On Jul 23, 2005, at 6:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I remember reading somewhere recently about the change in orchestras
where someone entirely attributed the increasing hiring of women
entirely to the institution of blind auditions 10 or 15 years ago.
There was a particularly striking passage
On Jul 23, 2005, at 6:22 PM, John Howell wrote:
At 2:53 PM -0700 7/23/05, Ken Durling wrote:
At 02:39 PM 7/23/2005, you wrote:
Of course, last time I checked, the ERA was not part of the
Constitution.
Eh? What do you think it's an amendment TO?
Congress did not pass it. Off with their
I have heard that Notion is demonstrating some pretty impressive
MusicXML import from both Finale and Sibelius at summer NAMM, but I have
not yet seen this myself. I believe that Notion will be the first
program to support MusicXML import before it supports MIDI import.
VirtuosoWorks' July 16
On Jul 24, 2005, at 1:36 AM, Ken Durling wrote:
Um, did I rank any of Chuck's achievements? Did I say cooler than?
If I misread your post, I apologise, but when you say now that is a
cool thing it sort of implies that maybe some previous things WEREN'T
as cool as that. I was reacting to
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Having become quite curious I downloaded the Sibelius 4 demo last night.
I haven't spent much time with it, but I noticed that it did install the
Helsinki font. I haven't attempted to use it in Finale, but I'd like to
know if I could and if that would be legal. Anyone?
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Michael Cook schrieb:
I'm going to put that, with a bit more detail, into a feature request:
my two top priority feature requests are this and some form of house
styles. Maybe some people on the list would like to join me?
I believe that house styles should be
Tyler Turner wrote:
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Witness Finale's new inclusion of GPO and the
ability to use other
Native Instruments format samples which is far
superior to Sibelius's
formerly superior inclusion of their Kontakt Silver
player. I'll be
very interested to see
David W. Fenton wrote:
I've only had one correspondence with MakeMusic (I've sent in feature
requests, etc., which didn't require a response beyond an acknowledgment),
and it took several messages before the support person even got to the
point of comprehending what I was talking about,
Tyler Turner wrote:
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Compare this to MakeMusic, which has several
employees who monitor this
list on their own time (we do appreciate that), but
since there is no
official monitoring of this list we have to follow
official procedures
to submit feature
At 07:31 AM 7/24/05 -0400, dhbailey wrote:
My point about Sibelius as a company working hard to create a presence
for itself while MakeMusic is just trudging along in the same old rut
still stands, regardless of the low-brow quality of the comparison in
question.
David is right. Sibelius came
Mark D Lew wrote:
On Jul 23, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:
This is wrong. When I worked in customer support, I
computed the number of customer e-mails finished in
one response vs. those that took multiple e-mails to
resolve. I personally was resolving over 90% of the
issues to the
I'm as quick as anyone to acknowledge Finale's shortcomings, but sometimes the
Finale bashing can be over the top. We should be clear that Finale gives up
*absolutely nothing* to Sib or any other competitor in quality of printed
output. What we have endless quibbled about is ease-of-use
When you check the option in Human Playback to optimize for Garriton
Personal Orchestra, does Finale assume that ALL your staves are being
played by GPO?
I ask because I want to send MIDI to many different places, not just
GPO. Does Finale send different instruments CC#1 instead of CC#7 for
Robert Patterson schrieb:
Personally, I still think dynamically linked parts are going to be of
little use to me. I like my parts to have cues and to be separated by
instrument even when combined in the score. Heck, I even break divisi
string parts out onto separate staves in the parts. Without
Johannes Gebauer:
but eventually the changes to the score after
the performance were so huge that I simply had no choice but to prepare
a new Parts-Score
I remain skeptical that Sib's dynamic linking will be able to maintain your
high standards when this amount of revision is required.
d. collins schrieb:
Johannes Gebauer écrit:
Problem is, Sibelius is very much the No.1 for publishers these days
in Germany.
Do you mean that most German publishers now use Sibelius?
I don't have any data available, but from the feeling I get, yes. It
used to be Score, many publishers
Robert Patterson schrieb:
Johannes Gebauer:
but eventually the changes to the score after the performance were
so huge that I simply had no choice but to prepare a new
Parts-Score
I remain skeptical that Sib's dynamic linking will be able to
maintain your high standards when this amount
On 24 Jul 2005, at 17:10, Robert Patterson wrote:
I remain skeptical that Sib's dynamic linking will be able to maintain
your high standards when this amount of revision is required.
(Specifically, an amount of revision that forces an entirely new page
layout in the parts.) Nevertheless, I
On Jul 24, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 24, 2005, at 1:36 AM, Ken Durling wrote:
Um, did I rank any of Chuck's achievements? Did I say cooler than?
If I misread your post, I apologise, but when you say now that is
a cool thing it sort of implies that maybe some
None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking is an
ease-of-use feature and 2) Finale's output is still essentially equal to if not
superior to Sib's. (Specifically, it is superior when the user wants a notation
that Sib doesn't approve of.)
If you tell me that I can
In later operas, pants roles represent male youths, but they are not
prepubescent. In some cases, their pubescence is very much a part
of the story. Octavian is most certainly not prepubescent. Cherubino
and Siebel are young, but their behavior is clearly that of pubescent
teenagers.
Chuck Israels wrote:
About Carl Dershem's suggestion that my autobiography ought to be a
great read: a few summers ago, I wrote about 200 pages of a spew draft
of a memoir, showed it to a few people and then left it to sit for a
(long) while. Now it looks about 40 to 50% pertinent and
On 24 Jul 2005, at 18:42, Robert Patterson wrote:
None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking
is an ease-of-use feature
Certainly. But it is evident that Finale needs more ease of use to
continue to exist next to Sibelius.
and 2) Finale's output is still
I just tried to install Finale 2003 on a couple of computers,
so I can work on a project for someone who requires it.
On a computer that has Final 2004, Finale 2003 installed
successfully. But when I install on a computer that
has no Finale, Finale 2003 has a font problem: when I
open an mus
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sibelius also maintains an in-house forum populated
by their
tech-support personnel, same as MakeMusic does.
They go the extra-mile and also officially
participate in the
out-of-house group. MakeMusic does not.
If you address my statements on
No one has posted a rational response to the complaint that
the Texas Music people are being prejudicial to sissies who sing
soprano.
They are trying to CYA by complaining about singing out of
range crap.
They are obviously being discriminating in their decisions.
The list person who said it was
- Original Message -
From: Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personally, I still think dynamically linked parts are going to be of
little use to me. I like my parts to have cues and to be separated by
instrument even when combined in the score. Heck, I even break divisi string
Robert Patterson schrieb:
None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking
is an ease-of-use feature and 2) Finale's output is still essentially
equal to if not superior to Sib's. (Specifically, it is superior when
the user wants a notation that Sib doesn't approve of.)
On 7/24/05, Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm as quick as anyone to acknowledge Finale's shortcomings, but sometimes
the Finale bashing can be over the top. We should be clear that Finale gives
up *absolutely nothing* to Sib or any other competitor in quality of printed
output.
--- Richard Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Robert Patterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personally, I still think dynamically linked parts
are going to be of
little use to me. I like my parts to have cues and
to be separated by
instrument even when
On 24 Jul 2005 at 2:18, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 23, 2005, at 6:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I remember reading somewhere recently about the change in orchestras
where someone entirely attributed the increasing hiring of women
entirely to the institution of blind auditions 10 or
On 24 Jul 2005 at 16:42, Robert Patterson wrote:
None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking
is an ease-of-use feature and 2) Finale's output is still essentially
equal to if not superior to Sib's. (Specifically, it is superior when
the user wants a notation that Sib
On 24 Jul 2005 at 12:46, Tyler Turner wrote:
And even though I'm not a
MakeMusic employee any longer, for the past 4 years I
have been out on the net correcting misinformation and
participating on various forums, always in my spare
time. I haven't seen anyone from Sibelius logging as
much
Someone forwarded my posts to this forum about trying out the
Sibelius demo to Daniel Spreadbury and he answered me in great detail
and at great length, and then engaged in a lengthy and quite
interesting discussion of the points I'd raised. He spent *hours*
responding to my emails.
And all
On 24 Jul 2005 at 14:40, Richard Yates wrote:
Someone forwarded my posts to this forum about trying out the
Sibelius demo to Daniel Spreadbury and he answered me in great
detail and at great length, and then engaged in a lengthy and quite
interesting discussion of the points I'd raised.
If you tell me that I can split a part in the score into multiple
staves in the score and still have the linking work, then I'll be
impressed.
It may be that the kind of work you do would make that really
valuable, but I've never had a single project where I'd have had any
need for that.
... Eustazio was also a castrato originally. (I think the part is cut
altogether in later edition.)
mdl
Ouch!
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Raymond Horton wrote:
... Eustazio was also a castrato originally. (I think the part is cut
altogether in later edition.)
Ouch!
Agree with the 'ouch! but ... could that have been phrased a bit more
subtly?
:o
cd
___
Finale mailing list
On Jul 24, 2005, at 7:21 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
Finale's quality of output is capable of meeting the most rigorous
engraving standards I know of, with only one exception. Finale cannot
produce a proper long slur mark. (Neither can Sibelius, nor any other
program except the now defunct
Tyler Turner wrote:
Sibelius' Dynamic Parts does not cover this. You will
either need to extract the part the old-fashioned way
and split it, or create both flute staves on the
score. They also don't have the option of a TGTools
plug-in for helping with this.
You are right that to separate
On 24 Jul 2005 at 15:00, Lee Actor wrote:
If you tell me that I can split a part in the score into multiple
staves in the score and still have the linking work, then I'll be
impressed.
It may be that the kind of work you do would make that really
valuable, but I've never had a
I will be out of the office until August 5, 2005. While I will have
periodic email access, I may not be able to reply to your message in a
timley manner. If you need immediate assistance, please email Rebecca Ott
at [EMAIL PROTECTED], or Christine Fry at [EMAIL PROTECTED]; or, you
may call the
At 07:49 PM 7/24/2005, you wrote:
Sibelius' Dynamic Parts does not cover this. You will
either need to extract the part the old-fashioned way
and split it, or create both flute staves on the
score. They also don't have the option of a TGTools
plug-in for helping with this.
Hi Tyler,
Not sure
Perhaps, but about 1966 or 67 I remember that the NY Phil still had but
one female non-harpist (a bass player).
Raymond Horton
Louisville Orchestra
John Howell wrote:
At 6:02 PM -0400 7/23/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
I remember reading somewhere recently about the change in orchestras
--- Dan Carno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:49 PM 7/24/2005, you wrote:
Sibelius' Dynamic Parts does not cover this. You
will
either need to extract the part the old-fashioned
way
and split it, or create both flute staves on the
score. They also don't have the option of a TGTools
At 10:57 PM 7/24/2005, you wrote:
The filters certainly help a lot, but they aren't as
bright as the TGTools plug-in. Dealing with more than
2 parts on a staff takes more effort, since the
select players for deletion filters don't work in
those situations, and if you have 2 voices in a single
On Jul 24, 2005, at 4:58 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 24 Jul 2005 at 2:18, Christopher Smith wrote:
Isn't it possible that at least part of the reason was because more
qualified female candidates were auditioning? . . .
I don't know.
What I do know is that the person who was quoted
At 4:34 PM -0700 7/24/05, Mark D Lew wrote:
It doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to fix. As I understand it,
slurs are current drawn as a Bezier curve (actually, the space
enclosed by two almost-parallel Bezier curves) and the slur tool
gives the user access to the control points. Why not
On Jul 23, 2005, at 11:05 PM, Ryan Beard wrote:
I'm saving my file as an audio file. The chord symbols
I've entered won't play back. However, chords have
played back on this same file in the past when saved
as an audio file.
Enable Chord Playback is checked in the chord menu.
And I've not
49 matches
Mail list logo
