Daniel Wolf wrote:
I use a Windows machine for Finale, but avoid using the Internet
Explorer browser, in preference to Opera and, sometimes, Firefox. Opera
is my default browser for HTML files, and it displays the Finale User
Manual fast and well. But when the User Manual is opened either
Richard Smith wrote:
Sibelius does the same thing as Finale in this case. But, if I may give
a player's perspective, I really prefer having the MM rest broken to
place a DS or similar instruction. It doesn't look as good, but it's
much more clear to me as to where it is to occur. I have played
Aaron Sherber wrote:
[snip] Finale will still insist on using IE when you press
F1, as you noted,
but this may make it easier for you to get to the manual in your browser
of choice.
Don't forget to complain to customer support about this.
As if that helped when we all complained about it
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip]
It is ridiculous that they haven't fixed this yet.
They haven't admitted it's a problem, so they don't view it
as needing a fix. I complained about it (as did many
others) when Fin2008 came out and as we can all see, they
haven't bothered to care what we
James Gilbert wrote:
I haven't had time to give 2009 a really good going over, but so far, I'm
trying to remember why I upgraded. :)
Because MM placed a speaker under your pillow playing the
following mantra over and over in your sleep so you could
learn it subliminally: MakeMusic needs
At 07:19 AM 7/28/2008, dhbailey wrote:
But that would demand that the help-file staff actually
check out the help files in all the most common browser
(anybody who's done any reading on web-site design knows
that's a must!) to make sure they display adequately in all
of them. That would entail
Aaron Sherber wrote:
[snip]
This isn't quite accurate. First of all, writing absolutely perfect,
standards compliant HTML is a guaranteed way to have your pages display
differently in different browsers, because browsers disagree on how to
render such HTML.
Display differently, yes -- but
Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 07:25 AM 7/28/2008, dhbailey wrote:
the expense. The major change, the ability to use *any* VST
plugins for playback, is only of limited or nonexistent use
to many of us.
Depends who you mean by us. If you mean the current and potential
base of Finale users, then I
At 08:12 AM 7/28/2008, dhbailey wrote:
Display differently, yes -- but the pages would all work in
all the browsers, there wouldn't be any situations where
paragraphs run into each other as one long run-on paragraph
because of missing end-codes, which might display as perfect
paragraphs in IE.
On Mon, July 28, 2008 7:50 am, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 07:25 AM 7/28/2008, dhbailey wrote:
the expense. The major change, the ability to use *any* VST
plugins for playback, is only of limited or nonexistent use
to many of us.
If you mean people who use Finale primarily for notation, then
David, my comments are meant to be of a general nature. Clearly there
will be exceptions where page turns or other considerations make
standard repeats a good choice. I am not as concerned with standard
repeats as the complicated nested patterns that are customized for a
piece need special
On 28.07.2008 John Howell wrote:
Which means that it simply hasn't happened yet
Not true, the Bamberger Symphoniker have had that for years. It seems to
work incredibly well for them.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
Richard Smith wrote:
[snip]
Careful workers will, of course, not make this error. But one of the
deceptive things about our modern software is how good (superficially)
it can make sloppy work look.
[snip]
Amen to that! :-)
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I guess I've changed my mind again.
FinMac 2K2 was an almost perfect program. All subsequent versions have
been distinctly inferior, and MakeMusic seems to have made almost no
effort to restore the smooth, seamless operation of its last pre-OSX
version, but has rather introduced new features
I am faintly dismayed that none of the very cogent contributors to this
thread has made the green argument:
Repeat signs save trees!
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://www.kallistimusic.com/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
I agree Fin2k2 was good, but many of the subsequent enhancements are
one I could not live without (esp. auto-positioning of expressions
and, yes, linked parts.)
I think those who denigrate linked parts are missing the point. Of
course linked parts is only partially implemented, but the question
Why do you have 50 staff lists? What causes you to need that many? This is not
a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested.
I just did a brand new full score in Finale 2009 and only used ONE (that's
right) one staff list.
Robert also forgot to mention that you can now drag-apply
And remember, I don't appear here in any official capacity.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Dannewitz [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 09:55 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
Andrew:
This isn't meant to counter your position... But you can extract parts
in 2K9. I work with linked parts until I get them close, then extract
and tweak. I rather like the option because occasionally I get a part
that works as linked and I can just print it without extra tweaking.
-Carolyn
God forbid I take a day off. Sheesh.
Allen J. Fisher
MakeMusic
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.finalemusic.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Dannewitz [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 09:55 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject:
Click in between staves.
Allen
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Smith [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:30 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009?
Hi all,
First operation with
Then the Radetzky March must have saved a forest!
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Andrew Stiller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am faintly dismayed that none of the very cogent contributors to this
thread has made the green argument:
Repeat signs save trees!
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music
This is true. Heaven forbid that MakeMusic would allow that. That would be
doing something like supporting the program. I think only that other
company, Sibelius, actually would have someone do that.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Fisher, Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
And
According to MM support:
The $99.95 upgrade price from Finale 2008 to 2009 is good through
09/30/2008. After that it will return to the retail price of $119.95.
Thanks Bob
On Jul 25, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Bob Morabito wrote:
If you don't upgrade to FIn2009 now, does the price go up from $99?
At 4:08 PM +0200 7/28/08, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 28.07.2008 John Howell wrote:
Which means that it simply hasn't happened yet
Not true, the Bamberger Symphoniker have had that for years. It
seems to work incredibly well for them.
Johannes
Thank you for that update, Johannes. All the
Thanks Tyler,
That is the solution, even if, for me, it isn't as convenient as
having more staff lists available. But at least it does work.
Bernard
On Jul 28, 2008, at 12:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I don't think that would be the fastest way. I would think
you'd do this - from
At 12:38 PM 7/28/2008, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
This is true. Heaven forbid that MakeMusic would allow that. That would be
doing something like supporting the program. I think only that other
company, Sibelius, actually would have someone do that.
Oh, come on now. This point has been
On 28.07.2008 Fisher, Allen wrote:
And remember, I don't appear here in any official capacity.
I and many others know that. It is nice that you are here, it would be
even nicer if MM did actually send an official representative to monitor
the list. But it is not your fault that they don't
So, you figure the best way to get what you want is to dump all over
Allen Fisher for volunteering his time here?
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 28 Jul 2008, at 12:38 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
This is true. Heaven forbid that MakeMusic would allow that. That
would be
On 28.07.2008 John Howell wrote:
Thank you for that update, Johannes. All the advertising I've seen on this
side of the pond can be interpreted as the manufacturing company providing
equipment on professional loan in order to publicize their products. Do you
happen to know whether the
It seems funny that the man puts his MakeMusic info at the bottom and is
not here officially. Why not just have an official presence here and
handle the questions and complaints?
Heck, seeing Daniel on the Sibelius list, I think that MakeMusic could do a
lot for it's image and keeping it's user
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
This is true. Heaven forbid that MakeMusic would allow that. That would be
doing something like supporting the program. I think only that other
company, Sibelius, actually would have someone do that.
Fisher, Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
And remember, I
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it is like a game or something. They
are here, but they aren't Officially on the list. Stupid. If you are going
to put your MakeMusic company thing at the end of your emails then you
should be on here officially.
Again, I think if we could get MakeMusic and
On 28.07.2008 Eric Dannewitz wrote:
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it is like a game or something. They
are here, but they aren't Officially on the list. Stupid. If you are going
to put your MakeMusic company thing at the end of your emails then you
should be on here officially.
I have
Fisher, Allen wrote:
And remember, I don't appear here in any official capacity.
And while I think less of MM for not officially endorsing
it, I think very highly of you as a person and as a MM
employee who is willing to enter the fray to help both the
user and the company come to some sort
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
This is true. Heaven forbid that MakeMusic would allow that. That would be
doing something like supporting the program. I think only that other
company, Sibelius, actually would have someone do that.
The other company DOES have someone do that -- Daniel
Yes, I know that Daniel does an excellent job on and off the Sibelius list.
I think that MakeMusic not bothering to have an official person on a list is
something that should be addressed. If not this list, a yahoogroup one or
something.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:28 AM, dhbailey
[EMAIL
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
[snip]
How hard would it be to have someone field the questions in an
official manner? I'm sure that no one expects the kind of question
answering that Daniel does on Sibelius's behalf, but some sort of
effort would be nice.
As much as I would love to have a reliable
On Jul 28, 2008, at 10:37 AM, Randolph Peters wrote:
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
This is true. Heaven forbid that MakeMusic would allow that. That
would be
doing something like supporting the program. I think only that other
company, Sibelius, actually would have someone do that.
So why not have one of the tech support people actually do this? They could
also use discussions as a basis of a wiki or knowledge base. Plus, the
perceived good PR couldn't hurt.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Randolph Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
As much as I would love to have a
Actually that's my fault. I normally do not include my signature at the bottom
of my posts. My email prefs got blown away and I've now reset them.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Dannewitz
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:28 PM
To:
I've installed Finale 2009 on a PowerBook G4. In the administrator's
account it runs OK, but in any other account (including a brand new
test account) it quits when the launch process gets to the point
where the MIDI setup window pops up.
Here's what I've already tried:
- Restart the Mac
On 28 Jul 2008 at 7:19, dhbailey wrote:
I'm not a
programmer, but it seems quite an easy thing to do to let
the OS use whatever browser is setup as the default in the
OS be used for any call to open HTML files.
It's actually *harder* to restrict it to IE, because you have to use
an
Still think you should strongly suggest to your employer that you be allowed
to answer questions on this list (and perhaps others) in an official manner.
Why not spend 30 minutes or so fielding questions (or someone fielding
questions) rather than this we are here, but unofficially thing.
Sibelius
On 28 Jul 2008 at 8:12, dhbailey wrote:
Aaron Sherber wrote:
[snip]
This isn't quite accurate. First of all, writing absolutely perfect,
standards compliant HTML is a guaranteed way to have your pages display
differently in different browsers, because browsers disagree on how to
John Howell wrote:
Not until we can also leave page turns behind--and those are REAL
distractions! Yeah, it's theoretically possible now with digital
music stands, at GREAT expense and with the ever-resent danger of
losing power! Which means that it simply hasn't happened yet
I suggest that
Just so everyone knows, the demo is available (we worked hard to turn that
around quicker this year...) so that you can try out the new expressions. My
(take it as you will) opinion is that the new expressions are far better than
the old ones. I also do not use staff lists to the extent of some
It might be cool if the cursor in the Percent (and Page Layout) tools changed
to show what would happen if you clicked ...
Fisher wrote:
Click in between staves.
Allen
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fisher, Allen wrote:
Robert also forgot to mention that you can now drag-apply expressions.
While this caused me to change my workflow, it also mitigated
my need for most staff lists.
Actually, I believe I did mention it. I just didn't make a big deal
about it. MM seems to think this can
So I've downloaded the 09 demo, and have played with it for a while
(the demo, that is) ... interesting. If I purchase the real thing,
will I have to trash the demo first, or does it matter?
Cheers,
Dean
Dean M. Estabrook
http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home
When I am working on
Thanks Tyler for the suggestion of using the new 'drag expressions'
to deal with the crippling of Staff Lists in 2k9. It's not going to
be anywhere near as convenient and efficient. I'm in the same boat as
Bernard Savoie and others who have made extensive use of SLs and I'll
probably have to
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Claudio Pompili
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:05 -0500 28/7/08, MakeMusic Customer Support wrote:
The decision to limit Finale 2009 to 4 staff groups was done after much
testing and work with clinicians. We will be limiting Finale 2009 to 4
groups at this
At 08:36 PM 7/28/2008, Claudio Pompili wrote:
What I find sad about this is the mindset/culture at MM, yet again.
Testing with clinicians is fine but when contemplating scaling back a
feature such as SLs that have been around for a while, wouldn't it
have made sense to run it past a bigger group
--- On Mon, 7/28/08, Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What augers worst for me in this attitude is the clear
Sibeliusation
trend. Sibelius always took knocks because it wasn't as
flexible as
Finale. When the Finn brothers were in charge Sib was
willfully
inflexible. Now MM
I take it from the various messages here that many of you have received
F2009 already. I put in an order 11 days ago. They ran my credit card
at the time, but there is no tracking number yet, implying that they
haven't actually shipped it.
Is this normal?
Most businesses don't run your
Hi Tyler,
100% agreed.
Feature bloat has long been a problem in Finale. Most of their
streamlining choices over the years have been good ones (merging Note
Expressions and Staff Expressions into a single Expression tool,
replacing the Mass Mover tool with the Mass Edit tool, then merging
56 matches
Mail list logo
