After many years hiatus from the music biz I am dusting off the old
onion skins and getting back into writing. The last version of
Finale I used in earnest was Finale 98, but I have seen and
experimented with both Finale 2006/2007 and Sibelius 4.xx. I do have
a lot of old music in the
On 03.10.2006 Bob Shuster wrote:
*SO*, what's the advice? Do I stick with Finale or do the Sibelius crossgrade?
What I have seen of the new Finale - it looks pretty much the same as Finale
98, except with Aqua-looking buttons and a lot of consumer-level features added
that I'll never use.
Bob Shuster wrote:
*SO*,
what's the advice? Do I stick with Finale or do the Sibelius
crossgrade? What I have seen of the new Finale - it looks pretty much
the same as Finale 98, except with Aqua-looking buttons and a lot of
consumer-level features added that I'll never use. Sibelius on the
Bob Shuster wrote:
*SO*,
what's the advice? Do I stick with Finale or do the Sibelius
crossgrade? What I have seen of the new Finale - it looks pretty much
the same as Finale 98, except with Aqua-looking buttons and a lot of
consumer-level features added that I'll never use. Sibelius on the
Bob Shuster wrote:
After many years hiatus from the music biz I am dusting off the old
onion skins and getting back into writing. The last version of Finale I
used in earnest was Finale 98, but I have seen and experimented with
both Finale 2006/2007 and Sibelius 4.xx. I do have a lot of old
On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Bob Shuster wrote:
One other consideration is that I'd *really* like to use the Golden
Age font - however I am confidant that I can modify it for use in
either application.
Golden Age should work fine in Finale, either platform, though you
would have to have
After many years hiatus from the music biz I am dusting off the old onion skins and getting back into writing. The last version of Finale I used in earnest was Finale 98, but I have seen and experimented with both Finale 2006/2007 and Sibelius 4.xx. I do have a lot of old music in the Finale 98
Bob Shuster wrote:
What I have seen of the new Finale - it looks pretty much the same as
Finale 98, except with Aqua-looking buttons
I can't speak for Sibelius in this regard, but there is the ability in
Finale, to set the look and feel to much closer to the way the look
and feel operated in
On 6 Jun 2004 at 8:13, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 4 Jun 2004 at 22:17, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Jun 4, 2004, at 9:29 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Lyric tool works well.
Really? Lyric tool works well if you know what you're doing, or if
you never do anything
On 6 Jun 2004 at 15:56, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Jun 6, 2004, at 5:01 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Style sheets would be a fantastic addition to Finale!
I could be wrong, but my sense is that incorporating style sheets
directly into Finale is too impractical to even consider as a feature
request to
On 6 Jun 2004 at 21:13, John Howell wrote:
At 7:50 PM -0400 6/4/04, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 06:55 PM 06/04/2004, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
For example, I HATE the way Microsoft Word
makes assumptions about what I want done with my typing, like
correcting my spelling without telling me, or
On 7 Jun 2004 at 6:14, dhbailey wrote:
But if it's possible in web-sites with html programming, it can't be
that difficult to implement.
I agreed with everything you wrote up to this point.
You can't compare implementation across different domains.
HTML was designed from the very beginning
On 7 Jun 2004 at 12:03, Fisher, Allen wrote:
DON'T USE TYPE INTO SCORE
Why? In your entire rant about not using type into score, I didn't see
a clear reason why.
Rant?
The reason not to use type in score is that it creates a text stream
that doesn't really match the real text being set
David W. Fenton wrote:
The reason not to use type in score is that it creates a text stream
that doesn't really match the real text being set *unless* you have
very carefully ordered your typing in a way that will create a
comprehensible text in the actual data store. With click assignment,
Where David W. Fenton writes:
But [using type into score] you have to do the entry in the correct order to get the lyrics to come out comprehensibly.
I would suggest instead, that one merely needs to understand how Finale
places syllables in the lyrics area of the data file, in order to be
On Jun 7, 2004, at 10:47 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Seems to me that Lyrics got the way it is because it is an *old*
subsystem, dating back to very early versions of Finale, and the
changes to it have been bolted on the sides over time, making it
rather baroque and nearly impossible to figure out.
On Jun 7, 2004, at 5:24 AM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
(though I consider it a design flaw that when syllable counts are
changed in the edit lyrics box, syllables shift from the current
system to the next one, or from the next system to the current one,
depending upon whether the syllable count
On Jun 7, 2004, at 10:59 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Yes, it *is* a problem with Type in Score, since certain kinds of
problems that pop up in Type in Score can only be figured out by
going to Edit Lyrics. I can't remember a specific example, but with
my Requiem example, that was where I got in
On Jun 7, 2004, at 3:14 AM, dhbailey wrote:
But if it's possible in web-sites with html programming, it can't be
that difficult to implement.
Right, but it's not the web-site that does the implementing, it's the
browser. The browser is essentially an interpreter of HTML code. The
analog would
On 7 Jun 2004 at 16:12, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Jun 7, 2004, at 10:47 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Indeed, a lot of very small changes could make Lyrics much more
usable (like allowing resizing of the click assignment dialog --
geez, how frigging hard would *that* be?),
Amen! And the Edit
At 2:07 PM -0400 6/7/04, David W. Fenton wrote:
Don't you folks always explore the menus of programs when you start
using them? With Microsoft programs on Windows, user controllable
options are stored on the Tools menu, under OPTIONS. Word also has
separate menu entries for Autocorrect. I don't if
On Jun 5, 2004, at 8:18 PM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
[responding to David Fenton's suggestion]
DON'T USE TYPE INTO SCORE
Once you figure that out, it's pretty easy to use.
which I must say, does not match my experience at all. After several
years of creating choral music in various layout
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip]
Indeed, properly it should be implemented like stylesheets for web
pages. You can change the entire look of a web page (not just colors
and fonts) by changing to a different stylesheet. If Finale files
stored a score layout that defined systems and page layout, and
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 4 Jun 2004 at 22:17, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Jun 4, 2004, at 9:29 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Lyric tool works well.
Really? Lyric tool works well if you know what you're doing, or if
you never do anything complicated, but it has lots of pit-traps that
the unwray can fall
On Jun 6, 2004, at 6:14 AM, dhbailey wrote:
[answering Noel Stoutenberg, regarding Type in Score entry of lyrics]
and I'd ask some examples to explain this quirky behavior, as type
into score seems pretty straightforward to me, Select a lyric type
(verse, chorus, section), and number, and type
At 7:50 PM -0400 6/4/04, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 06:55 PM 06/04/2004, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
For example, I HATE the way Microsoft Word
makes assumptions about what I want done with my typing, like
correcting my spelling without telling me, or putting bullets or
numbers when I hit carriage
On 5 Jun 2004 at 0:11, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
At 7:50 PM -0400 6/04/04, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 4 Jun 2004 at 18:55, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
I suppose this amounts to a different philosophy about what I want
my notation program to do.
You seem to assume a number of things:
On 4 Jun 2004 at 22:17, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Jun 4, 2004, at 9:29 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Lyric tool works well.
Really? Lyric tool works well if you know what you're doing, or if
you never do anything complicated, but it has lots of pit-traps that
the unwray can fall into. And
At 2:49 PM -0400 6/05/04, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Jun 2004 at 0:17, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
Well, I have a couple of macros to accomplish it. Mostly I want to
keep control. I re-extract when I see the need, and use the routine I
outlined when it would create less work.
But why do you
Thank you! That is what I have been hinting at.
David W. Fenton wrote:
The key distinction between data stored in a spreadsheet and data
stored in a relational database is that the latter separates data
storage from data presentation, whereas in a spreadsheet, the place
where you store the data
For example, I HATE the way Microsoft Word
makes assumptions about what I want done with my typing, like
correcting my spelling without telling me, or putting bullets or
numbers when I hit carriage return.
You know you can turn all of that off, right?
Aaron.
Hey, Aaron, I
On Jun 5, 2004, at 12:22 PM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
Auto word extensions slow down the Mac version of 2004 something
awful. Taking lyrics into account for music spacing (this has been
part of Finale for a long time, I admit) sometimes gives really odd
results, like if you have a long
At 7:21 PM -0700 6/05/04, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Jun 5, 2004, at 12:22 PM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
And how do you shift syllables for the second verse without
messing up the first verse? It's true that it is better than it
was, but one still has to be careful, or major screw-ups can occur.
On 04.06.2004 7:36 Uhr, Arkady wrote
For me Mic Notator is important, and it doesn't exist in Sibelius.
REally? This is the first time I hear of anyone using this. Do you really
input your music with MicNotator successfully?
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
This issue has come up before on this list, and there were a whole
bunch of things discussed that I couldn't understand because I have
little programming experience, but here is my main objection:
What would happen to the layout of the parts when you made a change to
At 11:17 AM -0700 6/04/04, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
This issue has come up before on this list, and there were a whole
bunch of things discussed that I couldn't understand because I have
little programming experience, but here is my main objection:
What would happen to
At 2:00 PM -0700 6/04/04, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Layout would probably NOT be linked, but NOTES would. Does that make
sense? I can't count how many times I've changed something in a
score and FORGOT to update it in a part. Re extracting the part
would be way more time consuming. The placement of
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 4 Jun 2004 at 18:55, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
I suppose this amounts to a different philosophy about what I want my
notation program to do.
You seem to assume a number of things:
1. layout in the linked part would not be as fully adjustable as
layout in an extracted
On 4 Jun 2004 at 20:36, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 4 Jun 2004 at 18:55, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
I suppose this amounts to a different philosophy about what I want
my notation program to do.
You seem to assume a number of things:
1. layout in the linked
At 7:50 PM -0400 6/04/04, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 06:55 PM 06/04/2004, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
For example, I HATE the way Microsoft Word
makes assumptions about what I want done with my typing, like
correcting my spelling without telling me, or putting bullets or
numbers when I hit carriage
At 5:35 PM -0700 6/04/04, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
Once again, my little copying routine that I noted is so easy, that
I can hardly imagine justifying the kind of rewriting it would take
to accomplish linking ONLY notes in Finale. And doesn't anyone edit
anything else?
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
At 7:50 PM -0400 6/04/04, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 4 Jun 2004 at 18:55, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
I suppose this amounts to a different philosophy about what I want my
notation program to do.
You seem to assume a number of things:
1. layout in the linked part
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
You know, this is what I was referring to when I mentioned experienced
programmers seeming to see things that I don't. I don't understand the
term relational database. Maybe if I did, I would get what all you
guys want out of Finale.
Relational databases. See
At 9:29 PM -0700 6/04/04, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
I just think that if you are going to have to re-jig almost every
aspect of your part layout once you change something, why not just
re-extract parts again?
Why do you think that? Say you change 8 measures of music, is
I wonder how accurate this review is in terms of speed issues. I don't work
with large scores, so it's hard for me to tell.
For the 1st time buyers, Macworld endorses Sibelius. For long time users of
Finale, they don't see a compelling reason for switching to Sibelius, not
that I was even
The thing they should work on is linking parts to a score. It's a pain
in the ass to work on something, and have to remember to change the
score and other parts. It would be great to have them linked (if you
wanted) to a score, so, a change in a part would be reflected in the
score, and vice
46 matches
Mail list logo
