I'm sorry

 Alberto Guzmán Naranjo
 Director de Orquesta - Compositor
 Profesor Titular Universidad del Valle
 ___
 Finale mailing list
 Finale@shsu.edu
 https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

 To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
 finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Darcy Argue 2015 Guggenheim Fellow

[Craig Parmerlee]

It is a great honor personally for Darcy, and also a big win for new 
music that is innovative and thoughtful.




On 4/9/2015 11:31 PM, David Froom wrote:
 I just heard that Darcy has been named a Guggenheim fellow for 2015. 
 Congratulations to him! Nice when some recognition (and a bit of money) comes 
 to the people who are doing really good music.

 David Froom
 ___
 Finale mailing list
 Finale@shsu.edu
 https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

 To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
 finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] StaffPad (for Windows Surface Pro 3)

[Craig Parmerlee]

Several people on the Finale forum have reported doing that with good 
results.  They identified some XML export/import issues, but they didn't 
sound like deal-breakers, especially when viewing StaffPad as a tool for 
the early stages of a project.  I think there might have been some XML 
issues with text placement and maybe grace notes.




On 4/7/2015 4:33 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:

 Yes -- StaffPad files can be exported as MusicXML for import into Finale
 or Sibelius or MuseScore.



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Change Instrument in FinMac2014?

[Craig Parmerlee]

OK.  I'll give it a try next time out.  Being the master of jazz 
textures, you might appreciate my latest arrangement -- (Every Time We 
Say Goodbye) -- where we wanted to take advantage of the bari sax player 
also being an alto flute double.  So that chart is 2 C flutes, alto 
flute and 2 clarinets plus the normal brass mostly in mutes.  (The chart 
wasn't 100% successful. I may still give it another revision, but the 
textures are cool.)

This chart didn't have any instrument changes, but that band likes to 
use bass clarinet instead of bari and lots of combinations of saxes, 
flutes, and clarinets.  So I'll have good opportunities to use this 
feature.  And if the feature works that well, I might do more instrument 
changes.  That keeps the players more engaged, and the audience is 
really captured by the doubling, especially in the front line (the sax 
section.)

They haven't let me play cimbasso yet.  :)


On 4/6/2015 12:27 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
 Hi Craig,

 You should certainly be using the Change Instrument feature. For starters, it 
 greatly simplifies part creation, and allows for mid-system instrument 
 changes. There is this one playback issue I described (which I don't recall 
 being a problem prior to Finale 2014) but certainly the benefits FAR, FAR 
 outweigh this one particular drawback.

 Cheers,

 - DJA

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Change Instrument in FinMac2014?

[Craig Parmerlee]

I think you are saying that fp and mute changes are broken in 2014 
without regard to whether or not you use the Change Instrument feature.

There are those problems and various other HP problems (note off coming 
too late, e.g.) that one really hopes will be fixed in the so-called 
2014.5 release.

But re: mute changes, if you are talking about the Garritan JABB3 
library, I went around and around on that with support.  Ultimately the 
answer was to go into the HP rules for Garritan and change the text 
string from jabb to jazz or maybe it was the other way around.

That seemed to work in most cases, but not in cases where I used an 
older template.  If I created a whole new template under 2014 and made 
those HP/Garritan rule changes, then the mutes worked in response to the 
standard mute expressions that come in when using the setup wizard.

The exception was straight mute.  Apparently HP gets confused with the 
ambiguity between straight mute and straight 8ths.  So if I use the 
Straight expression that is clearly intended for straight mute, no 
keyswitch happens.  However if I use the expression that simply says 
mute then straight mute is keyswitched.  So in the worst case, I can 
show the Straight marking and include a hidden mute marking.

I hope this makes a little sense.



On 4/6/2015 2:54 PM, Chuck Israels wrote:
 Craig,

 I agree with Darcy.  The feature works well.  What I haven’t been able to get 
 to work in 2014 are the brass mute changes, and fp gets strange playback 
 results.  I have learned to live with these playback limitations and hope 
 they get fixed in the next version. ( Maybe there’s a way to mess with HP 
 settings to get the mutes to work in 2014. but it used to work without any 
 special dithering in 2012.)

 Chuck

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Change Instrument in FinMac2014?

[Craig Parmerlee]

Sorry I can't help because I don't use Mac.

But this raises a question for me.  I wasn't aware of this Change 
Instrument feature.  Whenever I have had a player with doubles, I have 
set up a staff for each instrument, put them all together in manage 
parts, then use Hide Empty Staves so that there is only one staff on the 
part.  That is straightforward and has always worked fine for me.

My question is whether this Change Instruments feature is significantly 
easier (assuming it all works correctly).

I guess the Change Instrument approach would end up with fewer 
instruments in the score, which would be a benefit.

Basically this is a question of what is the best practice.



On 4/5/2015 12:27 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
 I should clarify that I mean use the Change Instrument feature to create an 
 instrument change mid-piece, rather than selecting the entire staff and 
 changing the instrument for the entire duration.

 Cheers,

 - DJA
 -
 WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org

 On Apr 5, 2015, at 12:23 AM, Darcy James Argue djar...@icloud.com wrote:

 Hi all,

 Can anyone else confirm that if you use the Change Instrument feature in 
 Finale 2014 to switch to an instrument double, the new instrument does not 
 respond to any dynamics or hairpins? (N.B. I have Human Playback on and am 
 using Garritan instruments.)

 Cheers,

 - DJA
 -
 WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org



 ___
 Finale mailing list
 Finale@shsu.edu
 https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

 To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
 finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Does anybody think MM will ever fix the F2014 HP problems?

[Craig Parmerlee]

On 3/31/2015 11:34 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
 Hi all,

 I'm actually wondering whether anyone has any solutions to the fp problem in 
 Fin2014, which is actually becoming a real problem for me.

 The Set Rhythmic Feel to 0% workaround is okay for the note-cutout problem, 
 but the only solution I know to the almost-silent fp's is to put the notation 
 in a layer set to not play back, then enter the music in a hidden layer with 
 no fp's.

 Cheers,


On the finale forum, somebody discovered a reference to Finale 2014.5. 
  That was an accidental release by MakeMusic,  But to their credit, 
they did follow up with the posting repeated below.

I believe Mr. Tschiggfrie accepts private messages at the forum.  I 
suggest you ask him about fp, the scoops and falls, and the various 
other HP-related things.  He may not be able to give a specific answer, 
but it is worth a try.  At least we might find out if that is a 
priority.  Surely it should be.  I know many people are struggling with 
these playback bugs.

Another HP thing that seems to be a bug introduced with 2014 is that 
volumes are all over the place sometimes.  I have found that if you 
don't explicitly put a dynamic mark before and after each hairpin, you 
can't count on the playback.  And even when you do that, some 
instruments seem to be much lower in the mix than others even though 
they all have the same mixer settings.

=


We recently published an updated version of the User Manual that 
unintentionally included the information described in this thread.

As previously announced, our goal for Finale development going forward 
is to increase quality and improve user experience. Finale 2014.5, the 
next incremental update to Finale 2014, will continue our work toward 
modernizing Finale and improving its performance. We haven’t set a 
release date for the update, but already our development team has fixed 
numerous defects and are making use of the data collection we 
implemented in 2014d.

I’ve rolled back the online user manual to remove the information. While 
the release isn’t quite ready yet, rest assured that we’re well on our 
way to making Finale better than ever.

Happy musicking, Jon Tschiggfrie
Technical Communications Specialist
MakeMusic, Inc.






___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Does anybody think MM will ever fix the F2014 HP problems?

[Craig Parmerlee]

On 3/27/2015 7:39 AM, Alberto Guzmán Naranjo wrote:
 Another problem in F2014d is de GPO and Aria player. The engine no longer
 works as expected. I have no sounds in my files


That sounds like more of a set-up problem than a Finale bug per se. 
You should get sounds under 2014, just not always the exact phrasing or 
styling you would expect.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

[Finale] Does anybody think MM will ever fix the F2014 HP problems?

[Craig Parmerlee]

There are all sorts of problems introduced in F2014 in the area of HP:

- fp no longer works correctly

- Scoops and falls almost never work right now

- Often note-off comes AFTER note-on of the following note, causing the 
second note to be chopped short or not sound at all.

None of these things happened to me at 2012.  Many people have had these 
problems, but the company seems to have no interest in correcting any 
bugs (or no ability to do so), even these high-impact, pervasive things.

Anybody placing any odds on whether we will ever see any fixes at the 
2014 level?
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Key sig for melodic minor

[Craig Parmerlee]

I haven't done this, but it appears to be supported as  nonstandard 
key signature.  I think you would define a linear scale of 12 notes. 
The documentation refers to

KeyMap. Click this icon to display the Key Step Map dialog box, in which 
you specify how many steps you want in an octave, as well as which steps 
are diatonic and which chromatic. See Key Step Map dialog box.

AOrdAmt. Click this icon to display the Accidental Order and Amount 
dialog box, in which you specify which accidentals you want to appear 
with each progression to a new key (if you’re in a linear key format), 
and which lines or spaces they should appear on. See Accidental Order 
and Amount dialog box.





On 3/16/2015 8:28 PM, Girard Bowe wrote:
 Ascending, of course. I've tried to create this, but without success. If
 anybody has any easy way to do this, or at least a clear explanation, I'd be
 grateful.



 Also, assuming this is possible, will it transpose as expected? That is, if
 I have a D melodic minor, will it transpose up a major second as E melodic
 minor?



 And lastly, will it transpose diatonically according to the key signature?
 I'd like to be able to select a section, press 6, and have everything be one
 step lower in the same key.



 Thanks again for any help! I'm trying to create melodic minor exercises for
 myself, and would be glad to share these.



 Giz

 Richmond VA

 ___
 Finale mailing list
 Finale@shsu.edu
 https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

 To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
 finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Templates

[Craig Parmerlee]

Use MusicXML !!!

I haven't experienced losing items, but I had all sorts of HP problems 
with an old template I had to use on a project.

I exported to MusicXML and re-imported into Finale 2014.  (Actually I 
think I did both export and import on 2014)  That solved the problems. 
Obviously there were some data structures in the .MUS file that Finale 
2014 was not handling correctly, which I consider a bug, but the 
MusicXML conversion gives you a clean start.

It isn't perfect.  You will still have to go back and tweak some things 
in your template, but I was surprised how close it got.




On 2/18/2015 12:31 PM, Steve Parker wrote:
 I have a small but time consuming problem with items disappearing.
 Tech support have told me it is because I’m using a template made in a Finale 
 version before 2014 and that I should create new Templates in 2014.
 Almost every setting is tweaked as well as a lot of carefully placed items, 
 so this seems an overwhelming job for every template that I use.

 Is there any way of printing the settings or is there a file hidden somewhere 
 that I can raid for text of the templates’ settings?

 Thanks,

 Steve P.


 ___
 Finale mailing list
 Finale@shsu.edu
 https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

 To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
 finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] GPO

[Craig Parmerlee]

I assumed that the instruments included with Finale were identical to 
the GPO instruments, just a subset.  Is that not true?






On 1/24/2015 10:12 PM, Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre wrote:
 Sorry, forgot to compare to the inherent Finale sounds

 Since I got the GPO, I never use the Finale sounds. Within the instruments 
 covered GPO has a way better variety. Specialties like alto and bass flutes 
 are also covered much better.

 Klaus

 Sendt fra min iPhone

 Den 25/01/2015 kl. 03.45 skrev James Cooper j...@modez.com:

 Can any of you share your experience using the full Garriton Personal
 Orchestra vs. the package that comes with Finale?  I am on FinWin 2014, and
 trying to figure out if it is worth it to me to get it.

 Thanks -- James C.





 --
 
 James Cooper
 Composer, classical guitarist, songwriter
 www.ModeZ.com/default.asp

 Join me in helping homeless families in Albuquerque: Family Promise of
 Albuquerque, familypromiseabq.org
 
 ___
 Finale mailing list
 Finale@shsu.edu
 https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

 To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
 finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

 ___
 Finale mailing list
 Finale@shsu.edu
 https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

 To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
 finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Ideas for drum set notation - multimeasure rests

[Craig Parmerlee]

I appreciate everybody's ideas on the subject of percussion notation, 
especially jazz drumset parts.  It seems to me that there is not a best 
practice.  There are clearly some poor practices, and that 
multi-measure rest thing is an example of that, which is why I asked for 
help.

And there are some better practices.  But there is certainly not a 
one-size-fits-all solution.  I don't always know who will be playing my 
arrangements, so my goal is to have the very simplest drum part that 
will give the drummer the essential information he or she needs to play 
the arrangement.

Again I refer to Guide to Standardized Drumset Notation by Norman 
Weinberg.  I find this enormously helpful.  And even though he is 
attempting to lay out best practices, it still goes for 40 pages.

I think this is a subset of the larger problem of clearly notated music. 
  Back when everything was literally engraved by a few master craftsmen, 
styles were more consistent.  Today, you see everything, and most of it 
is really poorly done -- even published scores.

I had a rehearsal this evening where we did our first reading of 22 
charts we will play in a show in a couple of weeks.  Of all of those 
charts, mine were very clear and well edited.  There were probably 5 
other charts at that same level.  Everything else ranged from really 
poor to almost unreadable.  Rhythms were spelled poorly. Symbols were 
stacked on top of one another.  They were lacking structure (double bars 
and rehearsal marks.)  The worst of the lot had big measure numbers on 
every measure ABOVE the measure and on at least 1/3 of the measures the 
number covered up a note or accidental.

The really curious thing is that I'd say 18 of those arrangements were 
musically quite acceptable and some were outstanding artistically.  It 
seems a shame that the state of engraving should be so poor.




On 1/25/2015 4:10 PM, Chuck Israels wrote:
different drummers respond to notation differently.  Some hate to see 
figures written out (though sometimes I want something specific and need 
to notate it), most like to see the band rhythms notated above slashes, 
but I still have to explain that I want the drummer to set up the 
figures by playing something that makes the arrival of those figures 
sound inevitable, not just to hit the figures with the band (typical 
college big band drummer style).  I work with a drummer here in Portland 
- lovely fellow and committed musician, and I have yet to figure out 
just how to communicate best with him, and I know he is doing his best 
to understand what I want.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Ideas for drum set notation - multimeasure rests

[Craig Parmerlee]

Thanks Geoff.  That is essentially the solution I stumbled on before I 
saw your response.

I take you point about the possibility of making pencil marks 
mid-section, but if there are important punches, I try to indicate them 
anyway.  I'm not sure I have seen a drummer with a pencil recently.  :)

But seriously, most of the drummers I play with use their ears a lot 
more than their eyes, so I try to give them what is most comfortable.


On 1/23/2015 1:43 PM, Whittall, Geoff wrote:


 As a player, my preference would be to see single repeat marks in bars
 instead of rests (staff style O).
 In addition to Jef¹s suggestion, another option is to create a multi
 measure rest. Then select the measure and apply the staff style to it. I
 created expressions for 6X (for an 8-bar phrase, one example bar and a
 closing bar with indicated fill) and 7X (for an 8-bar phrase, no closing
 fill) which I place over the measures I grouped in the rest. While this
 adds steps to creating the rest, the repeats are expected elements in a
 drum part, while rests that a drummer is supposed to play through, are not.
 In agreement with Jef¹s suggestion (which I also use), having the bars
 written out across the system allows the drummer to easily put their own
 marks/cues/etc. into the music.

 Just my two bits,
 Geoff


 ___
 Finale mailing list
 Finale@shsu.edu
 https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

 To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
 finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] 2014

[Craig Parmerlee]

Look at Edit-Preferences.  There is an option for Respect instrument 
ranges when copying.  This may be your problem.  I always leave that 
turned off because it seems too helpful, if you know what I mean.



On 1/23/2015 2:29 PM, Don Hart wrote:
 Hi Everyone--Happy New Year,

 Got to the end of a bigger project and like a few others on this list,
 decided to break out 2014 (10.9.5 on a MacBook Air).  I thought converting
 a string quintet arrangement to string orchestra would be a good job to
 figure out newer aspects of the program but not get in too deep while I'm
 checking things out.

 A lot of things went as expected or better, but I thought I'd bring up a
 problem I experienced.  I often enter hairpins in one line for a section of
 music and copy them from that line into other parts. Last night when I was
 doing this, Finale randomly lowered the music that was receiving the
 hairpins an octave--in other words, most lines were OK, but some
 inexplicably wound up transposed down an octave.  Only thing checked in the
 Edit Filter window was Smart Shapes (Assigned to Beats), which was as close
 as I could get to the Smart Shapes (Assigned to Measures) that I used tor
 this purpose in 2011.

 Haven't noticed this being brought up here--has anyone else experienced
 this?

 Thanks,

 Don Hart
 ___
 Finale mailing list
 Finale@shsu.edu
 https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

 To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
 finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Ideas for drum set notation - multimeasure rests

[Craig Parmerlee]

I am looking at Guide to Standardized Drumset Notation by Norman 
Weinberg.  I have found this to be a very good guide.

I really dislike the slash notation or the repeat bar approach in most 
cases because that means the drummer has to start at the chart to count 
how many measures before the next break.  I could help out by numbering 
the repeated measures, but this still results in a 4 page chart when 1 
or 2 pages would do.

Weinberg agrees that the MM rest style should not be used.  But on page 
35, he provides an example of the solution I think would be perfect in 
many cases.  The first measure of the section is shown explicitly of 
course.  What follows is a big measure that has no notes and bold text 
Play 15 Bars.  And following the bold text is a squiggle line that 
takes you to the next double bar.

That's the kind of symbology I am looking for.

I should mention that I actually have the drum parts in all the measures 
for playback purposes and I would really prefer not to have to maintain 
a separate staff just for printing purposes.  That is how I got to the Z 
staff style and MM rest.

Experimenting with some of the ideas on this thread, I cloned the normal 
Z staff style and turned off the display of rests.  It turns out that 
also hides MM rests.  I can then create MM rests as usual and in the 
sections where I have applied my style, it just looks like one wide 
empty measure.  I can then add an expression for Play xx Bars.

I'll have to do that final editing in the linked part, but that won't be 
too bad.  Usually there will only be about 8 of these markings in an 
arrangement, and most often they will be either 7 or 15 bars. I'm not 
sure I want to deal with the squiggle line.  The text should be 
adequate, especially if it put in in an opaque enclosure and overlay it 
on the staff itself.

Thanks, everybody, for the ideas.



On 1/23/2015 10:11 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
 This may be a pain, but what I might do is (after creating the multimeasure
 rest), enter a note orrest in the first bar of it. (It can be a hidden.)
 That causes the multimeas rest to disappear and you can then make it look
 however you like. I do this for TACET passages where I don't want to show
 the number of bars rest.

 On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Craig Parmerlee cr...@parmerlee.com
 wrote:

 In most of the big band charts I write, for the drummer I write a
 measure or two with the suggest beat pattern, then turn the rest of the
 measures into staff style Z so they will appear as a multi-measure rest
 up to the next double bar.  If there are any important punches, I will
 typically show those measures with slash notation and write the horn
 rhythms in notes above the staff, letting the drummer figure out how
 best to play that.  If there is an exact part I need played, I will show
 those measures.  For example, there may be a particular tom-tom riff or
 there may be a place where drums hit on 1 and then drop out.  I show all
 those measures explicitly.

 But my question is about the sections where the drummer is just carrying
 along.  I show those as multi-measure rests and put the indication
 (Continue) above the MM rest.  This gives a really clean, compact part
 and allows the drummer to play more artistically instead of trying to
 read a very cluttered chart.  But there is an ambiguity with the MM
 rests.  I am using the same look whether the drummer is continuing to
 play a pattern or whether the drums are out for a section.  My
 (Continue) marking attempts to clarify that, but I wonder how others
 deal with this.

 I think what I'd really like is two different visual styles of MM rest
 -- one for playing and one for resting.
 ___
 Finale mailing list
 Finale@shsu.edu
 https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

 To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
 finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

 ___
 Finale mailing list
 Finale@shsu.edu
 https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

 To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
 finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu