On Sep 16, 2013, at 10:05 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
1) In 2013 I shouldn't still have to fiddle with layouts on my parts.
How many Finale releases have we seen that bragged about great new
algorithms that avoid collision of printed elements? Yet, I still have
to manually edit every ^%%$#$#%
Interesting discussions about Finale's future; this is obviously topics
that engages people. I am tempted to join; shortly I agree to those who say
that Finale typically not needs to be able to do more fancy audio things
(there are other good tools and they are numerous); neither to have more
I don't think there is any way without redoing.
I didn't answer before because I was hoping someone might know better.. :-(
Steve P.
On 17 Sep 2013, at 09:52, Dan Tillberg dan.h.tillb...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting discussions about Finale's future; this is obviously topics
that engages
On Tue, September 17, 2013 1:05 am, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
I would consider audio-to-notation to be a breakthrough.
I dislike transcribing, and almost always turn down jobs because they just
don't pay enough to overcome that dislike. This would be really useful for the
clients who want
Maybe I'm alone in not wanting every program to do everything..
If I need to mock up or (increasingly) produce a high-quality audio version of
something then Digital Performer is perfect.
If I need players to play it or it needs to be published then I want absolute
control over what it looks
On 2013-09-17 10:52, Dan Tillberg wrote:
1) What is the best way to create a new part in a given score that adapts
to an existing part from the design perspective?
When you create a new part (or an additional page in an existing part),
it's based on the Page Format for Parts settings. Make
On 2013-09-17 07:05, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
1) In 2013 I shouldn't still have to fiddle with layouts on my parts.
How many Finale releases have we seen that bragged about great new
algorithms that avoid collision of printed elements? Yet, I still have
to manually edit every ^%%$#$#% part by
Page format for parts, great, will take a look. Could find anything about
setting a nominal number of systems per page, e. g. 8 on the first page
and 9 for subsequent pages. This is my problem right now and I know that it
is possible to fix with some patience but then I have had problems with
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Jari Williamsson
It's your choice. I usually try to do the layout with one button click
for all parts at once (adjusting dynamics/artics/smart
shapes/note+measure spacing/system spacing in one go). Then I go to
optical check.
Could you explain the process?
On 2013-09-17 14:26, Dan Tillberg wrote:
Page format for parts, great, will take a look. Could find anything about
setting a nominal number of systems per page, e. g. 8 on the first page
and 9 for subsequent pages. This is my problem right now and I know that it
is possible to fix with some
Hello Jari,
Dan's experience is the only reason I do not use JW Copy Part Layout. When I
contracted Tobias to write his plugin to do this it was important to have two
options. One, to copy the layout systems AND the number of measures per system.
Two, just copy the systems and NOT the number
Jari, it's not that simple. I may make changes to the systems that work
for all layouts that you cannot set globally which is the reason TGTools
transfer works in this situation. I've used it in every job since it's
inception but the initial reason I asked for it was that every marching
band
On 9/17/2013 7:30 AM, Steve Parker wrote:
Maybe I'm alone in not wanting every program to do everything..
Again I would look at the parallel in the DAW universe. DAWs, per se,
don't do that much. They are essentially frameworks that provide a
basic set of capabilities needed by anybody
On 9/17/2013 8:19 AM, Jari Williamsson wrote:
On 2013-09-17 07:05, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
1) In 2013 I shouldn't still have to fiddle with layouts on my parts.
How many Finale releases have we seen that bragged about great new
algorithms that avoid collision of printed elements? Yet, I still
While I respect Craig's list of priorities, it's pretty much the opposite of
what I want.
(I also recognize that what Craig wants is probably closer to what the market
wants than what I want… )
What I want is a music notation program that makes much more intelligent
engraving choices
Just for the record, I also want most of the things you listed. And I
think you identified the nub of the problem. As Finale (or any other
notation product) exists today, it is in fact a zero sum game because it
is a closed system where only MakeMusic (and a few plug-in developers)
can
On 2013-09-17 14:34, Robert Patterson wrote:
Could you explain the process?
During the projects I've done this year, I've used a system where I've
pasted code from my other my different plug-in sources into an automate
plug-in. That plug-in used a number of control files (in text format) to
On 9/17/2013 1:35 PM, Robert Patterson wrote:
I agree with Darcy's list of wishes long before playback features, and to
them I would add music spacing options by region and part.
BTW: if you are looking for an open framework, there is MuseScore. I
haven't been following exactly where it is
Great. I'll take a look.
Thanks,
Steve
On 9/17/13 1:03 PM, Jari Williamsson
jari.williams...@mailbox.swipnet.se wrote:
On 2013-09-17 14:39, Fiskum, Steve wrote:
Could you please add this to you plugin before TGTools is obsolete?
You are in the JW Lua list as well, I believe? I just posted a
I agree with Darcy's list of wishes long before playback features, and to
them I would add music spacing options by region and part.
BTW: if you are looking for an open framework, there is MuseScore. I
haven't been following exactly where it is going lately, but I think it has
the potential to
I think Steinberg notation software is, at this point, the poster boy for 100%
vaporware. They put out a video with demos made on a totally different
product, for goodness' sake!
I wish them only the best, and hope the ultimate product does all that is
promised and more, but only vapor is
On 2013-09-17 14:39, Fiskum, Steve wrote:
Could you please add this to you plugin before TGTools is obsolete?
You are in the JW Lua list as well, I believe? I just posted a script
that'll work in 0.05 there.
Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
___
On 9/17/2013 2:18 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:
I think Steinberg notation software is, at this point, the poster boy for
100%
vaporware. They put out a video with demos made on a totally different
product, for goodness' sake!
I wish them only the best, and hope the ultimate product does all
You're thinking of ThinkMusic, not the Steinberg product.
http://www.sibeliusblog.com/news/makers-of-music-handwriting-app-video-used-sibelius-and-goodreader-to-create-dramatization/
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org
On Sep 17, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Raymond Horton
I am aligned with Darcy's priorities. Computers ought to be good at these
tasks - be able to analyze the parameters and make appropriate adjustments.
This seems to me to be the kind of mathematics that can be usefully built into
software.
Translation of audio files into notation is a more
I don't think it's fair to call the Steinberg product vaporware. Steinberg is
an established software company that has hired an established development team
(almost the entire Sibelius staff) headed by one of the most respected people
in the industry, Daniel Spreadbury. So far, they've
If I had a dollar for every vaporware announcement that never saw the
light of day, I would be a rich man.
I would be happy to forward to the list, without charge, my unending,
monthly, robot-generated, unsubscribable-from email announcements about Igor
:-)
While I can understand your reservations, many longtime Finale users
may not be familiar with Daniel Spreadbury. He is a genius when it comes
to notation (and music software in general). He is thoroughly familiar
with both Sibelius and Finale, well antiquated with most other music
software,
I refuse to argue over the definition of vaporware. The Steinberg product
does not exist, and that makes it vapor in my book. You are free to write
your own definition.
My main point is, it does not matter how good a software developer you are,
a great deal of stars have to align for a software
I'm not going to defend MuseScore because I am not that familiar with it. I
am merely a bystander watching it gradually may inroads.
But I am but surprised at the dismissive implications of calling Fin and
Sib 20-year-old products. Finale 2012 is 2 years old. It would be
laughable to compare it
Don't laugh to hard but I still fire up as far back as 3.5.2 as of today. A lot
has changed but a lot is still the same (shape designer, chord suffix dbx,
etc..). Finale really needs to OWN these and other very important developments
by improving them with continued development. They have done
On some levels I agree. In theory I like all in one. But that usually isn't
the end result. One is always lacking. Compromise is usually required you
end up with a program that is impossible to learn
I'm happy with XML to go back and forth when needed.
--
On
The video is what made it instant vaporware.
That video reminded me of the movie Tucker.
(I'm assuming that there was some Hollywood compression and exaggeration in
the film, but for these purposes I'll take the film as as fact.)
Tucker and cronies crammed together a car for an early showing
33 matches
Mail list logo
