Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 2:46 PM -0400 7/11/05, David W. Fenton wrote: On 11 Jul 2005 at 2:01, Dennis W. Manasco wrote: I do however send back those little postage-paid upgrade offers every time I get one, with a note saying that I'd love to upgrade as soon as they get rid of the stupid tethered-copy-protection. I figure that since it's their dime I can make the effort to beat my favorite dead horse. Unfortunately, chances are good that no one at MakeMusic ever sees these, as these likely go to a contracted outside organzation for processing. The only thing you're doing to MakeMusic is costing them the postage. David, You are almost certainly correct. Though it is _possible_ that someone at Coda might be informed that upgrade notices are coming back with specific refusals. I thought this view implicit in my original post. Regardless, I consider this (_very_minor_) act of Civil Disobedience a useful, and worthwhile, ploy in the campaign to eventually eradicate phone-home copy-protection. It is one I employ against other agencies, for other reasons, as well Like I said: It's their dime. If they're going to offer it, I'll spend it to give them my opinion. If they don't read it, that's their problem. Best wishes, -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 12 Jul 2005 at 0:08, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 11 Jul 2005, at 8:07 PM, Ken Durling wrote: I'm confused by this - isn't AIFF the mac equivalent of a .WAV file? MIDI files contain no timbral information, so wouldn't there have to be an intermediate sound card or sampler for the MIDI file to drive to produce an AIFF? QuickTime contains a General MIDI soundfont -- QuickTime Musical Instruments. It's what Mac users without an external MIDI device used for Finale playback before the introduction of Finale's own soundfont. iTunes on Windows uses your hardware soundcard for outputting MIDI files to wave formats. Unfortunately, on my system, it chooses the dreadful Microsoft soft synthesizer instead of my far superior Turtle Beach soundcard's hardware synthesizer. The results are unusable, but it's doing it without using Quicktime instruments, because I have never installed them (well, I installed them once; they were so bad, I thereafter never installed them on any further PCs of mine). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 7:41 AM -0400 7/10/05, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 01:52 PM 7/10/05 +1000, Rocky Road wrote: You might be a different Dennis but I'm sure there was a Dennis on this forum swearing he'd never upgrade software that used Challenge-Response copy protection. Isn't Sibelius CP even more Draconian? He was a different Dennis. I'm that Dennis. And here's what I wrote on July 5 in response to David Fenton: Yes, David, you've caught me in a distasteful ethical compromise, and it embarrasses me even now. I mentioned this on the list back on May 5. I had capitulated back in April, when Finale 2005 was required by a client. The client paid for it, so it was kind of a backroom deal. I still resent it and feel slimy about it, and do work first in 2003 so I always have a recoverable copy. But I have been bought. (The other) Dennis It was also this Dennis, and I am still using Finale 2003. It works okay for what I need, and I don't do phone-home copy protection. I do however send back those little postage-paid upgrade offers every time I get one, with a note saying that I'd love to upgrade as soon as they get rid of the stupid tethered-copy-protection. I figure that since it's their dime I can make the effort to beat my favorite dead horse. Best wishes, -=-Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 11 Jul 2005 at 2:01, Dennis W. Manasco wrote: I do however send back those little postage-paid upgrade offers every time I get one, with a note saying that I'd love to upgrade as soon as they get rid of the stupid tethered-copy-protection. I figure that since it's their dime I can make the effort to beat my favorite dead horse. Unfortunately, chances are good that no one at MakeMusic ever sees these, as these likely go to a contracted outside organzation for processing. The only thing you're doing to MakeMusic is costing them the postage. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Hi! Am 05.07.2005 um 21:00 schrieb Darcy James Argue: I believe you could convert MIDI files to AIFF files using QuickTime Pro Yes, you can. -- or even (I think) iTunes. Never tried that. Gerhard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Am 05.07.2005 um 23:20 schrieb Darcy James Argue: Going over the promo videos for Sib 4, one other thing I notice is that Sibelius has finally fixed what was one of the most frustrating and infuriating aspects of its UI back when I was learning to use it -- it now has an insertion point. That's also true for Sibelius 3. Gerhard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
I'm confused by this - isn't AIFF the mac equivalent of a .WAV file? MIDI files contain no timbral information, so wouldn't there have to be an intermediate sound card or sampler for the MIDI file to drive to produce an AIFF? Ken Hi! Am 05.07.2005 um 21:00 schrieb Darcy James Argue: I believe you could convert MIDI files to AIFF files using QuickTime Pro Yes, you can. -- or even (I think) iTunes. Never tried that. Gerhard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 11 Jul 2005, at 8:07 PM, Ken Durling wrote: I'm confused by this - isn't AIFF the mac equivalent of a .WAV file? MIDI files contain no timbral information, so wouldn't there have to be an intermediate sound card or sampler for the MIDI file to drive to produce an AIFF? Ken, QuickTime contains a General MIDI soundfont -- QuickTime Musical Instruments. It's what Mac users without an external MIDI device used for Finale playback before the introduction of Finale's own soundfont. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 01:52 PM 7/10/05 +1000, Rocky Road wrote: You might be a different Dennis but I'm sure there was a Dennis on this forum swearing he'd never upgrade software that used Challenge-Response copy protection. Isn't Sibelius CP even more Draconian? He was a different Dennis. I'm that Dennis. And here's what I wrote on July 5 in response to David Fenton: Yes, David, you've caught me in a distasteful ethical compromise, and it embarrasses me even now. I mentioned this on the list back on May 5. I had capitulated back in April, when Finale 2005 was required by a client. The client paid for it, so it was kind of a backroom deal. I still resent it and feel slimy about it, and do work first in 2003 so I always have a recoverable copy. But I have been bought. (The other) Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Rocky Road wrote: Not to mention EPS export, broken for years and years, and probably never to be fixed. I must say I'm very tempted to switch, at least for some projects. It's also quite amazing that many of us got more attention from Sibelius than from MM. Dennis You might be a different Dennis but I'm sure there was a Dennis on this forum swearing he'd never upgrade software that used Challenge-Response copy protection. Isn't Sibelius CP even more Draconian? (Does it allow more than one copy?) Sibelius copy protection is the same sort as Finale's (even if not the same actual software code) -- Sibelius now allows 2 installations (so you can have it on your desktop and your notebook computers) and it's the same sort of system where you install the software and it links up with the Sibelius mothership and gets an authorization code which allows it to function. And when I needed to get back one of my authorized installs due to a hard-disk problem they were very helpful and quick to resolve my problem. Finale's people were equally helpful and quick. But it's not more draconian than Finale's system. Version 1 is what you may be remembering, and that relied on a floppy disk to transfer saving/printing capability from one computer to another. They abandoned that, thankfully! -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Not to mention EPS export, broken for years and years, and probably never to be fixed. I must say I'm very tempted to switch, at least for some projects. It's also quite amazing that many of us got more attention from Sibelius than from MM. Dennis You might be a different Dennis but I'm sure there was a Dennis on this forum swearing he'd never upgrade software that used Challenge-Response copy protection. Isn't Sibelius CP even more Draconian? (Does it allow more than one copy?) -- Rocky Road - in Oz Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny, the last Battlestar, Galactica, leads a ragtag, fugitive fleet, on a lonely quest, for a shining planet known as Earth. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Tyler wrote: Now if you want to get specific, the reason other people wanted it was because those other people saw a point in it. And quite frankly so did the people at MakeMusic. But when it comes right down to it, the reason to include the feature stems first from the fact that people WANT it. I requested a mixer in the next version of Finale, but mainly because I was sick of having to create all these non-printing expressions to try to be able to hear certain parts in the score for checking purposes that were rendered quite inaudible by the out-of-tune, unbalanced solo violin patches. So, therefore, to correct an inadequacy in Finale in the first place. Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times do composers click play as opposed to extracting parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as commonly as some people here believe. It wasn't a frequent topic on the tech support phones or in e-mails. It's not commonly discussed on the forum. When you think about it, if you combine the number of composers who don't get their works performed with the number who are composing for something other than an ensemble (piano, and piano with voice are pretty common), I'm pretty sure you're looking at over 50%. And as for people who commonly work with extraction, that must be a lot fewer. Maybe it is - I suppose Makemusic would have those figures from those surveys we have to complete. But the 'part extractors' I would suggest are extremely important in terms of generally occupying high places in places like education, and who will undoubtedly therefore install Sibelius rather than Finale in institutions because of its perceived better features in this area. After all, when it comes down to it, if the *notation* features are better in a *notation* application, then surely that's more desirable? Matthew -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.9/42 - Release Date: 6/07/2005 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote: Tyler wrote: Now if you want to get specific, the reason other people wanted it was because those other people saw a point in it. And quite frankly so did the people at MakeMusic. But when it comes right down to it, the reason to include the feature stems first from the fact that people WANT it. I requested a mixer in the next version of Finale, but mainly because I was sick of having to create all these non-printing expressions to try to be able to hear certain parts in the score for checking purposes that were rendered quite inaudible by the out-of-tune, unbalanced solo violin patches. So, therefore, to correct an inadequacy in Finale in the first place. The differences in patch volumes are the fault of the soundfonts, or the module or whatever device is actually producing the sounds, not the fault of Finale's notational capability or its playback capability. The mixer just means they'll have even less reason to normalize the patches in their soundfont or to ensure that GPO or other Kontakt-based sample libraries normalize their patches. While it will help solve our immediate problems of trying to get uniform playback volumes, MakeMusic can use it as a means NOT to have to pay extra for better sample programming. The inadequacy has never been in Finale, the notation program. Only in whatever devices we choose to play the files through, whether Finale's provided soundfont, our own soundfonts or soundcards, Kontakt or other soft-synth sample-playback software. Just a kludge to obviate further responsibility on the corporate end of things. [snip] As for the linked parts/score, someone brought up educational usage as an area where it wouldn't be important -- for theory/harmony classes perhaps, but certainly for arranging, orchestrating or composing classes it would be a welcome addition. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Tyler Turner schrieb: If 90% of Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal compositions performed by real people, don't you think something like GPO will be more attractive to them than linked parts? That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Tyler Turner schrieb: Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times do composers click play as opposed to extracting parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as commonly as some people here believe. It wasn't a frequent topic on the tech support phones or in e-mails. It's not commonly discussed on the forum. When you think about it, if you combine the number of composers who don't get their works performed with the number who are composing for something other than an ensemble (piano, and piano with voice are pretty common), I'm pretty sure you're looking at over 50%. And as for people who commonly work with extraction, that must be a lot fewer. A few points to be made here: 1) Sibelius already had better playback including a selection of sampled sounds and the Kontakt player in the last major update, which is a few years old if I am not mistaken. Finale is only catching up on this one. 2) I actually doubt very much that GPO is such a big selling point at all. Those who really depend on this kind of playback already have GPO. Yes they will get slightly better integration, but they will not get any benefit out of the included library. Those who haven't got GPO yet, probably don't give this much about it anyway. I joined the GPO group buy recently, because it meant getting GPO for half the money, but frankly, I haven't used it much at all, simply because playback is not very important to me. Nice to have, but I'd much rather save some time on part extraction. 3) The real point is the direction Finale is heading. Is it going to be purely for some kind of Mass Market (which doesn't exist in this area anyway) or is it going to be a professional engraving tool. Problem is, Sibelius has already taken away a lot of the mass market and I feel Finale is trying to get it back. It won't (because a. Sibelius has managed to get much better product identification than Finale, and b. it is known to be easier to learn - and it is, I am afraid). Instead Finale is soon going to loose the pro market as well, unless some of the decisions are going to be made into a more pro tool. That means bug fixes, engraving improvements, design improvements (including linked score and parts). Anything that saves time. Did I mention bug fixes? Too much time has been spent on completely useless features. MicNotator? Auto-Harmonizer? And on buggy, or only partly functional features. Engraver slurs are great, but they also introduced unreliability in terms of output, requiring all sorts of work arounds which cost time and are frustrating. (On these lines, has anyone ever got proper results out of the smart page turn plugin? I know our hero Tobias programmed it, but for me this is another feature that simply never worked. Perhaps I am wrong.) I am also wondering whether the yearly upgrade cycle is turning out to have disadvantages. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Johannes Gebauer wrote: Tyler Turner schrieb: Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times do composers click play as opposed to extracting parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as commonly as some people here believe. It wasn't a frequent topic on the tech support phones or in e-mails. It's not commonly discussed on the forum. When you think about it, if you combine the number of composers who don't get their works performed with the number who are composing for something other than an ensemble (piano, and piano with voice are pretty common), I'm pretty sure you're looking at over 50%. And as for people who commonly work with extraction, that must be a lot fewer. A few points to be made here: 1) Sibelius already had better playback including a selection of sampled sounds and the Kontakt player in the last major update, which is a few years old if I am not mistaken. Finale is only catching up on this one. 2) I actually doubt very much that GPO is such a big selling point at all. Those who really depend on this kind of playback already have GPO. Yes they will get slightly better integration, but they will not get any benefit out of the included library. Those who haven't got GPO yet, probably don't give this much about it anyway. I joined the GPO group buy recently, because it meant getting GPO for half the money, but frankly, I haven't used it much at all, simply because playback is not very important to me. Nice to have, but I'd much rather save some time on part extraction. 3) The real point is the direction Finale is heading. Is it going to be purely for some kind of Mass Market (which doesn't exist in this area anyway) or is it going to be a professional engraving tool. Problem is, Sibelius has already taken away a lot of the mass market and I feel Finale is trying to get it back. It won't (because a. Sibelius has managed to get much better product identification than Finale, and b. it is known to be easier to learn - and it is, I am afraid). Instead Finale is soon going to loose the pro market as well, unless some of the decisions are going to be made into a more pro tool. That means bug fixes, engraving improvements, design improvements (including linked score and parts). Anything that saves time. Did I mention bug fixes? [snip] One other thing Sibelius is light-years ahead of Finale is that version 3 came with the option to save a file as version 2. Version 4 comes with the ability to save as version 3 or version 2. That means that Sibelius users can share files among themselves as long as they are using versions 2, 3, or 4 (that goes back 4 years, I believe) without resorting to the finale kludges of saving as ETF file and trying to copy a more recent header section to it, or saving in MusicXML and then importing into an older version. Finale has a LOT of catching up to do, if it hopes to regain the lead in the notation software market! GPO integration isn't enough to do it by itself, and that really seems to be the single big improvement in Finale2006 (besides the Textured Paper, that is.) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Johannes Gebauer wrote: Tyler Turner schrieb: If 90% of Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal compositions performed by real people, don't you think something like GPO will be more attractive to them than linked parts? That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%. Johannes Yes, most people who use computer notation software for their own personal compositions rather than sharing with other musicians for performance having already jumped to Sibelius or simply started out with Sibelius due to its better out-of-the-box ease-of-use reputation. :-) Sibelius claims 25,000 Finale users have switched. That's not entirely true, since some of us (I speak for myself) have not switched but merely added Sibelius to our engraving arsenal. So I account for at least one who is still using both, but predominantly using Finale. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Tyler Turner schrieb: If 90% of Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal compositions performed by real people, don't you think something like GPO will be more attractive to them than linked parts? Thinking about this theory even more, why on earth any of these composers who want playback more than output chose Finale in the first place, is am complete mystery to me. And I doubt that even with the latest improvements Finale is going to be the right choice. What they want is a sequencer with notation capability. Not an engraving tool with limited output capability. If Finale is now going to compete with Sequencers I may very well leave the ship quite soon. In fact I may do that anyway, unless we get linked parts and score. I just spent several days revising score, parts and my intermediate score file. It was a nightmare. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Tyler Turner schrieb: If 90% of Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal compositions performed by real people, don't you think something like GPO will be more attractive to them than linked parts? Johannes Gebauer wrote: That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%. I don't know what percentage I'm in, but I use Finale only for my compositions, I get my compositions performed by real humans, I welcome the better user interface for playback, AND I want dynamically linked parts and scores. Why can't we have it all? dhbailey wrote: The inadequacy has never been in Finale, the notation program. Only in whatever devices we choose to play the files through, whether Finale's provided soundfont, our own soundfonts or soundcards, Kontakt or other soft-synth sample-playback software. Just a kludge to obviate further responsibility on the corporate end of things. I must disagree here. When you are combining different synths and samplers, soundfonts, patches, and samples from myriad sources, it is unrealistic to think that there is a perfect level that works for all your sounds for all situations. It's not the evil corporations, it's the nature of sound and the unlimited ways of combining it. In other words, you always have to mix at some level. I'm glad that we will get easier control of this within Finale itself. -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Johannes Gebauer wrote: That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%. I just took a quick mental survey of all the people I personally know who use Finale. Out of the 25 or so users, only 2 use it exclusively for engraving/copying and don't care about playback. The rest are composers who want decent looking scores AND decent MIDI playback/input. That's always been the beauty and promise of Finale since the beginning. Is my informal survey so off from the norm? -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Randolph Peters wrote: Johannes Gebauer wrote: That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%. I just took a quick mental survey of all the people I personally know who use Finale. Out of the 25 or so users, only 2 use it exclusively for engraving/copying and don't care about playback. The rest are composers who want decent looking scores AND decent MIDI playback/input. That's always been the beauty and promise of Finale since the beginning. Is my informal survey so off from the norm? Informal surveys are going to have the problem of skewed samples. I can't think of *anyone* I know who uses either Sibelius and Finale, and isn't mostly or exclusively concerned with engraving. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Randolph Peters schrieb: Johannes Gebauer wrote: That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%. I don't know what percentage I'm in, but I use Finale only for my compositions, I get my compositions performed by real humans, I welcome the better user interface for playback, AND I want dynamically linked parts and scores. Why can't we have it all? Well, at least on the surface, you can. Get Sibelius 4... I know this is going to be jumped upon, but that is what the situation presents itself as at the moment. Yes, I am sure Sibelius has other problems, but it does have a lot of strong points, too. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 7/6/05, Tyler Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times do composers click play as opposed to extracting parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as commonly as some people here believe. I've been following this discussion of linked parts versus extracted parts with puzzlement, and wondered where (or whether) to step in with my comments. Before I started using Finale 6-7 years ago I had worked as a programmer for a major wordprocessor (one that is now virtually defunct, thanks to the world's dominant software company ... but I digress.) I have always thought that it is particularly awkward to have to extract parts, yielding multiple instances of the same document. In the word processor world, we had a single document with multiple views. (It is kind of like an HTML editor that lets you look at the same document either showing the HTML tags or hiding them, or ... [pick a variation]) It has always seemed like it would be much more natural if finale would treat the displaying/printing of individual parts (or subsets of parts) as variant views of the one document that constitutes the composition. Yes, there might be issues if you decide (for example) to insert a measure while editing the violin part (in the violin part-only view)--but it would be predictable: when you change to the full score view, you would see a new blank measure in all the other parts (for example) ... and could fill up the other staves. I'm not a big Sibelius fan (I purchased a switchover license several years ago, but coutinue to buy each annual Finale upgrade, and have done no serious composing with Sibelius) and don't know how they have implemented their linked parts, but extracting parts from the the main score is a real drag. A document/view model would seem to make much more sense. My two cents. (I am still an ardent fan of Finale, BTW! ... and have already paid for the 2006 upgrade.) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Johannes Gebauer wrote: Tyler Turner schrieb: If 90% of Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal compositions performed by real people, don't you think something like GPO will be more attractive to them than linked parts? That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%. Johannes Yes, most people who use computer notation software for their own personal compositions rather than sharing with other musicians for performance having already jumped to Sibelius or simply started out with Sibelius due to its better out-of-the-box ease-of-use reputation. :-) Sibelius claims 25,000 Finale users have switched. That's not entirely true, since some of us (I speak for myself) have not switched but merely added Sibelius to our engraving arsenal. So I account for at least one who is still using both, but predominantly using Finale. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, I'm quite sure that a large majority of Finale users use Finale at least in part for their own personal compositions. I can draw this conclusion from my own experience dealing with a sampling of thousands of Finale users as well as other sources. Compositional use of Finale is the rule rather than the exception. Finale absolutely needs to maintain its success among composers, and playback plays a key role. Addressing the point in another post about the inclusion of GPO being a catch up to Sibelius Kontakt implementation - this isn't the case. Finale was already pretty much on par. The sounds weren't quite up to Sibelius', but Sibelius only includes 20 sounds, and only 8 can be used simultaneously. That's not enough for any decent size ensemble. Finale GPO gives 100 sounds and 64 can be used simultaneously. Have those who want the better sounds of GPO already purchased GPO? Most haven't. This isn't the way Finale's market works. Users by in large are looking for the 1 program solution where everything just works. They don't want to mess with MIDI controllers. They certainly don't want to try to link together multiple applications. Even selecting instruments manually is too much to expect from the average user. The new notation software company Virtuoso Works, makers of Notion, correctly identified the need for a notation program with outstanding playback and no hassles. What they didn't understand was that they weren't alone, and so now they are left with an application with playback inferior to Finale's and notation capabilities not much better than NotePad's. I can't tell you how many times I answered questions such as Can I make this sound any better? by explaining the options of using sample software or purchasing hardware synths, sound cards, etc. When I explained these options to people, nearly all of them said, oh well, I guess my existing sounds will be good enough. Most people who want better sounds are not willing to go to great lengths to get it. But as Finale 2004 proved, they will upgrade their Finale to get it. If it just works, they're interested. Tyler __ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Tyler Turner schrieb: Addressing the point in another post about the inclusion of GPO being a catch up to Sibelius Kontakt implementation - this isn't the case. Finale was already pretty much on par. The sounds weren't quite up to Sibelius', but Sibelius only includes 20 sounds, and only 8 can be used simultaneously. That's not enough for any decent size ensemble. Finale GPO gives 100 sounds and 64 can be used simultaneously. Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. (Should we talk about marketing blurp?) Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. What's chewing all the CPU? In Sonar, I can run 64-plus tracks of soundfonts on the Athlon 1.4GHz system I built 4 years ago -- using regular WMD drivers, not even ASIO. What's so intensive about GPO vs. any other sample-based software? Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:42 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. What's chewing all the CPU? In Sonar, I can run 64-plus tracks of soundfonts on the Athlon 1.4GHz system I built 4 years ago -- using regular WMD drivers, not even ASIO. What's so intensive about GPO vs. any other sample-based software? Native Instruments's sh-tty Mac implementation, basically. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On Jul 7, 2005, at 5:55 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:Thinking about this theory even more, why on earth any of these composers who want playback more than output chose Finale in the first place, is am complete mystery to me. And I doubt that even with the latest improvements Finale is going to be the right choice. What they want is a sequencer with notation capability. Not an engraving tool with limited output capability. If Finale is now going to compete with Sequencers I may very well leave the ship quite soon. In fact I may do that anyway, unless we get linked parts and score. I just spent several days revising score, parts and my intermediate score file. It was a nightmare. If Digital Performer had decent notation I would never have bought Finale. I've always wanted one program to do it all, but have always been told that that'll never happen. This requires me to do my work twice--in Finale for printout, and in Digital Performer for a decent sounding mockup. I used to start in DP, and since opening a MIDI file in Finale required too much tweaking, I had to start from scratch to recreate the same file in Finale. Then I discovered that if I start in Finale, and then open the MIDI file in DP, there's a lot less tweaking to do to get decent playback. And Human Playback helps to get a less mechanical-sounding mockup. Now with GPO, it's almost possible for me to get what I need in Finale alone, although I'm a little disappointed in GPO (at $139 I can't really complain--you get what you pay for). I can see that the addition of a mixer in Finale will be helpful in getting my mockup made. But Finale has a long way to go before it can even begin to compete with DP or Logic. And judging from what I've read here, that's not the path most listers want to see MM take.I'm surprised that this dynamic part linking issue is suddenly such a big deal to everybody. Like I said in an earlier post, MOTU's Mosaic had that feature, and if MOTU hadn't completely abandoned that program, I would never have bought Finale. I've always missed this feature since coming to Finale. But until this announcement from Sibelius, I don't remember anybody making much of a fuss about dynamic parts on this list. Now all of a sudden almost everybody wants this feature, and claim to have wanted it all along. I'll tell you this. Since getting on the Finale bandwagon, I've tried to be a loyal user, resisting the urge to jump ship and go with Sibelius, even though I have clients who would like me to do so. But this dynamic parts feature is awfully appealing to me--enough so that I may just have to bite the bullet and make that jump to Sibelius.Lon Lon Price, Los Angeles [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hometown.aol.com/txstnr/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. What's chewing all the CPU? In Sonar, I can run 64-plus tracks of soundfonts on the Athlon 1.4GHz system I built 4 years ago -- using regular WMD drivers, not even ASIO. What's so intensive about GPO vs. any other sample-based software? Dennis It might be Finale. I've noticed that during playback, Finale eats 99% of CPU cycles, even on my 3.2 GHz P4. That makes it hard to even loop back and record the audio from external MIDI devices if Finale is generating the playback. Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
--- Johannes Gebauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tyler Turner schrieb: Addressing the point in another post about the inclusion of GPO being a catch up to Sibelius Kontakt implementation - this isn't the case. Finale was already pretty much on par. The sounds weren't quite up to Sibelius', but Sibelius only includes 20 sounds, and only 8 can be used simultaneously. That's not enough for any decent size ensemble. Finale GPO gives 100 sounds and 64 can be used simultaneously. Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. (Should we talk about marketing blurp?) Johannes -- I can't speak for Macs, but I think most people running PC's will get decent performance as long as they have enough RAM. Granted I have a reasonably fast PC (a 3.2GHz notebook), but I'm not getting much in the way of problems in running files with over 40 instruments loaded. I haven't been held back by performance issues on my $1300 computer, so I imagine my success won't be too uncommon. Tyler __ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Lee, It's not Finale. It's the Native Instruments Kontakt Player. The Mac version sucks. Results are equally awful playing back GPO instruments from a sequencer. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:50 PM, Lee Actor wrote: At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. What's chewing all the CPU? In Sonar, I can run 64-plus tracks of soundfonts on the Athlon 1.4GHz system I built 4 years ago -- using regular WMD drivers, not even ASIO. What's so intensive about GPO vs. any other sample-based software? Dennis It might be Finale. I've noticed that during playback, Finale eats 99% of CPU cycles, even on my 3.2 GHz P4. That makes it hard to even loop back and record the audio from external MIDI devices if Finale is generating the playback. Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Tyler Turner wrote: No, I'm quite sure that a large majority of Finale users use Finale at least in part for their own personal compositions. I can draw this conclusion from my own experience dealing with a sampling of thousands of Finale users as well as other sources. Compositional use of Finale is the rule rather than the exception. This is true. Finale absolutely needs to maintain its success among composers, and playback plays a key role. Addressing the point in another post about the inclusion of GPO being a catch up to Sibelius Kontakt implementation - this isn't the case. Finale was already pretty much on par. The sounds weren't quite up to Sibelius', but Sibelius only includes 20 sounds, and only 8 can be used simultaneously. That's not enough for any decent size ensemble. Finale GPO gives 100 sounds and 64 can be used simultaneously. The sounds included with previous Finale updates were laughable. Seriously. They were sad. Have those who want the better sounds of GPO already purchased GPO? Most haven't. This isn't the way Finale's market works. Users by in large are looking for the 1 program solution where everything just works. They don't want to mess with MIDI controllers. They certainly don't want to try to link together multiple applications. Even selecting instruments manually is too much to expect from the average user. The new notation software company Virtuoso Works, makers of Notion, correctly identified the need for a notation program with outstanding playback and no hassles. What they didn't understand was that they weren't alone, and so now they are left with an application with playback inferior to Finale's and notation capabilities not much better than NotePad's. I can't tell you how many times I answered questions such as Can I make this sound any better? by explaining the options of using sample software or purchasing hardware synths, sound cards, etc. When I explained these options to people, nearly all of them said, oh well, I guess my existing sounds will be good enough. Most people who want better sounds are not willing to go to great lengths to get it. But as Finale 2004 proved, they will upgrade their Finale to get it. If it just works, they're interested. On the flip side of this, there are people, including myself, who have very functional computers, which simply cannot use GPO effectively. My 2.5Mhz Athlon PC drops out after about 6 instruments, and the 933Mhz G4 I have does even fewer. The people I know who use Finale still use it on older machines. They are going to get this update and go how comes it doesn't work?. Instead of bundling GPO, why not offer like a huge discount on a Good Midi sound device. Like what PG Music does. Offer up a Roland Sound Canvas synth at a discounted price. If you TAKE OUT the GPO aspect, the update is more like a bug fix. Hardly anything to write home about. Unless you include the textured paper feature. Woohoo. Oh, and the handbell notation. Yeah, I'm going to use that a lot... ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
dhbailey schrieb: Now that we have seen how Sibelius has done it (very elegantly from what I've seen of the demo) and we know it can be done, we're clamoring for it more. Although I agree, Robert P. has got me thinking. I do fear that not only is this going to be a really major change in programme design (especially for spacing), it will also screw most plugins, probably. I am not saying it can't be done. However, I am beginning to think that it won't happen, simply because yearly programme updates will not allow it. And when it does come it will probably break most plugins. However, here is an idea: How about inventing a Project File architecture, where the linking is done via a project file which doesn't include any actual notation data, but just keeps track of all linked score and part files. When you need to update the notation, just do it in the score file, and the relevant data will be shoved into the part files, while maintaining the file independence. Most Audio apps work like this. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
I don't know how efficient Finale playback is on Macs without GPO, but on PCs it's horrendous. I use Finale to drive external MIDI devices, which you wouldn't think would very strenuous, but I can't even reliably record the audio output from my mixer in another app at the same time, on a very fast PC. Something is definitely out of whack there. -Lee Lee, It's not Finale. It's the Native Instruments Kontakt Player. The Mac version sucks. Results are equally awful playing back GPO instruments from a sequencer. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:50 PM, Lee Actor wrote: At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. What's chewing all the CPU? In Sonar, I can run 64-plus tracks of soundfonts on the Athlon 1.4GHz system I built 4 years ago -- using regular WMD drivers, not even ASIO. What's so intensive about GPO vs. any other sample-based software? Dennis It might be Finale. I've noticed that during playback, Finale eats 99% of CPU cycles, even on my 3.2 GHz P4. That makes it hard to even loop back and record the audio from external MIDI devices if Finale is generating the playback. Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 7 Jul 2005 at 19:48, Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote: Tyler wrote: Now if you want to get specific, the reason other people wanted it was because those other people saw a point in it. And quite frankly so did the people at MakeMusic. But when it comes right down to it, the reason to include the feature stems first from the fact that people WANT it. I requested a mixer in the next version of Finale, but mainly because I was sick of having to create all these non-printing expressions to try to be able to hear certain parts in the score for checking purposes that were rendered quite inaudible by the out-of-tune, unbalanced solo violin patches. So, therefore, to correct an inadequacy in Finale in the first place. My version of Finale has no violin patches. I use the ones provided in the wavetable synthesizer on my sound card. But if you're talking about Finale 2004 and later, then, yes, you had violin patches from Finale (the Finale soundfont), and, as I've said repeatedly, the point at which Finale was providing the instruments was the point at which Finale should have had a mixer. Of course, if it's a basic balance problem, I don't see why you couldn't just up the base velocity of all the notes in the weak part, or put a volume control expression at the beginning of all the other parts to set their volume lower than that of weak sample. Of course, if Human Playback gets involved or you're using lots of swells and diminuendos, you'd have to adjust those to account for this. I'm not sure how a mixer makes this any easier -- you have to do exactly the same things, just with a different UI. I, for one, have never found the concept of presenting a picture of a mixing board onscreen to be a particularly intuitive interface for this kind of thing, even though it's pretty much a universal aspect of all sequencers. I don't think of volume as controlled with knobs. I think of it as a graph, with a line that rises and falls over time. If I could draw that line, that would, to me, be the most intuitive UI for controlling volume/balance. But that's just me, I guess. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 7 Jul 2005 at 11:46, Lon Price wrote: I'm surprised that this dynamic part linking issue is suddenly such a big deal to everybody. Like I said in an earlier post, MOTU's Mosaic had that feature, and if MOTU hadn't completely abandoned that program, I would never have bought Finale. I've always missed this feature since coming to Finale. But until this announcement from Sibelius, I don't remember anybody making much of a fuss about dynamic parts on this list. Now all of a sudden almost everybody wants this feature, and claim to have wanted it all along. I'll tell you this. Since getting on the Finale bandwagon, I've tried to be a loyal user, resisting the urge to jump ship and go with Sibelius, even though I have clients who would like me to do so. But this dynamic parts feature is awfully appealing to me--enough so that I may just have to bite the bullet and make that jump to Sibelius. You may not remember it, but *I* do. There have been at least a couple go-rounds of the discussion, hashing out how it should work and what the problems are. The Sibelius implementation pretty much follows exactly what was determined to be the best design here on this list. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the discussion here was a starting point (not the only one, though) for their implementation. Of course, from my point of view, dynamic parts in Finale is only a small part of my overall critique of the design of Finale, a critique I've been making on this list as long as I've been posting here. I've called for dynamic parts, cascading templates and subclassing of expressions/articulations. All of them have one thing in common: the elimination of the proliferation of copies of similar objects in favor of a single parent object with additional instances have their own properties. I have been saying this for years, that Finale needs to change basic things about the way it works in order to be easier to use. Dynamic parts would probably be the easiest to implement because of the existing Special Part Extraction as a starting point. But I still think that *all* of them need to be addressed if Finale is to survive (i.e., attract new users who can't be bothered with tweaking numeric settings in dialog boxes -- EVPUs? What's that). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 7 Jul 2005 at 11:50, Lee Actor wrote: At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC. What's chewing all the CPU? In Sonar, I can run 64-plus tracks of soundfonts on the Athlon 1.4GHz system I built 4 years ago -- using regular WMD drivers, not even ASIO. What's so intensive about GPO vs. any other sample-based software? It might be Finale. I've noticed that during playback, Finale eats 99% of CPU cycles, even on my 3.2 GHz P4. That makes it hard to even loop back and record the audio from external MIDI devices if Finale is generating the playback. That report of who is using CPU cycles may be misleading, depending on how the tool you're using reports, and in how Finale launches the processes necessary to do the playback. If a process is launched by another process, it may be considered a child thread, even though it's an independent program. That means that Finale could actually be using 1% of CPU, and the child process that plays the samples could be using the other 98%. In that case, it's not an inefficiency in Finale that is to blame for the heavy CPU usage, but an inefficiency in a process outside Finale that Finale depends on to get the job done, but which is counted as one of Finale's subthreads because it was launched by Finale. So, don't be so ready to blame Finale for the problem. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 7 Jul 2005 at 22:15, Johannes Gebauer wrote: However, here is an idea: How about inventing a Project File architecture, where the linking is done via a project file which doesn't include any actual notation data, but just keeps track of all linked score and part files. When you need to update the notation, just do it in the score file, and the relevant data will be shoved into the part files, while maintaining the file independence. Most Audio apps work like this. That leaves it open to damage via intervention in the file system. There really isn't much difference between using a project file with multiple file system objects and restructuring the Finale file format to include a project file header structure, and individual file structures within a single document. Given that the parts would only need to store the delta (i.e., the changes) from the score, the data structures would be relatively small. That's vastly different from having separate files in parts, because those would still be Finale files, and would need to have all the original data. Linking that duplicate data back to the score file would be far, far, far harder than implementing it all within a separate file. Take it from a database programmer that the kind of denormalization (i.e., storing duplicate data of things that are really the same entity) you're suggesting is precisely why Finale has all sorts of problems already. Your suggestion would exercerbate this existing design problem, whereas dynamic parts as delta from the score stored within a single file could be the beginning of the restructuring of all sorts of parts of Finale to use cascading structures that eliminate duplication. This includes areas like expressions/articulations and but could also be extended to cascading templates and libraries (though there you might be ending up with duplication of data and external files, as is the case with, say, MS Word's cascading document templates). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Darcy James Argue schrieb: Also, you'll notice that one of the most accomplished engravers on this list, Johannes Gebauer, now uses GPO -- and in fact was recently complaining that GPO-Finale integration in 2k5 leaves a lot to be desired, and requires far too much hand-tweaking. I happen to agree -- hell, I'm sure anyone who uses GPO and Finale agrees -- and I'm very much looking forward to the improvements Fin2006 promises in this area. Sorry, Darcy, but I am not with you on this one. I would have given anything for linked score and parts, and I actually find GPO is a gimmick and couldn't have cared less had it not been included with Finale. Personally I am disappointed by the lack of truely important engraving improvements in Finale 2k6, judging from the blurp. Now, linked parts and score, that would have been an amazing idea. Wait, hasn't someone else announced it? I really didn't need the mixer, in fact I don't really see the amazing benefit of it. It doesn't improve my engraving speed at all. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Well, I think the GPO thing is a good idea, however, it assumes that you have a computer that is capable of running it. So, for me, it's useless on my 933Mhz G4, which runs Finale just fine if it is to a Midi device. I like the sounds with GPO, it is just unrealistic to bill it as a feature when few can really use it properly. I'd love to see the Linked Parts thing with Finale. Oh well. I'm happy with the program now. A mixer? Well, I could do with out. Though it would be nice to use when checking stuff in Finale via playback. Finale still is NOT a sequencer.I'll stick to DP 4.52 for now. On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Sorry, Darcy, but I am not with you on this one. I would have given anything for linked score and parts, and I actually find GPO is a gimmick and couldn't have cared less had it not been included with Finale. Personally I am disappointed by the lack of truely important engraving improvements in Finale 2k6, judging from the blurp. Now, linked parts and score, that would have been an amazing idea. Wait, hasn't someone else announced it? I really didn't need the mixer, in fact I don't really see the amazing benefit of it. It doesn't improve my engraving speed at all. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 06 Jul 2005, at 2:48 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Sorry, Darcy, but I am not with you on this one. I would have given anything for linked score and parts, and I actually find GPO is a gimmick and couldn't have cared less had it not been included with Finale. But you bought it! I understand you're somewhat disappointed with the results (especially when it comes to solo strings), but If you really didn't care about playback at all, why did you buy GPO? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Darcy Argue wrote: BUT... having said all that, it's still a little galling to see Sibelius stealing our thunder like that. I think we came up with an excellent plan for dynamic score-part linking in Finale (one that, I should add, looks very very similar to the one Sibelius implemented), and it is disappointing that Sibelius got there first. Darcy, you must be aware that Sibelius read this list and the Makemusic forums. (I know this from first-hand experience, trust me). So all of our discussions, while fruitful, in fact probably did a lot of work for Sibelius. Hence the similarities... Mind you it's a public list, so they're perfectly entitled to do so. Makemusic in their wisdom don't officially monitor this list AFAIK. Allen Fisher is here, but not in an official capacity I believe? With the linked-parts-score feature together with the video functions, and the lack of SMPTE in Finale, Sibelius is going to take over film music composing. There do seem many interesting features in the new Sibelius. For example, I'm interested to see how the new Helsinki font shapes up in comparison to the more traditional Opus font as well as Maestro. However unless they've integrated Scroll View into Sibelius, made articulations draggable, added handles to slurs and other items, add a graphics creator/editor and release a free Notepad version of Sibelius for my students, (amongst many other things) then I will for the time being stay put. The hours of frustration from these missing/malfunctioning items will not quite compensate for saved hours in linking revisions in parts to score, as tempting as it seems: though it is getting much closer... Finale is going to have to lift its game. Matthew -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.9/42 - Release Date: 6/07/2005 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 06 Jul 2005, at 4:43 AM, Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote: Darcy Argue wrote: BUT... having said all that, it's still a little galling to see Sibelius stealing our thunder like that. I think we came up with an excellent plan for dynamic score-part linking in Finale (one that, I should add, looks very very similar to the one Sibelius implemented), and it is disappointing that Sibelius got there first. Darcy, you must be aware that Sibelius read this list and the Makemusic forums. (I know this from first-hand experience, trust me). Of course -- in fact, I suspect I had the same first-hand experience with Sibelius staff as you did. So all of our discussions, while fruitful, in fact probably did a lot of work for Sibelius. Hence the similarities... Mind you it's a public list, so they're perfectly entitled to do so. Well, sure. I'm not saying Sibelius did anything wrong, quite the contrary. On one level, I'm very excited to see Sibelius implement this feature, and may even purchase Sib 4 so I can try it out. It also makes it much more likely that Finale will implement Dynamic Parts now that the competition has it. On the other level, it *is* very frustrating to know that Finale had the opportunity to introduce this exciting feature before Sibelius, but they blew it. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Darcy James Argue wrote: On 06 Jul 2005, at 4:43 AM, Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote: Darcy Argue wrote: BUT... having said all that, it's still a little galling to see Sibelius stealing our thunder like that. I think we came up with an excellent plan for dynamic score-part linking in Finale (one that, I should add, looks very very similar to the one Sibelius implemented), and it is disappointing that Sibelius got there first. Darcy, you must be aware that Sibelius read this list and the Makemusic forums. (I know this from first-hand experience, trust me). Of course -- in fact, I suspect I had the same first-hand experience with Sibelius staff as you did. So all of our discussions, while fruitful, in fact probably did a lot of work for Sibelius. Hence the similarities... Mind you it's a public list, so they're perfectly entitled to do so. Well, sure. I'm not saying Sibelius did anything wrong, quite the contrary. On one level, I'm very excited to see Sibelius implement this feature, and may even purchase Sib 4 so I can try it out. It also makes it much more likely that Finale will implement Dynamic Parts now that the competition has it. On the other level, it *is* very frustrating to know that Finale had the opportunity to introduce this exciting feature before Sibelius, but they blew it. That Sibelius is actively searching out the frustrations and disappointments of the users of its main competition speaks very highly of Sibelius' commitment to providing the answers to everybody's problems. That Finale was close to implementing the linked score/parts but decided not to (was that when they implemented micnotator instead? when they incorporated Band-in-a-Box harmonizers? MiBac ryhthm generator?) makes the fact that Sibelius has succeeded to the level it has succeeded even more galling to those of us who have been using Finale for a long time, providing it's annual cash-flow with our support of it's annual upgrades. Why isn't Finale out there actively monitoring our frustrations, and even monitoring the Sibelius lists to pick up on Sibelius users' frustrations and desires so that Finale can actually be first to market with features, instead of the current Sibelius did it so I suppose we have to do it mentality? It certainly seems that MakeMusic has adopted the attitude represented so well by Lily Tomlin on Laugh-In all those years ago when she portrayed a telephone operator: We don't have to care, we're the phone company! Finale's future growth depends on increased sales (as does Sibelius' future growth) -- and much of that increase in sales comes from word-of-mouth praise or condemnation from current users. I would bet that many of us on this list get questions from others who are interested in using a computer notation product, concerning which product to buy, how hard it is to learn to use, what sort of output does it produce and other such questions. Many people interested in something new (whether a new car, a new instrument, a new couch, a new TV, new computer, anything that costs a considerable amount of money or involving new technology with which they aren't yet familiar) ask others who have gone before. I know I get lots of questions concerning notation programs, from my private music students, fellow musicians and sometimes from strangers who know someone who knows that I use computers for engraving music and were referred to me. So I don't understand why it isn't in Finale's best interests to keep its ears to the ground, to actively monitor this list and the yahoogroup list (Sibelius has a publicly announced employee on the Sibelius group at yahoogroups, and he answers a ton of questions and deals with user frustration in a polite, efficient manner that gives those of us on that list confidence that Sibelius actually cares about us. I get no such impression from Finale, where tech support replies range anywhere from the gee, nobody else has complained, send us detailed outline of how you found that bug and we might add it to our list sort of reply to we'll pass it on to our development team and if enough other users request it we will try to implement it sort of reply. Never have I received a Thank you for pointing this out. We are placing it on our list. Please continue to keep us informed of features you would like added or problems you have encountered. Instead, tech support seems to view my messages as nuisances to be avoided rather than opportunities to improve company-client relations. As to Tyler's point in another message that most people don't ever encounter most bugs and so the development team doesn't place a high priority on fixing them, in any other industry the same is true. I find it sad that a company such as MakeMusic can take the attitude most people won't notice it so we won't do anything. Why not take the attitude if it's a bug, it'll be on the list to
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
I didn't say I didn't care about playback, but linked score and parts would have been 100x more interesting to me. And I couldn't care less about the mixer. Johannes Darcy James Argue schrieb: On 06 Jul 2005, at 2:48 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Sorry, Darcy, but I am not with you on this one. I would have given anything for linked score and parts, and I actually find GPO is a gimmick and couldn't have cared less had it not been included with Finale. But you bought it! I understand you're somewhat disappointed with the results (especially when it comes to solo strings), but If you really didn't care about playback at all, why did you buy GPO? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 11:48 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote: Now, linked parts and score, that would have been an amazing idea. Wait, hasn't someone else announced it? Didn't Igor have something like this feature? Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:35 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Lots of people on this list have expressed an interest in GPO, but are still sitting on the fence, or waiting to see what Fin2006 brings, or waiting until they upgrade their machines, or waiting to see what the sample GPO instruments included in Fin2k6 sound like, etc. That would be me. However FWIW I've decided to give 2K6 a miss because the playback improvements, though certainly worthwhile, are not IMO worth the upgrade cost--even when the improvements introduced in 2K5 (which I also skipped) are thrown in. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
When Sibelius contacted me RE what features I would like to see in Sib 4, I asked for the solutions to my two pet peeves: The ability to apply a single bracket type at multiple horizontal positions in a single system, and the ability to break secondary beams at will. Anybody know if either of these actually made it into Sib 4? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 5 Jul 2005 at 22:31, Ken Durling wrote: OK, just looked at the Finale Insert measure dialogue, (as per page 14/6 in the F2K manual) and it's really no different from the Sibelius CreateBarOther (or Single multiple times) which allows you to insert any number of measures of the time signature or in a different one. Am I missing something? Can you insert notes into the middle of a measure that already has some notes in it? Is there a cursor that tells you where notes will be inserted? I played with the Sibelius download and found it extremely frustrating. It was like Finale Simple entry from 5 versions back. Maybe I was doing it wrong. It wasn't the note entry that was frustrating but the horridly mouse-based methods for applying articulations/expressions. And then the inability to format the layout of the score after I put in the notes (how could I know what adjustments I needed to make to layout until *after* I'd put the content into the file?), and I just gave up. For all those who claim the Sibelius UI is so intuitive, I'd like to hear an explanation. Was I unable to find the methods for accomplishing basic things (i.e., bad UI), or is Sibelius simply unable to do the things I was puzzled by (i.e., badly designed application)? -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
--- Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 5, 2005, at 11:07 PM, Tyler Turner wrote: Discussing the merits of the feature from a functionality standpoint isn't really what's needed here. The justification for the feature was that people wanted it. It was in high demand both before and after sounds were included with Finale. Regards, Tyler AM I BELIEVING WHAT I JUST READ?! This astounding comment goes a long way to explaining some bewildering decisions about the features and implementation thereof in Finale recently, if indeed the comment reflects MakeMusic's attitude. (Tyler, you ARE affiliated with MM, aren't you?) Basically what you are saying is that it doesn't matter how, or even if, a feature works, as long as you can say We put it in there, now stop asking for it. Sheesh. Christopher No, I'm not affiliated with MakeMusic. I'm a former employee - I left a year and a half ago. I do participate in the beta testing. Secondly, you have misunderstood me by quite a bit. My point wasn't that MakeMusic would stick a feature in that didn't work. It was that they could include a feature if it was in high demand, whether or not the merits to the feature were obvious to them or everyone else. Keep this in perspective. We were talking about the mixer feature, and in particular whether or not it made sense to include it back in the days before Finale included its own sounds. It was stated that there was no use for the feature because sounds were not included. For a while this point was argued back and forth. Finally I just basically said, look, whether or not we personally each see use for the feature is not the point - the point is that other people wanted it. Now if you want to get specific, the reason other people wanted it was because those other people saw a point in it. And quite frankly so did the people at MakeMusic. But when it comes right down to it, the reason to include the feature stems first from the fact that people WANT it. A mixer that didn't work well wouldn't be what everyone WANTED, so that wouldn't have been MakeMusic's strategy. Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times do composers click play as opposed to extracting parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as commonly as some people here believe. It wasn't a frequent topic on the tech support phones or in e-mails. It's not commonly discussed on the forum. When you think about it, if you combine the number of composers who don't get their works performed with the number who are composing for something other than an ensemble (piano, and piano with voice are pretty common), I'm pretty sure you're looking at over 50%. And as for people who commonly work with extraction, that must be a lot fewer. Please don't misunderstand! I'm not saying that linked parts isn't an extremely valuable feature. I just believe that when it comes right down to it, the fact that MakeMusic has just given Finale far and away the best playback is NOT evidence that they are not in tune with their users. I'd be amazed to discover that the number of people who will benefit regularly from linked parts will approach the number that benefit regularly from GPO and HP. After all, even though this is notation software, it's ultimately still about the music (audio), and if it wasn't for the audio people wouldn't be messing with the notation. If 90% of Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal compositions performed by real people, don't you think something like GPO will be more attractive to them than linked parts? I hope that clears up what I've said. Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 5 Jul 2005 at 19:35, Darcy James Argue wrote: Actually, I believe the addition of a mixer has been the most-requested new Finale feature request for many years now. It's ridiculous for you to claim there isn't a demand for it just because you don't need it. A mixer in Finale makes absolutely no sense unless Finale is shipping with its own sounds for playback, so, until Finale 2004, there was absolutely no logical reason for it. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
David, People have been requesting a mixer for use with the QuickTime Instruments (and, later sound fonts) since Finale starting supporting QuickTime instruments and sound fonts. Why is that illogical? The need for some kind of mixer is the same regardless of whether you're using Coda's instruments or the QuickTime instruments. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 05 Jul 2005, at 8:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 5 Jul 2005 at 19:35, Darcy James Argue wrote: Actually, I believe the addition of a mixer has been the most-requested new Finale feature request for many years now. It's ridiculous for you to claim there isn't a demand for it just because you don't need it. A mixer in Finale makes absolutely no sense unless Finale is shipping with its own sounds for playback, so, until Finale 2004, there was absolutely no logical reason for it. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 5 Jul 2005 at 20:14, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 05 Jul 2005, at 8:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 5 Jul 2005 at 19:35, Darcy James Argue wrote: Actually, I believe the addition of a mixer has been the most-requested new Finale feature request for many years now. It's ridiculous for you to claim there isn't a demand for it just because you don't need it. A mixer in Finale makes absolutely no sense unless Finale is shipping with its own sounds for playback, so, until Finale 2004, there was absolutely no logical reason for it. People have been requesting a mixer for use with the QuickTime Instruments (and, later sound fonts) since Finale starting supporting QuickTime instruments and sound fonts. Why is that illogical? The need for some kind of mixer is the same regardless of whether you're using Coda's instruments or the QuickTime instruments. Because you're mixing for your own synthesizer, and unless you're recording to some wave-based format, the people listening to the results won't hear anything close to the same thing. And the Quicktime instruments have always been absolutely dreadful, at least whenever I've auditioned them. I don't even bother to download them when I upgrade Quicktime, because I've already got far better sounds in my dedicated sound card. And each version of Quicktime instruments is different, so even mixing for Quicktime isn't going to come out the same for every listener. Thus, it only makes sense to have finishing tools in Finale when you're mixing to a fixed output, a wave-based file, rather than a MIDI file. So, until Finale included playback instruments, it made no sense to have a mixer in Finale. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 05 Jul 2005, at 8:54 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 5 Jul 2005 at 20:42, Darcy James Argue wrote: While I never actually tried to do this myself, my recollection is that it was possible to convert a Finale-generated QuickTime MIDI file to audio. Using Finale? How? No, using QuickTime. But without a mixer *in Finale*, it was impossible to set appropriate levels for the individual instruments. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 5 Jul 2005 at 21:31, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 05 Jul 2005, at 8:54 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 5 Jul 2005 at 20:42, Darcy James Argue wrote: While I never actually tried to do this myself, my recollection is that it was possible to convert a Finale-generated QuickTime MIDI file to audio. Using Finale? How? No, using QuickTime. . . . You're saying that Quicktime could output to a wave format? . . . But without a mixer *in Finale*, it was impossible to set appropriate levels for the individual instruments. Impossible? How so? If Finale could play back through Quicktime musical instruments, why couldn't you then set balances and edit continuous data in Finale? Or, open your MIDI file in a real sequencer and tweak it to sound good on Quicktime musical instruments, before using Quicktime to create the wave output? -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 05 Jul 2005, at 10:27 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Er, you could *not* do it *before* the Finale sound font existed. That's entirely my point -- before that point, there was no justification for having a mixer inside Finale. Once that was provided for playback along with Finale (and, I'd argue, Human Playback was included), a mixer became pretty important, because Finale *was* your playback mechanism (I'm perhaps wrongly assuming that you can't play back a MIDI with the Finale soundfont from a program outside Finale). I believe you *can* play back a MIDI file with the Finale soundfont from a separate sequencer. It's a standard soundfont and I think you can use it in any situation you'd use any other soundfont. From the user's standpoint, the only thing that's changed is who supplies the soundfont -- Apple (in the case of QuickTime instruments) or Coda. And a mixer is a desirable thing to have regardless of who supplies the soundfont. I agree that recent changes to Finale's playback (especially Human Playback) have made a mixer even *more* desireable, but I have no reason to doubt the Coda employees (and ex-employees) who have told me that there has been overwhelming demand for a mixer for several years now. (Also, I think you can save MIDI files as uncompressed audio [WAV or AIFF] in iTunes if you adjust your default import options.) - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
--- David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Er, you could *not* do it *before* the Finale sound font existed. That's entirely my point -- before that point, there was no justification for having a mixer inside Finale. . Discussing the merits of the feature from a functionality standpoint isn't really what's needed here. The justification for the feature was that people wanted it. It was in high demand both before and after sounds were included with Finale. Regards, Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 5 Jul 2005 at 22:43, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 05 Jul 2005, at 10:27 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Er, you could *not* do it *before* the Finale sound font existed. That's entirely my point -- before that point, there was no justification for having a mixer inside Finale. Once that was provided for playback along with Finale (and, I'd argue, Human Playback was included), a mixer became pretty important, because Finale *was* your playback mechanism (I'm perhaps wrongly assuming that you can't play back a MIDI with the Finale soundfont from a program outside Finale). I believe you *can* play back a MIDI file with the Finale soundfont from a separate sequencer. It's a standard soundfont and I think you can use it in any situation you'd use any other soundfont. Er, what format is it in? What software synthesizers can play back using it? From the user's standpoint, the only thing that's changed is who supplies the soundfont -- Apple (in the case of QuickTime instruments) or Coda. . . . This just doesn't seem right to me. There has to be a synthesiver t load the soundfont into, since a soundfont is only a description of the waveforms involved, not the mechanism for playing it back. Quicktime instruments don't play back without Quicktime, so I'd assume that the Finale Soundfont can't be played back by anything but Finale, unless it's in a compatible format that other software synthesizers support. . . . And a mixer is a desirable thing to have regardless of who supplies the soundfont. . . I think your Mac orientation has caused you to have an incomplete map of the parts of the process. On Windows, it's historically been hardware that supplies the sound, an add-on piece of hardware originally, but in recent years, every PC has some kind of hardware synthesizer in it (poor as most of them may be). As CPU cycles have become cheaper and RAM more plentiful, there is more use of software synthesizers, but none of the simple ones are even close to my 7-year-old Turtle Beach sound card in terms of quality of sound. Now, shortly after I bought that, the whole landscape changed, and hardware soundcards stopped having the wavetables permantently burned into ROM chips on the card, and instead had the ability to load a set of wavetables from files (soundfonts). Unfortunately, Turtle Beach chose the format that didn't get widespread support, so my soundcard's capabilities in this regard are basically useless. GPO, on the other hand, takes that a step further and eliminates the hardware soundcard from the synthesizing equation entirely (though the D/A converter may very well be on a dedicated sound card or dedicated sound chip on the motherboard). The Finale Soundfont, from my understanding, is similar to GPO in that Finale sends output to a software synthesizer (provided with Finale) that uses the Finale Soundfont for its sounds. I don't know if the software synthesizer that comes with Finale can be used outside of Finale, or if the Finale soundfont is in a format that can be loaded into other software synthesizers that use the same format for their soundfonts. . . . I agree that recent changes to Finale's playback (especially Human Playback) have made a mixer even *more* desireable, but I have no reason to doubt the Coda employees (and ex-employees) who have told me that there has been overwhelming demand for a mixer for several years now. Well, I still say that until the point that Human Playback and the Finale soundfont were added, there was really no justification for a mixer in Finale. Once those were there, the mixer was, in my opinion, essential. (Also, I think you can save MIDI files as uncompressed audio [WAV or AIFF] in iTunes if you adjust your default import options.) You're right about that. I didn't see that. I don't like the iTunes terminology, as I'm not really using iTunes the way it was intended to be used. I'm not importing anything into iTunes, I'm just using iTunes to manage my files and play them back. So, because of that, the options dialog didn't make much sense to me. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 05 Jul 2005, at 11:10 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 5 Jul 2005 at 22:43, Darcy James Argue wrote: I believe you *can* play back a MIDI file with the Finale soundfont from a separate sequencer. It's a standard soundfont and I think you can use it in any situation you'd use any other soundfont. Er, what format is it in? It's a standard .sf2 soundfont file. What software synthesizers can play back using it? Any software that reads standard sounfont files. Quicktime instruments don't play back without Quicktime, so I'd assume that the Finale Soundfont can't be played back by anything but Finale, unless it's in a compatible format that other software synthesizers support. It is, unless it contains some sort of Finale-specific hack that artificially limits its use outside of Finale. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 11:10 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote: On 5 Jul 2005 at 22:43, Darcy James Argue wrote: I believe you *can* play back a MIDI file with the Finale soundfont from a separate sequencer. It's a standard soundfont and I think you can use it in any situation you'd use any other soundfont. Er, what format is it in? What software synthesizers can play back using it? It's standard sf2. You can use an external device. I copied it over to live along with the others that fill my F: drive, so I can use the Finale soundfont in Sonar. Finale's soundfont has a nice solo flute. :) Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
Discussing the merits of the feature from a functionality standpoint isn't really what's needed here. The justification for the feature was that people wanted it. What is discouraging is that it apparently is the only justification that is needed. This kind of thinking has seemed to increasingly pervade Coda in recent years. Development seems to have been turned over entirely to marketing and the lowest common denominator of demand. There is no longer an independent standard of excellence toward which to strive and of which to be proud. It is the equivalent of politicians giving up principles by which to govern in favor of making decisions according to the polls. Of course, in business there must be fiscal responsibility, but that is still possible without abandoning a vision of excellence entirely. For me the evidence of this trend is in the lists of out-and-out bugs, at least some of which must have rather simple solutions, but which are passed over in favor of flashy and demanded features. (my most often-cursed example is the rubber handles on expressions in staffs that have been reduced. This one was fixed at one time only to re-emerge.) The software writers working on new features know very well that the old bugs are still there. They have daily reminders that quality control is not valued as highly as it might be. This seems to me to be a recipe for more sloppiness and the introduction of more errors with an eventual slide into mediocrity or worse. Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 09:17 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote: Going over the promo videos for Sib 4, one other thing I notice is that Sibelius has finally fixed what was one of the most frustrating and infuriating aspects of its UI back when I was learning to use it -- it now has an insertion point. Darcy - Could you say more? I haven't run into this yet, nor have I missed it obviously! ;-) .What is it? Ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
OK, just looked at the Finale Insert measure dialogue, (as per page 14/6 in the F2K manual) and it's really no different from the Sibelius CreateBarOther (or Single multiple times) which allows you to insert any number of measures of the time signature or in a different one. Am I missing something? ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 10:31 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote: OK, just looked at the Finale Insert measure dialogue, (as per page 14/6 in the F2K manual) and it's really no different from the Sibelius CreateBarOther (or Single multiple times) which allows you to insert any number of measures of the time signature or in a different one. Am I missing something? Meant to say Fin 2k2... ken ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:54 AM, Tyler Turner wrote: Are you sure this is in there? I've been playing with the demo and can't find a way to insert. If you're talking about that cursor, I think that's for playback only. Guys, guys guys, I'm talking about the INSERTION POINT. During Step-Time MIDI entry. You know, the blue vertical line that tells you whether when you press a key on the MIDI keyboard, you will *replace* the currently highlighted note, or create a new note *following* the currently highlighted note. Now, taking a look at the Sib3 demo, I see this is actually not a new feature -- it was included in Sib3, so that may have been where the confusion came in. However, I learned on Sib 1.4, and in that version there was no insertion point. I found that to be insanely frustrating. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
--- Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, just looked at the Finale Insert measure dialogue, (as per page 14/6 in the F2K manual) and it's really no different from the Sibelius CreateBarOther (or Single multiple times) which allows you to insert any number of measures of the time signature or in a different one. Am I missing something? ken No, I don't think you're missing anything. I was just mistaken - Sibelius can insert measures. What I believe it can't do is insert notes within a measure. Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
