Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
Hello Dennis! Am 02.02.2011 um 03:16 schrieb Dennis Bathory-Kitsz: On Tue, February 1, 2011 2:58 pm, Gerhard Torges wrote: Then the examples on the website are probably not done with the software. :-D The examples on the website were done with Graphire and they came packaged as samples with the software. I am not at all familiar with Graphire Music Press. My comment was intended to be a sarcastic remark on the general topic of advertising vs. reality. They were done by a composer/engraver who is now living as a monk and no longer uses technology. Now that's an interesting story! Where can I read more about that? Gerhard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
Actually on the Mac (Finale 2010), just 4 on its own within the selection tool does the job. No modifier needed. On 2/02/11 6:20 PM, Jari Williamsson wrote: On 2011-02-02 05:04, Raymond Horton wrote: There's no tool called the MassMover Tool anymore and 4 (without modifier key) isn't used for spacing. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ 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] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 1 Feb 2011, at 23:09, David W. Fenton wrote: What about Windows emulation on a Mac? There are a number of options there, in fact. I did try. The Windows version had its bugs and there were so many things to iron out that I made a decision to put my time into Finale rather than emulators. I'm sure that it could be made to work well. I got away with using Igor professionally for far longer than I should have after it died. Like others here, I live in my notation program and I was beginning to hate the printing workarounds more than I hated Finale.. I hate it less now! Steve P. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
About as modal as could be! A tie-in with the Graphire monk here I think ;-) Steve P. On 2 Feb 2011, at 04:04, Raymond Horton wrote: OK, youse guys has lost me. Is Finale modal or non-modal? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
I've always wondered why lines are so thin in Finale. I couldn't imagine anyone using them without thickening them up. Staff lines, ledger lines, note stems, bar lines, ..., ... Steve P. On 2 Feb 2011, at 06:26, Jari Williamsson wrote: MO, what you're talking about is based on very old Finale versions. Sure, someone might need thicker lines for his/her particular printer and someone might need tighter vertical positioning in some of the expression categories, but generally the defaults in the different Document Styles are pretty good nowadays. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2011-02-02 12:01, Steve Parker wrote: I've always wondered why lines are so thin in Finale. I couldn't imagine anyone using them without thickening them up. Staff lines, ledger lines, note stems, bar lines, ..., ... For me it's printer-related. On one of my printers (both are 1200 DPI lasers) the defaults are perfect, on the other model they are way too thin. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Spacing shortcut (was: Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale)
On 2011-02-02 11:05, Matthew Hindson (gmail) wrote: Actually on the Mac (Finale 2010), just 4 on its own within the selection tool does the job. No modifier needed. Yes, you're correct and the modifier version works as well: With the Selection Tool, select the measures you want to affect, then press 4 on your computer keyboard. In all tools that allow regional selection, press Ctrl+4. (WinFin2011 docs) Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
This is interesting. I've not seen any difference in thickness between numerous printers, laser and inkjet. I've had one or two dodgy things back from print companies but only so bad that it is a definite cock-up. Surely 1200dpi is resolution enough to get exact and predictable output? Steve P. On 2 Feb 2011, at 11:16, Jari Williamsson wrote: On 2011-02-02 12:01, Steve Parker wrote: I've always wondered why lines are so thin in Finale. I couldn't imagine anyone using them without thickening them up. Staff lines, ledger lines, note stems, bar lines, ..., ... For me it's printer-related. On one of my printers (both are 1200 DPI lasers) the defaults are perfect, on the other model they are way too thin. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2/2/2011 6:01 AM, Steve Parker wrote: I've always wondered why lines are so thin in Finale. I couldn't imagine anyone using them without thickening them up. Staff lines, ledger lines, note stems, bar lines, ..., ... Interestingly enough, in all the music I've produced with Finale I've never changed any of the line thicknesses and haven't gotten any complaints -- even in my published flute choir arrangements which have sold fairly well over the past 10 years. So imagine away -- you've found at least one person who hasn't messed with the line thicknesses. Of course a lot of the problem with line thicknesses in any program lies in the printing process -- some printers seem to print the same data thicker than others, so it might just be that my printers have produced very acceptable output while your printers have printed the lines thinner than you like. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2/2/2011 6:42 AM, dc wrote: Steve Parker écrit: Surely 1200dpi is resolution enough to get exact and predictable output? It certainly should be, or there's something wrong with it. That means a stem with Finale's default thickness has a width of about ten dots - in other words, there shouldn't be a visible difference between two printers. It seems to me that different printers are built with differing impressions of how to define 1200dpi -- is that in a square (1200x1200), or is that across a single line of dots, 1200 of them across but with a smaller number up and down in a vertical inch? And one more thing which seems to make a difference -- are the 1200 dots packed shoulder to shoulder right across, or do some manufacturers, in an effort to claim longer toner output actually make their dots a bit smaller so there's a tiny bit of space between the dots, still providing 1200 of them to an inch, but just using smaller dots? As Inigo Montoya said so appropriately in Princess Bride: I don't think that means what you think that means. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On Wed, February 2, 2011 2:58 am, Gerhard Torges wrote: They were done by a composer/engraver who is now living as a monk and no longer uses technology. Now that's an interesting story! Where can I read more about that? You can't; he's a very private person. He wrote the Graphire documentation, and he and I co-authored the last version. He was the earliest Graphire user (the first one after the author), could do anything with the program, and drove the improvements from a composer's point of view. The curved staff lines you see in the Graphire demo pages were easy to make with Graphire; although I did them for a Christian Wolff score in Finale, it was a real pain because Finale always got in its own way. To me, Graphire's menu system was way superior to Finale or Sibelius. You always knew where you were, what behavior was in play, and all the settings affecting the selected object or tool. (I presented a Finale version mock-up several years ago on this list that elminated some 80% of the current dialog boxes, but it wasn't met with much enthusiasm.) I had always hoped Finale would buy the Graphire GUI and 'metrical engine'. The programmer was a graphics designer as well as a musician, and he designed that gorgeous Revere font (that I've adapted for my own Finale scores). Revere had zero dimension embedded in the font metrics, and its placement was controlled by the program. Very nice trick. The site is still alive, and there's another guy acting as a middle-man for the remaining users. I think there's still the hope someone will buy it and overhaul it for modern Mac OSes (it still works fine on my Windows system). Sold at a competitive price (say $100 a copy) it would really be a fine addition to engravers' toolkits. I know the author was very concerned about piracy, which is why his original version included a dongle -- you could buy a very expensive unlimited version or a by-the-hour version. I think that fear was the program's real downfall. A number of Hollywood orchestrators would swear by Graphire for how quickly they could get flawless parts out to musicians; the private discussion list is still active. Anyway, I didn't adapt well myself to how Graphire worked because I was a Finale user for 8 years by the time I started trying Graphire; I rarely used it for my own scores because it had no Midi output for doing demos. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On Wed, February 2, 2011 6:17 am, David H. Bailey wrote: Interestingly enough, in all the music I've produced with Finale I've never changed any of the line thicknesses and haven't gotten any complaints I changed mine some time ago. I've tried to thicken many of the lines. They're not as 'modern' but they are more legible to me. I measured the line thicknesses in the publications that I find most legible, and tried to match those. Here's a fairly uncluttered from late last year: http://maltedmedia.com/people/bathory/music/pdf/binnen.pdf Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Line thickness (was: Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale)
On 2011-02-02 14:45, dc wrote: Interesting sample. The stems seem to be thinner than the staff lines. And staff line seems to be identical to barline width? As I understand it, there are at least 2 schools regarding barlines: One with thicker barlines than staff lines, and one with same width. For parts (but not for scores) I often use thicker barlines than staff lines. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
That's not too far away from my defaults: http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/01/22/string-quartet-i-vi/string-quartet-i-vi.pdf Steve P. http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/01/22/string-quartet-i-vi/string-quartet-i-vi.pdf On 2 Feb 2011, at 13:10, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: On Wed, February 2, 2011 6:17 am, David H. Bailey wrote: Interestingly enough, in all the music I've produced with Finale I've never changed any of the line thicknesses and haven't gotten any complaints I changed mine some time ago. I've tried to thicken many of the lines. They're not as 'modern' but they are more legible to me. I measured the line thicknesses in the publications that I find most legible, and tried to match those. Here's a fairly uncluttered from late last year: http://maltedmedia.com/people/bathory/music/pdf/binnen.pdf Dennis ___ 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] MuseScore vs. Finale
On Wed, February 2, 2011 9:44 am, Steve Parker wrote: That's not too far away from my defaults: http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/01/22/string-quartet-i-vi/string-quartet-i-vi.pdf Close, yes. Your staff lines are thinner than mine, and you make a distinction between staff and barlines. And interestingly, your stems are thicker than mine. We all have our own legibility criteria! D ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On Wed, February 2, 2011 8:45 am, dc wrote: Interesting sample. The stems seem to be thinner than the staff lines. What publications did you measure as reference? Reprints, which I find more legible than some primary printings (don't know the proper word in music, nor how many stages they go through with older music). I think there's a thickening when going to the photo offset from original plates, but I don't know. I have Peters and Schirmer which are really legible, and a couple of re-reprint Kalmus. Those latter have too-thick barlines, though. The UE scores have thin staff lines, the kind I don't like. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: Line thickness (was: Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale)
On Wed, February 2, 2011 9:42 am, Jari Williamsson wrote: And staff line seems to be identical to barline width? Yes. As I understand it, there are at least 2 schools regarding barlines: One with thicker barlines than staff lines, and one with same width. For parts (but not for scores) I often use thicker barlines than staff lines. What's the reason for the thicker barlines school? Or for either one, for that matter? Is there some sort of legibility issue of one vs. the other? I have some astigmatism, so all kinds of lines bother me and I tend to choose defaults that are easiest for me to read. I figure if I can read it, anybody can. :) Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
I still can't get my head round this.. Surely at worst the difference should half a dot or so? To look significantly different we must be talking about an error of a couple of pixels at least on lines? Or where am I up a creek? My output has been consistent from HP to Samsung to Lexmark, inkjet to laser and consistent with printshops, unless something has been broken. Steve P. On 2 Feb 2011, at 12:42, David H. Bailey wrote: t seems to me that different printers are built with differing impressions of how to define 1200dpi -- is that in a square (1200x1200), or is that across a single line of dots, 1200 of them across but with a smaller number up and down in a vertical inch? And one more thing which seems to make a difference -- are the 1200 dots packed shoulder to shoulder right across, or do some manufacturers, in an effort to claim longer toner output actually make their dots a bit smaller so there's a tiny bit of space between the dots, still providing 1200 of them to an inch, but just using smaller dots? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
Jari is absolutely right, of course. I am using Finale Windows 2011(b or c, whatever, I am on a smartphone right now). The new-improved massmover is now called something else, and the respacing command is, I believe, alt-4. As I said, it's routine for me. As I was typing the first post I realized I could probably eliminate the staff tool alt-4 command some where. But I don't mess under the hood that much. RBH On Feb 2, 2011 2:22 AM, Jari Williamsson jari.williams...@mailbox.swipnet.se wrote: ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
Yes. I like the thicker staff lines, but also want the barlines to be thicker so my staff lines are a compromise. I definitely like the stems thicker than the staff lines too, although it is a tightrope getting them to look ok with the flags. If you zoom in wildly you can see that there is a problem still, but one I can live with at any normal size. Steve P. On 2 Feb 2011, at 15:13, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: On Wed, February 2, 2011 9:44 am, Steve Parker wrote: That's not too far away from my defaults: http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/01/22/string-quartet-i-vi/string-quartet-i-vi.pdf Close, yes. Your staff lines are thinner than mine, and you make a distinction between staff and barlines. And interestingly, your stems are thicker than mine. We all have our own legibility criteria! D ___ 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: Line thickness (was: Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale)
My reason is that I don't want my bars to look like boxes, which they tend to if staff = bar lines. I like notes, stems and bar lines to be 'off' the page compared to the staff. Steve P. On 2 Feb 2011, at 15:22, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: What's the reason for the thicker barlines school? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
Yes, I would like exactly Dennis' staff lines, but can't make them work for me without silly barlines.. Steve P. On 2 Feb 2011, at 15:17, dc wrote: Except that on the subject of line thickness, you do the reverse: your stems are thicker than your staff lines. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2 Feb 2011 at 7:26, Jari Williamsson wrote: On 2011-02-02 00:07, David W. Fenton wrote: Finale's defaults have always been terrible, and no one who wants decent output uses the defaults for layout. The experienced Finale user can get excellent output, but at the cost of a pretty large investment in learning what to change from the way Finale sets things up by default. IMO, what you're talking about is based on very old Finale versions. Sure, someone might need thicker lines for his/her particular printer and someone might need tighter vertical positioning in some of the expression categories, but generally the defaults in the different Document Styles are pretty good nowadays. While it's true that I am using an old version of Finale, these are NOT the thing things I was thinking of. It's the kindergarten-sized default layouts that strike me as ridiculously bad. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2 Feb 2011 at 11:26, Steve Parker wrote: I've not seen any difference in thickness between numerous printers, laser and inkjet. I've had one or two dodgy things back from print companies but only so bad that it is a definite cock-up. Surely 1200dpi is resolution enough to get exact and predictable output? It's always been the case that different printers will produce different results. It's not because of print resolution, but because of different rendering engines. A PostScript printer will produce different output from the same Finale file than a PCL printer. A PCL 6 printer may produce different output than a PCL 5 printer. Certainly printers running in PCL emulation modes (i.e., non-HP printers) will often have imperfect implementations of PCL and not render exactly the same as a genuine HP printer running in the same PCL mode. I encountered this years and years ago when doing temp work, and found that the client's chosen logo font printed fine on HP printers, but the new Epson printer (running in PCL emulation mode) produced much thicker letters that rendered the logo font so completely differently that it was just completely unacceptable. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2 Feb 2011 at 12:16, Jari Williamsson wrote: On 2011-02-02 12:01, Steve Parker wrote: I've always wondered why lines are so thin in Finale. I couldn't imagine anyone using them without thickening them up. Staff lines, ledger lines, note stems, bar lines, ..., ... For me it's printer-related. On one of my printers (both are 1200 DPI lasers) the defaults are perfect, on the other model they are way too thin. My guess is that this is the source of the defaults, i.e., they were created in an age in which 300dpi printing was the norm, and thinner staff lines produced better output back then. But I'm just guessing -- the point is that a lot of the things wrong with Finale are entirely legacy issues that have simply not been revisited recently. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2 Feb 2011 at 7:40, dc wrote: Raymond Horton écrit: If anyone is still reading, have you figured out what I occasionally do wrong to cause this dreadful mass score change into a tenor sax band? I finally did - it happens when I type ctrl-A, 4 while the STAFF Tool is selected instead of the Mass Mover tool. So, context is indeed everything. Yikes! I don't count the times where I've hit 4 to respace after making a clef change - without realizing I forgot to change modes, and end up with everything in bass clef... Raymond mentioned hitting Ctrl-Z multiple times to undo the process. This seems like an obvious case where it would be much easier to use the Undo/Redo list, since each of the clef changes would show up as an individual row in the list, and you could then just revert to the change before the last of the clef changes in the list. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: Line thickness (was: Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale)
On 2 Feb 2011 at 16:48, dc wrote: Jari Williamsson écrit: As I understand it, there are at least 2 schools regarding barlines: One with thicker barlines than staff lines, and one with same width. For parts (but not for scores) I often use thicker barlines than staff lines. I recall reading somewhere (but where?) that it isn't good for legibility to have lines the same size in both directions. (My stems are thicker than my staff lines, and by barlines are a bit thicker than my stems.) This is exactly the kind of discussion that I think points out the difference between professional engravers and normal users. I consider myself a normal user (for some definition of normal, of course!) -- I don't tweak this kind of stuff. It looks just fine to me with Finale's defaults. I spend all my time tweaking layout to get legibility and page turns, not small-scale details like that. You guys probably consider these line-width issues to be important for legibility, but for me, as someone accustomed to playing from all kinds of sources, engraved, handwritten, etc., I'm much less concerned with that than with getting the stuff out quickly and readably, and laid out in a way that works well in performance. These kind of low-level defaults are exactly what I meant by my point about the different engraving programs. Sibelius requires less tweaking than Finale (though if you don't like Sibelius's defaults, it can be more difficult to overcome them than with Finale), so far as I can tell, because it just won't let you produce something stupid (as Finale does). On the other hand, the past three weeks, I've spent most of my time redoing things that were earlier correct. I'm really, really over the model of page layout where settings follow the system on the page, and are not connected to the actual music that's displayed in a particular system. I've spent SO MUCH time redoing lyrics vertical spacing and re-optimizing because I was tightening up layout to use fewer pages. Basically, I've concluded that you have to use Finale the way old-style engravers did -- decide on the layout on the front end, freeze it, and don't do any final adjustments until the page layout is completely frozen. I'd certainly like a better way of doing all of that, but I'm stuck with Finale since I don't have time to learn something else. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
Raymond mentioned that, also. Raymond Horton On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM, David W. Fenton lists.fin...@dfenton.com wrote: On 2 Feb 2011 at 7:40, dc wrote: Raymond Horton écrit: If anyone is still reading, have you figured out what I occasionally do wrong to cause this dreadful mass score change into a tenor sax band? I finally did - it happens when I type ctrl-A, 4 while the STAFF Tool is selected instead of the Mass Mover tool. So, context is indeed everything. Yikes! I don't count the times where I've hit 4 to respace after making a clef change - without realizing I forgot to change modes, and end up with everything in bass clef... Raymond mentioned hitting Ctrl-Z multiple times to undo the process. This seems like an obvious case where it would be much easier to use the Undo/Redo list, since each of the clef changes would show up as an individual row in the list, and you could then just revert to the change before the last of the clef changes in the list. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ 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] MuseScore vs. Finale
On Feb 2, 2011, at 11:57 AM, David W. Fenton wrote: While it's true that I am using an old version of Finale, I recently (november) upgraded from Finale 2002 to 2011. I am amazed and delighted at the ease of learning the new features and highly recommend that people who have not upgraded in a few years to do so. I have a mac, and the new program is seems very stable, and intuitive. I like it a lot, and was able to submit a large orchestral score, on time, using the new program. Just my 2 cents. timothy key price timothy.key.pr...@valley.net ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
My point was, it was a one or two keystroke screw-up, so it seems obvious, at first, that one or two Ctrl-Z's should undo it. Raymond Horton On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM, David W. Fenton lists.fin...@dfenton.com wrote: On 2 Feb 2011 at 7:40, dc wrote: Raymond Horton écrit: If anyone is still reading, have you figured out what I occasionally do wrong to cause this dreadful mass score change into a tenor sax band? I finally did - it happens when I type ctrl-A, 4 while the STAFF Tool is selected instead of the Mass Mover tool. So, context is indeed everything. Yikes! I don't count the times where I've hit 4 to respace after making a clef change - without realizing I forgot to change modes, and end up with everything in bass clef... Raymond mentioned hitting Ctrl-Z multiple times to undo the process. This seems like an obvious case where it would be much easier to use the Undo/Redo list, since each of the clef changes would show up as an individual row in the list, and you could then just revert to the change before the last of the clef changes in the list. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ 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] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2 Feb 2011 at 12:32, Raymond Horton wrote: My point was, it was a one or two keystroke screw-up, so it seems obvious, at first, that one or two Ctrl-Z's should undo it. While I understand that this is the mental map you have (and it's perfectly appropriate that you do!), Finale actually does multiple actions, one per staff, so you have to undo all of them. Nudges to items onscreen are the same. When I nudge something 10 times, to me, it's one move, but Finale records each one as a separate undoable step. Nine times out of 10, I don't need to undo the nudges individually, so it's annoying, and when I want to undo something like that, I use the Undo/Redo list, since I can easily select all of them to undo at once. This isn't that hard to deal with, and the fact that the undo list is more granular than the way I think of it is actually a feature, not a drawback, as it means that if I ever need to undo some of them, I can (though it almost never happens). -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: Line thickness (was: Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale)
Back when I was using Finale 98 and just beginning to use Sibelius I noticed that the Sibelius parts were more legible to my older eyes than the finale ones. The Finale looked great but the staff lines were so fine that I was having trouble distinguishing staff lines from ledger lines. I did not have the problem with Sibelius so I changed Finale's defaults to match Sibelius. Problem solved. The next version of Finale I bought (2001) was the first one to respond to Sibelius and the first thing I noticed was that the default staff lines were thicker. Just my experience for what it's worth. Richard Smith On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:42:06 +0100, Jari Williamsson jari.williams...@mailbox.swipnet.se wrote: On 2011-02-02 14:45, dc wrote: Interesting sample. The stems seem to be thinner than the staff lines. And staff line seems to be identical to barline width? As I understand it, there are at least 2 schools regarding barlines: One with thicker barlines than staff lines, and one with same width. For parts (but not for scores) I often use thicker barlines than staff lines. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ 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] MuseScore vs. Finale
And I would (controversially no doubt) put Igor Engraver above all of them.. Which is probably not good form on the FInale list ;-) The big caveat is that it's dead in the water.. Steve P. On 31 Jan 2011, at 23:52, Jari Williamsson wrote: On 2011-01-31 23:51, Matthew Hindson (gmail) wrote: - I think that it's the third most capable music notation application out there, behind Finale and Sibelius of course. For Mac perhaps. On the PC, I would put Score and Primus above it. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ 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] MuseScore vs. Finale
To continue this, I'd put Graphire Music Press up there for sheer looks out of the box, and for the fastest input via computer keyboard, with auto-update and reflow and objects that moved out of each others' way automatically. A beautiful but expensive piece of software. Of course, it's also dead -- dead for 10 years as of yesterday. Dennis On Tue, February 1, 2011 6:19 am, Steve Parker wrote: And I would (controversially no doubt) put Igor Engraver above all of them.. Which is probably not good form on the FInale list ;-) The big caveat is that it's dead in the water.. Steve P. On 31 Jan 2011, at 23:52, Jari Williamsson wrote: On 2011-01-31 23:51, Matthew Hindson (gmail) wrote: - I think that it's the third most capable music notation application out there, behind Finale and Sibelius of course. For Mac perhaps. On the PC, I would put Score and Primus above it. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
I would agree as well with putting Graphire up there. The closest immediate output (in quality) to something like a Peter's edition. Steve P. On 1 Feb 2011, at 12:15, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: To continue this, I'd put Graphire Music Press up there for sheer looks out of the box, and for the fastest input via computer keyboard, with auto- update and reflow and objects that moved out of each others' way automatically. A beautiful but expensive piece of software. Of course, it's also dead -- dead for 10 years as of yesterday. Dennis On Tue, February 1, 2011 6:19 am, Steve Parker wrote: And I would (controversially no doubt) put Igor Engraver above all of them.. Which is probably not good form on the FInale list ;-) The big caveat is that it's dead in the water.. Steve P. On 31 Jan 2011, at 23:52, Jari Williamsson wrote: On 2011-01-31 23:51, Matthew Hindson (gmail) wrote: - I think that it's the third most capable music notation application out there, behind Finale and Sibelius of course. For Mac perhaps. On the PC, I would put Score and Primus above it. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ 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] MuseScore vs. Finale
Interestingly, Together in Song, also known as the Australian Hymn Book II, was done with Graphire Music Press and it is without a doubt one of the poorest examples of music engraving I've seen published. Some errors were the fault of the engraver but still, quite a lot were the fault of the program. The examples on the Graphire website are very fine. Andrew On 1 February 2011 23:07, Steve Parker st...@pinkrat.co.uk wrote: I would agree as well with putting Graphire up there. The closest immediate output (in quality) to something like a Peter's edition. Steve P. On 1 Feb 2011, at 12:15, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: To continue this, I'd put Graphire Music Press up there for sheer looks out of the box, and for the fastest input via computer keyboard, with auto-update and reflow and objects that moved out of each others' way automatically. A beautiful but expensive piece of software. Of course, it's also dead -- dead for 10 years as of yesterday. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
I think if something looks bad it is always the fault of the copyist! I don't think a program will ever exist that will not need serious tweaking to every bar to produce publishable output. Improvements could be made still, for instance giving up white-space at the end of the bar if the last beat bar is full of hemi-demis! I think we're fairly close to decent auto-output for sessions, although I realise that still involves needed tweaks to layout that I'm excluding from my criteria arbitrarily. Steve P. On 1 Feb 2011, at 13:13, Andrew Moschou wrote: Interestingly, Together in Song, also known as the Australian Hymn Book II, was done with Graphire Music Press and it is without a doubt one of the poorest examples of music engraving I've seen published. Some errors were the fault of the engraver but still, quite a lot were the fault of the program. The examples on the Graphire website are very fine. Andrew On 1 February 2011 23:07, Steve Parker st...@pinkrat.co.uk wrote: I would agree as well with putting Graphire up there. The closest immediate output (in quality) to something like a Peter's edition. Steve P. On 1 Feb 2011, at 12:15, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: To continue this, I'd put Graphire Music Press up there for sheer looks out of the box, and for the fastest input via computer keyboard, with auto-update and reflow and objects that moved out of each others' way automatically. A beautiful but expensive piece of software. Of course, it's also dead -- dead for 10 years as of yesterday. Dennis ___ 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] MuseScore vs. Finale
What prevents me from using it is that it only works in Mac OS9 or the Classic environment so it is dependent on an old mac staying alive. That old mac requires a printer that has drivers for OS9. There are none so instead it requires a print to pdf kludge that worked erratically, often requiring one sheet at a time and multiple redos. I can still make it work but the time taken to get printed output is now longer than the extra time it takes to work in Finale. I can send you samples of mine. The big thing it does is that I can grab anything and move it at any point. It treated this sensibly so, for instance, I could grab a note with its stem and not just the stem nor the head. Secondly I can assign shortcuts to any expression or slur or shape or accent etc and enter them whilst entering notes. For example: input note, push A for accent, p for piano mark, f for a pause, and d to start a hairpin. All without changing tools or modes. I know little about it, but get the idea that mode-switching is now considered generally bad for workflow in computer apps. Thirdly it had linked parts from the start which had more sensible linkage than Finale has now. Fourthly ability to lock anything down no matter what I do around it. I can give quite a list. I can also give a (smaller for now..) list of things that I prefer about finale. Entering rhythmic values is a big one. Running on a mac that is not 7 years old is the biggest! Please just take this as an answer to the question not an anti-Finale rant.. The more help I receive from this list the more I enjoy Finale. Igor will still work on a windows machine. I considered it but changing platform to use dead and unsupported software seemed a whole lot less appetising than switching (back) to Finale. Steve P. On 1 Feb 2011, at 13:43, dc wrote: Steve Parker écrit: And I would (controversially no doubt) put Igor Engraver above all of them.. Which is probably not good form on the FInale list ;-) The big caveat is that it's dead in the water.. What prevents anyone from using dead software if that's what gives the best results? At least on a Windows machine, running 10-year-old software isn't a problem. Are there any samples to be seen anywhere of this top-notch software? My question is: what can Igor or Graphire do that Finale can't do? Or what can they do in an easier and/or quicker way? I remember asking the same question to a Score devotee towards the end of the last century and her only answer was that she preferred Score's algorithms. Dennis ___ 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] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2/1/2011 8:13 AM, Andrew Moschou wrote: Interestingly, Together in Song, also known as the Australian Hymn Book II, was done with Graphire Music Press and it is without a doubt one of the poorest examples of music engraving I've seen published. Some errors were the fault of the engraver but still, quite a lot were the fault of the program. The examples on the Graphire website are very fine. If the examples on the website are very fine and the output you see in the hymnal is poor, then how can you blame the program at all? Obviously somebody (the website designers) were able to get elegant output out of the program, so if somebody else can't, then it's the fault of the engraver, not the program. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2011-02-01 15:40, Steve Parker wrote: For example: input note, push A for accent, p for piano mark, f for a pause, and d to start a hairpin. All without changing tools or modes. IIRC, Igor supported slurs as well in entry mode? Articulations, Key/Time/Clef changes and Expressions at entry time are supported in Finale Simple Entry (but not hairpins and slurs). The versions I ran of Igor had very poor slurs. It was a pain to produce balanced slurs if there was colliding elements. And sometimes a really crazy anti-colliding system. The freezing of objects was absolutely essential feature to get Igor to produce any logical output IMO. But Igor had some nice ideas that are not yet available in the leading music notation packages today. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 1 Feb 2011, at 16:06, Jari Williamsson wrote: IIRC, Igor supported slurs as well in entry mode? Yes. Articulations, Key/Time/Clef changes and Expressions at entry time are supported in Finale Simple Entry (but not hairpins and slurs). I find simple entry in Finale or Igor unusable for proper work. The versions I ran of Igor had very poor slurs. It was a pain to produce balanced slurs if there was colliding elements. And sometimes a really crazy anti-colliding system. 1.4 solved a lot of these. Like Finale the settings could be adapted. The freezing of objects was absolutely essential feature to get Igor to produce any logical output IMO. I did have a very strict workflow otherwise early Igor could be quite wild. By 1.7 it was a lot more stable. I think its strength was that Peter Bengtson the original author knew as much about composing and engraving as programming. Also the users and beta testers mostly had a lot of input. Steve P. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
There are actually some examples on the website of what looks like untweaked output. http://www.noteheads.com/noteheads/pressf_set.html I'll send to your email. Steve P. On 1 Feb 2011, at 14:48, dc wrote: Steve Parker écrit: I can send you samples of mine. I would certainly appreciate it. I haven't been able to find any on the web. Thanks also for your comments on the software. I see what you mean - the end result isn't necessarily any better, but it's easier to get. Dennis ___ 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] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2011-02-01 17:15, Steve Parker wrote: I find simple entry in Finale or Igor unusable for proper work. Huh? I do all my entry in Simple Entry. And I would say that Simple Entry in Finale using the computer keyboard is very similar to Igor's computer keyboard input. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
It's very similar to Igor's equivalent input method. Igor also had an equivalent to speedy which is what I use in Finale with only a laptop keyboard. You really find it quicker than using the keyboard with speedy?? Steve P. On 1 Feb 2011, at 16:31, Jari Williamsson wrote: On 2011-02-01 17:15, Steve Parker wrote: I find simple entry in Finale or Igor unusable for proper work. Huh? I do all my entry in Simple Entry. And I would say that Simple Entry in Finale using the computer keyboard is very similar to Igor's computer keyboard input. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ 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] MuseScore vs. Finale
On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Jari Williamsson wrote: On 2011-02-01 17:15, Steve Parker wrote: I find simple entry in Finale or Igor unusable for proper work. Huh? I do all my entry in Simple Entry. MM is clearly committed to Simple Entry as the input method that will continue to be developed. Unfortunately for those of us who think pitch first and note value second, it turns our habits and movements upside down and impedes our work. If MM provided the possibility of pitch, then note value in Simple Entry, I'd be likely to succumb to its other advantages. Chuck Chuck Israels 1310 NW Naito Parkway #807 Portland, OR 97209-3162 phone: (503) 926-7952 cell phone: (360) 201-3434 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2011-02-01 17:34, Steve Parker wrote: You really find it quicker than using the keyboard with speedy?? Yes, for me Simple Entry is faster than Speedy - as long as I don't need to insert a note entry in the music. Then I need to grab the mouse and that slows things down. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2/1/2011 11:57 AM, Chuck Israels wrote: MM is clearly committed to Simple Entry as the input method that will continue to be developed. Unfortunately for those of us who think pitch first and note value second, it turns our habits and movements upside down and impedes our work. Hear, hear! If MM provided the possibility of pitch, then note value in Simple Entry, I'd be likely to succumb to its other advantages. As someone who uses the computer keyboard exclusively, I can't live without the 3-octave keyboard arrangement of Speedy, which lets me translate what I want to do into piano-like movements. Simple wants me to perform a cross-domain translation and convert notes and melodic movement to qwerty location, which I think is far more difficult. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2011-02-01 17:57, Chuck Israels wrote: MM is clearly committed to Simple Entry as the input method that will continue to be developed. Unfortunately for those of us who think pitch first and note value second, it turns our habits and movements upside down and impedes our work. If MM provided the possibility of pitch, then note value in Simple Entry, I'd be likely to succumb to its other advantages. MM is not committed to any music entry method IMO. Since the redesigned Simple Entry was introduced many Finale versions ago, basically nothing has happened feature-wise to Simple and Speedy. That's a pity IMO, since none of these modes is as good as it could be. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2011-02-01 17:15, Steve Parker wrote: I think its strength was that Peter Bengtson the original author knew as much about composing and engraving as programming. I'd say the the real strength - as well as the weakness - from Igor was that they choose Lisp as the development language. That made it possible to create complicated tasks much faster and easier than using C++. It also became the weakness, since it could never run as optimized as the C++ equivalent, and it was much harder to find able developers. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
Am 01.02.2011 um 15:35 schrieb David H. Bailey: If the examples on the website are very fine and the output you see in the hymnal is poor, Then the examples on the website are probably not done with the software. :-D Gerhard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
Hello! Am 01.02.2011 um 15:40 schrieb Steve Parker st...@pinkrat.co.uk: What prevents me from using it is that it only works in Mac OS9 or the Classic environment so it is dependent on an old mac staying alive. Or on complete emulation of those. I think there's software for that: vMac and SheepShaver. That old mac requires a printer that has drivers for OS9. Any Postscript capable printer should work. There are none so instead it requires a print to pdf kludge that worked erratically, often requiring one sheet at a time and multiple redos. I can still make it work but the time taken to get printed output is now longer than the extra time it takes to work in Finale. I can send you samples of mine. OK, I didn't try it that far. Didn't have a legit copy of Igor anyway. The big thing it does is that I can grab anything and move it at any point. It treated this sensibly so, for instance, I could grab a note with its stem and not just the stem nor the head. Sounds a bit like Sibelius. Secondly I can assign shortcuts to any expression or slur or shape or accent etc and enter them whilst entering notes. For example: input note, push A for accent, p for piano mark, f for a pause, and d to start a hairpin. All without changing tools or modes. Again like Sibelius. But unfortunately, you have to enable the accent in Sibelius before entering the note. I know little about it, but get the idea that mode-switching is now considered generally bad for workflow in computer apps. It it, indeed. The problem with modes is that the very same keystroke will produce completely different results in different modes. This requires the user to permanently be aware of the mode he is working in. The non-modal approach, however, requires an inccreasing amount of keyboard shortcuts we users have to remember, for all actions can (ideally) be performed at any time. Thirdly it had linked parts from the start which had more sensible linkage than Finale has now. Fourthly ability to lock anything down no matter what I do around it. I can give quite a list. I can also give a (smaller for now..) list of things that I prefer about finale. Entering rhythmic values is a big one. Ah, the old rhythm problem. Does anybody but me remember a program called MasterScore II? For me, it had the most logical method of entering notes and chords with a computer keyboard. A quarter note a' would have been entered by typing a1.4. An eight of the same pitch would be typed in a1.8 -- very easy to remember. Lower octaves were accesed by typing a0, A0 etc., different metric values by adding dots after the 4 or 8 and chords were entered using brackets: [a1c1e1]4. produced an a minor chord a dotted quarter long. Running on a mac that is not 7 years old is the biggest! Hehe … Igor will still work on a windows machine. I considered it but changing platform to use dead and unsupported software seemed a whole lot less appetising than switching (back) to Finale. You could still use it on a virtual machine if it would be of any use. Regards, Gerhard Torges Musiker, Lehrer, Arrangeur, Notensetzer Beethovenstr. 20 49124 Georgsmarienhütte Telefon: (+49)/(0) 5401 361590 Mobil: (+49)/(0) 178 501 29 15 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
I agree with this although I don't understand the technicalities of it. It was certainly a big part of the beta discussion towards the end. I think there was some problem with an easy OSX port too? Steve P. On 1 Feb 2011, at 19:38, Jari Williamsson wrote: I'd say the the real strength - as well as the weakness - from Igor was that they choose Lisp as the development language. That made it possible to create complicated tasks much faster and easier than using C++. It also became the weakness, since it could never run as optimized as the C++ equivalent, and it was much harder to find able developers. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
Not sure to what extent you're kidding.. but Score was capable of serious results! Steve P. On 1 Feb 2011, at 19:58, Gerhard Torges wrote: Am 01.02.2011 um 15:35 schrieb David H. Bailey: If the examples on the website are very fine and the output you see in the hymnal is poor, Then the examples on the website are probably not done with the software. :-D ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 1 Feb 2011, at 20:00, Gerhard Torges wrote: Hello! Am 01.02.2011 um 15:40 schrieb Steve Parker st...@pinkrat.co.uk: What prevents me from using it is that it only works in Mac OS9 or the Classic environment so it is dependent on an old mac staying alive. Or on complete emulation of those. I think there's software for that: vMac and SheepShaver. Tried both. Not near reliable for Igor at least. The big thing it does is that I can grab anything and move it at any point. It treated this sensibly so, for instance, I could grab a note with its stem and not just the stem nor the head. Sounds a bit like Sibelius. Sort of but then there are a whole other load of differences. I don't like Sibelius at all.. I know little about it, but get the idea that mode-switching is now considered generally bad for workflow in computer apps. It it, indeed. The problem with modes is that the very same keystroke will produce completely different results in different modes. This requires the user to permanently be aware of the mode he is working in. The non-modal approach, however, requires an inccreasing amount of keyboard shortcuts we users have to remember, for all actions can (ideally) be performed at any time. Except, I think that even expert users don't use all of the 1000 shortcuts.. I reckon 20-30 well thought out ones (without modes) would be enough to keep most copyists pretty happy, especially if they could be sensibly modified with shift, alt etc. Ah, the old rhythm problem. Does anybody but me remember a program called MasterScore II? For me, it had the most logical method of entering notes and chords with a computer keyboard. A quarter note a' would have been entered by typing a1.4. An eight of the same pitch would be typed in a1.8 -- very easy to remember. Lower octaves were accesed by typing a0, A0 etc., different metric values by adding dots after the 4 or 8 and chords were entered using brackets: [a1c1e1]4. produced an a minor chord a dotted quarter long. Too many keys for me. I'd use Lilypond if I wanted to do this kind of thing.. Actually I feel Finale has it nailed. You could still use it on a virtual machine if it would be of any use. Always I'm left with a problem when I come to print or email. I'm pretty happy with Finale - especially since flooding the list with questions a few weeks ago. ;-) Steve P. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 1 Feb 2011 at 14:40, Steve Parker wrote: Igor will still work on a windows machine. I considered it but changing platform to use dead and unsupported software seemed a whole lot less appetising than switching (back) to Finale. What about Windows emulation on a Mac? There are a number of options there, in fact. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 1 Feb 2011 at 9:35, David H. Bailey wrote: If the examples on the website are very fine and the output you see in the hymnal is poor, then how can you blame the program at all? !!! Of course you can blame the program! What that means is that a good engraver knows what to adjust manually, while the neophyte will just use the defaults. If the defaults are ill-chosen, it means there's more tweaking required to get a good enough result (cf. Finale/Sibelius). Finale's defaults have always been terrible, and no one who wants decent output uses the defaults for layout. The experienced Finale user can get excellent output, but at the cost of a pretty large investment in learning what to change from the way Finale sets things up by default. I don't care for Sibelius, but it produces satisfactory notation with its out-of-the-box defaults, whereas Finale certainly does not. That's a big time-saver when good enough is GOOD ENOUGH. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
At 9:00 PM +0100 2/1/11, Gerhard Torges wrote: Secondly I can assign shortcuts to any expression or slur or shape or accent etc and enter them whilst entering notes. For example: input note, push A for accent, p for piano mark, f for a pause, and d to start a hairpin. All without changing tools or modes. Again like Sibelius. But unfortunately, you have to enable the accent in Sibelius before entering the note. ?? Not at all true. Depending, of course, on exactly what you mean by entering. Accents and other articulations can be selected along with the note value, and changed as you prefer, before actually placing the note on the page. Or you can go back and add articulations later. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On Tue, February 1, 2011 2:58 pm, Gerhard Torges wrote: Then the examples on the website are probably not done with the software. :-D The examples on the website were done with Graphire and they came packaged as samples with the software. They were done by a composer/engraver who is now living as a monk and no longer uses technology. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
Jumping into this conversation with both feet in my mouth: ... I know little about it, but get the idea that mode-switching is now considered generally bad for workflow in computer apps. It it, indeed. The problem with modes is that the very same keystroke will produce completely different results in different modes. This requires the user to permanently be aware of the mode he is working in. OK, youse guys has lost me. Is Finale modal or non-modal? I'm guessing mostly the former. I know one mode-switch in Finale that has bitten me several times, and I only recently figured out what I was doing: Now and then, especially if i have auto-spacing switched off, with the mass-mover tool I may hit ctrl-A to select the whole document, then hit 4 to re-space. I'll do this really without thinking about it, maybe while I AM thinking about a musical decision or something else dreadfully important. But, every once in a while, when I have semi-consciously typed ctrl-A, 4, every line of my orchestral score will start, one by one, changing to a Bb tenor sax staff (sounds like a bad dream, doesn't it?) Then, one ctrl-z won't undo the mess - a whole series of ctrl-zs are necessary (or pulling up the edit menu to view the undo/redo history there). Recently I had this mass sax-change operation happen to a chamber orchestra score I was working on - I dutifully undid all the damage, or so I thought. Just before I emailed the PDF of the score to the conductor, I started looking closely at the Bb clarinet part - it had gone haywire - most of it was now a minor 7th off, but not all. I had to go through the whole score and check/fix this one staff, a few bars at a time. If anyone is still reading, have you figured out what I occasionally do wrong to cause this dreadful mass score change into a tenor sax band? I finally did - it happens when I type ctrl-A, 4 while the STAFF Tool is selected instead of the Mass Mover tool. So, context is indeed everything. Yikes! Raymond Horton Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) UMC Composer, Arranger ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Raymond Horton horton.raym...@gmail.com wrote: Jumping into this conversation with both feet in my mouth: ... I know little about it, but get the idea that mode-switching is now considered generally bad for workflow in computer apps. It it, indeed. The problem with modes is that the very same keystroke will produce completely different results in different modes. This requires the user to permanently be aware of the mode he is working in. OK, youse guys has lost me. Is Finale modal or non-modal? I'm guessing mostly the former. I know one mode-switch in Finale that has bitten me several times, and I only recently figured out what I was doing: Now and then, especially if i have auto-spacing switched off, with the mass-mover tool I may hit ctrl-A to select the whole document, then hit 4 to re-space. I'll do this really without thinking about it, maybe while I AM thinking about a musical decision or something else dreadfully important. But, every once in a while, when I have semi-consciously typed ctrl-A, 4, every line of my orchestral score will start, one by one, changing to a Bb tenor sax staff (sounds like a bad dream, doesn't it?) Then, one ctrl-z won't undo the mess - a whole series of ctrl-zs are necessary (or pulling up the edit menu to view the undo/redo history there). Recently I had this mass sax-change operation happen to a chamber orchestra score I was working on - I dutifully undid all the damage, or so I thought. Just before I emailed the PDF of the score to the conductor, I started looking closely at the Bb clarinet part - it had gone haywire - most of it was now a minor 7th off, but not all. I had to go through the whole score and check/fix this one staff, a few bars at a time. If anyone is still reading, have you figured out what I occasionally do wrong to cause this dreadful mass score change into a tenor sax band? I finally did - it happens when I type ctrl-A, 4 while the STAFF Tool is selected instead of the Mass Mover tool. So, context is indeed everything. Yikes! Raymond Horton Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) UMC Composer, Arranger ___ 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] MuseScore vs. Finale
Sorry about the blank message. Raymond, that scenario happened to me quite frequently. Luckily I caught it in time, though. I finally came to my senses and removed the '4' metatool from the staff tool in my default document. It still happens occasionally on older documents! On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Raymond Horton horton.raym...@gmail.com wrote: Jumping into this conversation with both feet in my mouth: ... I know little about it, but get the idea that mode-switching is now considered generally bad for workflow in computer apps. It it, indeed. The problem with modes is that the very same keystroke will produce completely different results in different modes. This requires the user to permanently be aware of the mode he is working in. OK, youse guys has lost me. Is Finale modal or non-modal? I'm guessing mostly the former. I know one mode-switch in Finale that has bitten me several times, and I only recently figured out what I was doing: Now and then, especially if i have auto-spacing switched off, with the mass-mover tool I may hit ctrl-A to select the whole document, then hit 4 to re-space. I'll do this really without thinking about it, maybe while I AM thinking about a musical decision or something else dreadfully important. But, every once in a while, when I have semi-consciously typed ctrl-A, 4, every line of my orchestral score will start, one by one, changing to a Bb tenor sax staff (sounds like a bad dream, doesn't it?) Then, one ctrl-z won't undo the mess - a whole series of ctrl-zs are necessary (or pulling up the edit menu to view the undo/redo history there). Recently I had this mass sax-change operation happen to a chamber orchestra score I was working on - I dutifully undid all the damage, or so I thought. Just before I emailed the PDF of the score to the conductor, I started looking closely at the Bb clarinet part - it had gone haywire - most of it was now a minor 7th off, but not all. I had to go through the whole score and check/fix this one staff, a few bars at a time. If anyone is still reading, have you figured out what I occasionally do wrong to cause this dreadful mass score change into a tenor sax band? I finally did - it happens when I type ctrl-A, 4 while the STAFF Tool is selected instead of the Mass Mover tool. So, context is indeed everything. Yikes! Raymond Horton Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) UMC Composer, Arranger ___ 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] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2011-02-02 00:07, David W. Fenton wrote: Finale's defaults have always been terrible, and no one who wants decent output uses the defaults for layout. The experienced Finale user can get excellent output, but at the cost of a pretty large investment in learning what to change from the way Finale sets things up by default. IMO, what you're talking about is based on very old Finale versions. Sure, someone might need thicker lines for his/her particular printer and someone might need tighter vertical positioning in some of the expression categories, but generally the defaults in the different Document Styles are pretty good nowadays. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2011-02-02 05:04, Raymond Horton wrote: Now and then, especially if i have auto-spacing switched off, with the mass-mover tool I may hit ctrl-A to select the whole document, then hit 4 to re-space. You should probably include the Finale version you're using. There's no tool called the MassMover Tool anymore and 4 (without modifier key) isn't used for spacing. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
Hello John! Am 02.02.2011 um 02:34 schrieb John Howell john.how...@vt.edu: At 9:00 PM +0100 2/1/11, Gerhard Torges wrote: But unfortunately, you have to enable the accent in Sibelius before entering the note. ?? Not at all true. Depending, of course, on exactly what you mean by entering. Got me there. To me, entering music (or text, spreadsheet data or whatsoever) is the act of writing notes on empty staves. And that's where you have to select accents, articulations, accidentals and note values BEFORE pressing the corresponding with the note's name. Accents and other articulations can be selected along with the note value, and changed as you prefer, before actually placing the note on the page. Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to. Or you can go back and add articulations later. That would be editing, not entering, right? ;-) Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Gerhard Torges Musiker, Lehrer, Arrangeur, Notensetzer Beethovenstr. 20 49124 Georgsmarienhütte Telefon: (+49)/(0) 5401 361590 Mobil: (+49)/(0) 178 501 29 15 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2011-01-31 22:51, Robert Patterson wrote: Does anyone on the list have any experience with MuseScore? Have you ever used it for a project, and if so what are its strengths/weaknesses relative to Finale? Seriously? It has a looong way to what should be required for professional music output. IMO, better to compare it with Finale PrintMusic or something like that. (It has plug-in support, though.) The biggest strengths are that it's free and have good MusicXML support. Hopefully it gets better. I really like open source software. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
I haven't used it for a project, though my undergrad composition students are increasingly coming in with experience in using the software (and I do nothing to discourage them from continuing to use it). - I think that it's the third most capable music notation application out there, behind Finale and Sibelius of course. - The level of improvement in the software is in leaps and bounds. It's also great seeing it's open source and so you can see the bugs and how they're being repaired http://musescore.org/en/project/issues. Suggestions are sometimes actually implemented into the software without having to wait years! Also things like their being so many translations of the software into different languages is a leader in the sector as far as I know. - There are a few extremely active developers working on the software. Without them... who knows what the future might hold. - It's not as flexible, graphics-wise, as Finale. - It can crash a bit. There is always nervousness when doing something that might be seen to 'push' the application. - It's great that things like XML are embedded into the application itself. - Graphically speaking (i.e. output), it's behind the 8-ball. It would be excellent to have some developers who are finicky music engravers to take the software to the next level. - GUI wise, the same. There are some oddities and in some areas the level of esoterica rivals Finale (e.g. the preferences box) - perhaps due to its Linux heritage. - Playback not in the same league as Finale. HTH Matthew On 1/02/11 8:51 AM, Robert Patterson wrote: Does anyone on the list have any experience with MuseScore? Have you ever used it for a project, and if so what are its strengths/weaknesses relative to Finale? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MuseScore vs. Finale
On 2011-01-31 23:51, Matthew Hindson (gmail) wrote: - I think that it's the third most capable music notation application out there, behind Finale and Sibelius of course. For Mac perhaps. On the PC, I would put Score and Primus above it. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
