Craig Parmerlee schrieb:
On 8 Jul 2005 at 9:18, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I think they are going to have to abandon the yearly upgrades. I think
it's a really bad business practice in the first place, because it
places a schedule on development that is artificial -- a software
development
Craig Parmerlee wrote:
[snip]
As users who have a vested interest in Finale surviving, we cannot solve
the software problems for them. But we can buy upgrades to help them
fund the continued development. Anybody who cares enough to post
messages on an Internet board really shouldn't be
On 21 Jul 2005 at 23:46, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 at 9:18, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I think they are going to have to abandon the yearly upgrades. I
think it's a really bad business practice in the first place, because
it places a schedule on development that is artificial -- a
Craig Parmerlee wrote:
First, let me apologize to Johannes for the incorrect quotation line in
my earlier message.
dhbailey quoted Craig Parmerlee saying:
[snip]
As users who have a vested interest in Finale surviving, we cannot
solve the software problems for them. But we can buy
On 22 Jul 2005 at 18:03, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
Last year, we fought ferociously to get
ourselves out of the legacy problem -- advancing our platform 15 years
in the course of 12 months. Now we are determined to take full
advantage of the productivity that comes when you can get rid of that
On Jul 22, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
Posting to a discussion group is neither here nor there. Complaining
about Finale's upgrade policy seems pointless and counter-productive.
If one doesn't care about Finale's survival, then why is one here?
Caring about Finale's survival
Mark D Lew wrote:
For many of us, 100 bucks is not measly. My gross income last year
was about $7,000. Does that mean I care less about Finale? Show some
perspective. Not everyone here is the same.
And I thought *I* was cutting it thin! Here's wishing business to you!!
Anyway, my
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 22 Jul 2005 at 18:03, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
Last year, we fought ferociously to get
ourselves out of the legacy problem -- advancing our platform 15 years
in the course of 12 months. Now we are determined to take full
advantage of the productivity that comes
Mark D Lew wrote:
[snip] out-of-the-box settings are like, since I always use my own.
Maybe they
suck. If so, MakeMusic could accomplish a lot without touching the
program at all and just making some decent templates.
You know, you may have just said a mouthful with that remark!
If
dhbailey wrote:
If Finale would make include some templates which are predefined for
various house-styles (Henle, BreitkopfHaertel, BooseyHawkes,
G.Schirmer, Schott, Carl Fischer, Southern Music, Rubank, whatever)
with libraries which include more common dynamic marks, more common
tempo
dhbailey schrieb:
If Finale would make include some templates which are predefined for
various house-styles (Henle, BreitkopfHaertel, BooseyHawkes,
G.Schirmer, Schott, Carl Fischer, Southern Music, Rubank, whatever) with
libraries which include more common dynamic marks, more common tempo
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
dhbailey wrote:
If Finale would make include some templates which are predefined for
various house-styles (Henle, BreitkopfHaertel, BooseyHawkes,
G.Schirmer, Schott, Carl Fischer, Southern Music, Rubank, whatever)
with libraries which include more common dynamic
At 9:18 AM -0400 7/11/05, dhbailey wrote:
I didn't think look-and-feel could be patented/copyrighted/trademarked.
Under U.S. law it can't. European law may be different in this
aspect, judging from comments that have been made from our friends
across the pond.
John
--
John Susie
On Jul 9, 2005, at 2:14 AM, Lon Price wrote:
1. Virtually every slur has to be tweaked. If I change the music
spacing I can pretty much count on slurs going haywire, being drawn at
an ungodly height, for instance, and colliding with all manner of
notational elements--ties, accidentals,
On Jul 8, 2005, at 11:07 AM, John Howell wrote:Ummm, save you the time and knowledge base needed to create your template? I, for one, don't speak EPVU or whatever the heck it is! It's my son who investigated Sibelius, not me, but my understanding from him is that the House Styles give you
Lon Price schrieb:
Time and knowledge base indeed. I'm one of those people who are sick of
tweaking, and would like for the default settings to be at least close
to usable. I'm working on a book of pieces for flute and piano for my
students, and I find that I'm having to do a lot of
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I honestly don't think MakeMusic is big enough to run their
development projects in that manner. It basically means running
multiple codebases at the same time, and forking them before you've
finished implementing the features in a previous
On Jul 9, 2005, at 5:14 AM, Lon Price wrote:
1. Virtually every> slur has to be tweaked. If I change the music spacing I can pretty much count on slurs going haywire, being drawn at an ungodly height, for instance, and colliding with all manner of notational elements--ties, accidentals,
On Jul 9, 2005, at 2:55 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:Which version of Finale, pre or post Engraver slurs. If you are using a recent version it sounds to me like your font annotation has gone crazy, or your Engraver slur settings are wrong. There are problems with Engraver slurs, but it sounds you
Lon Price schrieb:
On Jul 9, 2005, at 2:55 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Which version of Finale, pre or post Engraver slurs. If you are using
a recent version it sounds to me like your font annotation has gone
crazy, or your Engraver slur settings are wrong.
There are problems with Engraver
On 09/07/05, Johannes Gebauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lon Price schrieb:
Now, how do I get my instrument library to load in a file created with
Setup Wizard?
I have no idea, actually, playback has never been one of my main
concerns...
The default settings for instruments can be
At 07:34 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Change all of those settings at once in a pre-existing file, simply
by choosing a different house style?
I don't know -- I'm guessing.
It's the only implementation of such a thing that would make any
sense to me.
Yes, that;s the way it's designed to work.
David W. Fenton schrieb:
I guess my point is that the kind of restructuring I'm calling for
here would go much further to making it possible to manage house
styles than any of the things you mentioned.
Except it won't happen.
I'm not certain about that. The Finale developers are computer
I think you are somewhat missing the point. It's not about supporting
any kind of style element, it is about switching between different house
styles. In Sibelius I understand you can switch between house styles at
the click of the mouse, while in Finale try doing this.
In Sibelius this also
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 consideration, that I'm not
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
[snip]
David, I am absolutely certain it won't happen. Not unless the way
MakeMusic has been working the last few years will change radically.
Johannes
We've already been told on this list that unless whatever engraving
changes are requested can demonstrably be
dhbailey schrieb:
I agree with Johannes that things such as house styles (or Finale
style-sheets or whatever they want to call them) which can be altered,
saved, and then can be applied to any Finale file for instantaneous
appearance changes without having to copy the music to a new template
At 9:21 PM -0500 7/7/05, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
What can a Sibelius House Style do that one cannot do with a
Finale template?
Ummm, save you the time and knowledge base needed to create your
template? I, for one, don't speak EPVU or whatever the heck it is!
It's my son who investigated
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
[snip]
David, I am absolutely certain it won't happen.
Not unless the way
MakeMusic has been working the last few years will
change radically.
Johannes
We've already been told on this list that unless
whatever
Tyler Turner schrieb:
I stated that when you consider the size of the
professional engraver market, MakeMusic devotes a
disproportionate number of features directly to that
market. These are features that benefit this group and
few other people. I also stated that when MakeMusic
has ideas on
On 8 Jul 2005 at 9:18, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
David W. Fenton schrieb:
I guess my point is that the kind of restructuring I'm calling for
here would go much further to making it possible to manage house
styles than any of the things you mentioned.
Except it won't happen.
I'm not
When David W. Fenton writes:
I think they are going to have to abandon the yearly upgrades. I
think it's a really bad business practice in the first place, because
it places a schedule on development that is artificial -- a software
development schedule should be determined by the goals of
On 8 Jul 2005 at 16:07, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
When David W. Fenton writes:
I think they are going to have to abandon the yearly upgrades. I
think it's a really bad business practice in the first place, because
it places a schedule on development that is artificial -- a software
Tyler Turner wrote:
[snip]
If you're upset with the features being included,
fine. But don't stretch my words to forward your
argument.
I publicly apologize if I have misinterpreted Tyler's remarks (which
apparently I have done.)
I don't mean to put words into anybody's mouth (other than
David W. Fenton wrote:
I honestly don't think MakeMusic is big enough to run their
development projects in that manner. It basically means running
multiple codebases at the same time, and forking them before you've
finished implementing the features in a previous version.
Well, I didn't
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 to Finale with as I understand very limited programming
effort (as most of it is already in Finale, just not
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 to Finale with as I understand very limited programming
On 7 Jul 2005 at 22:24, 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 to Finale with as I understand very limited programming
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 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
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
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
43 matches
Mail list logo
