On 7 Jul 2005 at 16:36, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are
reflected immediately in the parts and vice versa is because
On 7 Jul 2005 at 16:43, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Link/Unlink to score would be great.
- Darcy
Indeed it would--provided that turning on this feature did not
immediately change anything in either linked file.
I don't think that's a very good idea. It seems to me that creating
an unlinked
On 7 Jul 2005 at 17:13, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Do you have a non-USB keyboard port? If so, I'd try getting the
keyboard off the USB bus so that MIDI is on USB and the rhythmic
values you're typing is *not* on USB.
Umm, AFAIK USB is
David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, it can't be done by event count, since you can have a different
number of events. If you get 16 from the MIDI interface and 15 from
the keyboard, you want the extra from the MIDI interface ignored,
because it didn't have a corresponding rhythmic value.
Likewise,
David W. Fenton schrieb:
I honestly see nothing about any of these suggestions that belongs
with what I conceive of as the concept of house styles.
I don't for a minute doubt that, but believe me, I thought this through
some time ago, and it is pretty much all that is needed. The reason I
On 7 Jul 2005 at 23:18, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Andrew Stiller schrieb:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are
reflected immediately in the
On 7 Jul 2005 at 17:23, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 07 Jul 2005, at 4:24 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
While we are on about it: House styles is another area where
Sibelius is far superior to Finale.
Several times I have suggested ways how some house style
functionality could be added
David W. Fenton schrieb:
Well, what about a non-USB MIDI interface? Did they also take away
the printer port (isn't that what used to be used for MIDI, given how
I remember all the complaints about contention for the port?)?
Without wanting to fuel a completely unnecessary platform war
On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
High-end machines that are used for music ought to have options.
All Macs -- high-end or not -- now have USB 2 and FireWire, both of
which have more than enough bandwidth to spare for MIDI.
I agree, USB 1.1 is inadequate for MIDI +
On 7 Jul 2005 at 17:50, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Robert Patterson and Johannes Gebauer have raised some excellent
points about the feasibility of a single-file solution for Dynamic
Parts in Finale. There is also the issue of a possible additional
performance hit if Finale were to implement
On 7 Jul 2005 at 23:36, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I think the use of a note as denominator would eliminate all these
problems. 6/8 would become 2/Q., and would also allow one to notate
6/E if one actually wanted it.
I would love this system...but
That makes
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 at 23:36, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I think the use of a note as denominator would eliminate all these
problems. 6/8 would become 2/Q., and would also allow one to notate
6/E if one actually wanted it.
I would love this
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
The smart cue notes plugin doesn't cut it for me, it causes more trouble
than it is worth in my experience.
Johannes, I'm interested in the problems you've had with this - are you
using the one in the TGTools set? Because I find this to be an absolute
time-saver in
On 8 Jul 2005 at 1:04, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
David W. Fenton schrieb:
I honestly see nothing about any of these suggestions that belongs
with what I conceive of as the concept of house styles.
I don't for a minute doubt that, but believe me, I thought this
through some time ago, and
On 8 Jul 2005 at 1:09, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
David W. Fenton schrieb:
And while we're at it, would it be asking too much to figure out
some way to transfer page setup data between platforms? I realize
the operation is done completely differently in Mac vs. Windows, but
information is
On 7 Jul 2005 at 19:14, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
High-end machines that are used for music ought to have options.
All Macs -- high-end or not -- now have USB 2 and FireWire, both of
which have more than enough bandwidth to spare for
On 8 Jul 2005 at 1:13, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
David W. Fenton schrieb:
Well, what about a non-USB MIDI interface? Did they also take away
the printer port (isn't that what used to be used for MIDI, given
how I remember all the complaints about contention for the port?)?
Without wanting
On 8 Jul 2005 at 0:34, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 at 23:36, Owain Sutton wrote:
I think it's the rare performer who
ever manages precisely what is indicated.
Is that a valid argument for not indicating it at all? I don't think
it is.
It's not an
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 at 0:34, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 at 23:36, Owain Sutton wrote:
I think it's the rare performer who
ever manages precisely what is indicated.
Is that a valid argument for not indicating it at all? I don't think
I thought Windows wasn't getting the useless transparent dialogs
until Avalon, with the release of Longhorn.
No, on XP. I mentioned it earlier, but it's so useful I'll do so again:
Power Menuy, http://www.veridicus.com/tummy/programming/powermenu/, puts
transparency options into the context
Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
Most current macs ship with USB 2, Firewire 400 and Firewire 800.
And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
Of course they do. Mac supports USB and Firewire PCI cards for
I'm with you here. And I think Ferneyhough would be, too.
But that approach makes a mockery of 2-decimal-point precision.
Well, yeah. That's the point.
Richard Yates
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
Richard Yates wrote:
Well, I downloaded it, tried it, and looked at your example. I don't get it,
though. If there is stuff under the semitransparent box you can't read
either. It there is nothing under it, then it does not need to be
semitransparent. In your erxample one box covers only a
On 8 Jul 2005 at 1:05, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 at 0:34, Owain Sutton wrote:
Of course, I'm something of a heretic in the early music world for
ignoring the relationships between meters there, too. I think it's
better to take a precise relationship as a
On 8 Jul 2005 at 1:21, Owain Sutton wrote:
Richard Yates wrote:
Well, I downloaded it, tried it, and looked at your example. I don't
get it, though. If there is stuff under the semitransparent box you
can't read either. It there is nothing under it, then it does not
need to be
Owain Sutton wrote:
(7/10, 13/20)
Why? It's easily playable, and it's something that cannot possibly be
notated another way, unlike x/12. And, like it or not, it's found its
way into mainstream notation and publication.
I've never seen it. If I bought a piece of music and I saw 13/20 I
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
While we are on about it: House styles is another area where Sibelius
is far superior to Finale.
In my considerations of Sibelius, the closed, proprietary way they treat
the data file structure is such an early consideration, that I'm not
reached the point of
On 7 Jul 2005 at 21:21, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
While we are on about it: House styles is another area where
Sibelius is far superior to Finale.
In my considerations of Sibelius, the closed, proprietary way they
treat the data file structure is such an early
while we're on the subject of sibelius, layout control there is quite
fast and easy (once you get it figured out). there are different
kinds of click-drags available which do different things to the
spacing, and reflows are not just RALLY fast, they're
immediate.
--
shirling
in a 70mm passage for 6 voices, i have renotated the
rhythms/durations (attack points remain the same) of the top voice
and want to do the same changes to the other 5 voices (all 6 in
rhythmic unison). i've tried doing it with TGTools, but you have to
have the same rhythms to start with
i have avoided any comment on this up to now, because most of the
discussion concerned music i am not at all concerned with 8^)
however i feel the need to point out that proclamations such as the
following are not entirely true, in any absolute sense:
From: David W. Fenton
12/12 changes
From: David W. Fenton
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)?
it
May I, as a longtime Finale user (begining with v.2) who now uses mostly
Sibelius (although I have Finale 2005), respond to this post.
The reason you can't get Sibelius to work easily is probably because you
expect it to act like Finale. It is different. For instance, there is no
speedy entry
David W. Fenton wrote:
Seems to me the problem is not docking your toolbars, not the lack of
transparency. Why not dock the palettes at the edge of the screen, as
in my Finale in this screenshot?
http://dfenton.com/Toolbars.gif
I only set up that layout to show the transparency
Neal Schermerhorn wrote:
Owain Sutton wrote:
(7/10, 13/20)
Why? It's easily playable, and it's something that cannot possibly be
notated another way, unlike x/12. And, like it or not, it's found its
way into mainstream notation and publication.
I've never seen it. If I bought a piece
101 - 135 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
