www.noteheads.com is still there. You can download a demo of Igor,
which has sadly not been updated for quite a long time (there's no Mac
OSX version). You can even apparently buy it for 295 USD. There are
lots of excellent ideas in Igor: it's well worth looking at it just to
inspire feature
Hello!
Am 06.07.2005 um 13:04 schrieb John Abram:
Igor was such a great fledgeling programme.
...
A tragedy it was effectively killed off by the new owners before it
was fully functional...
Did I miss something?
New owners?
Hmm. noteheads.com seems to have vanished.
Gerhard
At 2:46 PM -0400 7/11/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 11 Jul 2005 at 2:01, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
I do however send back those little postage-paid upgrade offers
every time I get one, with a note saying that I'd love to upgrade
as soon as they get rid of the stupid tethered-copy-protection.
On 12 Jul 2005 at 0:08, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 11 Jul 2005, at 8:07 PM, Ken Durling wrote:
I'm confused by this - isn't AIFF the mac equivalent of a .WAV
file? MIDI files contain no timbral information, so wouldn't there
have to be an intermediate sound card or sampler for the MIDI
At 7:41 AM -0400 7/10/05, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 01:52 PM 7/10/05 +1000, Rocky Road wrote:
You might be a different Dennis but I'm sure there was a Dennis on
this forum swearing he'd never upgrade software that used
Challenge-Response copy protection. Isn't Sibelius CP even more
On 11 Jul 2005 at 2:01, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
I do however send back those little postage-paid upgrade offers every
time I get one, with a note saying that I'd love to upgrade as soon as
they get rid of the stupid tethered-copy-protection. I figure that
since it's their dime I can make the
Hi!
Am 05.07.2005 um 21:00 schrieb Darcy James Argue:
I believe you could convert MIDI files to AIFF files using QuickTime
Pro
Yes, you can.
-- or even (I think) iTunes.
Never tried that.
Gerhard
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
Am 05.07.2005 um 23:20 schrieb Darcy James Argue:
Going over the promo videos for Sib 4, one other thing I notice is that
Sibelius has finally fixed what was one of the most frustrating and
infuriating aspects of its UI back when I was learning to use it -- it
now has an insertion point.
I'm confused by this - isn't AIFF the mac equivalent of a .WAV file? MIDI
files contain no timbral information, so wouldn't there have to be an
intermediate sound card or sampler for the MIDI file to drive to produce
an AIFF?
Ken
Hi!
Am 05.07.2005 um 21:00 schrieb Darcy James
On 11 Jul 2005, at 8:07 PM, Ken Durling wrote:
I'm confused by this - isn't AIFF the mac equivalent of a .WAV file?
MIDI files contain no timbral information, so wouldn't there have to
be an intermediate sound card or sampler for the MIDI file to drive
to produce an AIFF?
Ken,
QuickTime
At 01:52 PM 7/10/05 +1000, Rocky Road wrote:
You might be a different Dennis but I'm sure there was a Dennis on
this forum swearing he'd never upgrade software that used
Challenge-Response copy protection. Isn't Sibelius CP even more
Draconian?
He was a different Dennis. I'm that Dennis. And
Rocky Road wrote:
Not to mention EPS export, broken for years and years, and probably
never to be fixed. I must say I'm very tempted to switch, at least for
some projects.
It's also quite amazing that many of us got more attention from
Sibelius than from MM.
Dennis
You might be a
Not to mention EPS export, broken for years and years, and probably
never to be fixed. I must say I'm very tempted to switch, at least
for some projects.
It's also quite amazing that many of us got more attention from
Sibelius than from MM.
Dennis
You might be a different Dennis but
Tyler wrote:
Now if you want to get specific,
the reason other people wanted it was because those
other people saw a point in it. And quite frankly so
did the people at MakeMusic. But when it comes right
down to it, the reason to include the feature stems
first from the fact that people WANT
Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote:
Tyler wrote:
Now if you want to get specific,
the reason other people wanted it was because those
other people saw a point in it. And quite frankly so
did the people at MakeMusic. But when it comes right
down to it, the reason to include the feature
Tyler Turner schrieb:
If 90% of
Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal
compositions performed by real people, don't you think
something like GPO will be more attractive to them
than linked parts?
That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for their
own
Tyler Turner schrieb:
Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger
selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times
do composers click play as opposed to extracting
parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as
commonly as some people here believe. It wasn't a
frequent topic on
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Tyler Turner schrieb:
Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger
selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times
do composers click play as opposed to extracting
parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as
commonly as some people here believe. It
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Tyler Turner schrieb:
If 90% of
Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal
compositions performed by real people, don't you think
something like GPO will be more attractive to them
than linked parts?
That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale
Tyler Turner schrieb:
If 90% of
Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal
compositions performed by real people, don't you think
something like GPO will be more attractive to them
than linked parts?
Thinking about this theory even more, why on earth any of these
composers who
Tyler Turner schrieb:
If 90% of Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal
compositions performed by real people, don't you think
something like GPO will be more attractive to them
than linked parts?
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for
their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%.
I just took a quick mental survey of all the people I personally know
who use Finale. Out of the 25 or so users, only 2 use it exclusively
Randolph Peters wrote:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for
their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%.
I just took a quick mental survey of all the people I personally know
who use Finale. Out of the 25 or so
Randolph Peters schrieb:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
That is assuming that more than 90% of Finale users use Finale for
their own compositions - hardly likely. Probably more like 10%.
I don't know what percentage I'm in, but I use Finale only for my
compositions, I get my compositions
On 7/6/05, Tyler Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger
selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times
do composers click play as opposed to extracting
parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as
commonly as some people here believe.
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Tyler Turner schrieb:
If 90% of
Finale users will never get the bulk of their
personal
compositions performed by real people, don't you
think
something like GPO will be more attractive to
them
than linked
Tyler Turner schrieb:
Addressing the point in another post about the
inclusion of GPO being a catch up to Sibelius Kontakt
implementation - this isn't the case. Finale was
already pretty much on par. The sounds weren't quite
up to Sibelius', but Sibelius only includes 20 sounds,
and only 8 can
At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8
sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give
me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC.
What's chewing all the CPU? In Sonar, I can
On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:42 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8
sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't
give
me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a
On Jul 7, 2005, at 5:55 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:Thinking about this theory even more, why on earth any of these composers who want playback more than output chose Finale in the first place, is am complete mystery to me. And I doubt that even with the latest improvements Finale is going to be
At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included, 8
sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So don't give
me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range PC.
What's chewing all the CPU? In Sonar, I
--- Johannes Gebauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Tyler Turner schrieb:
Addressing the point in another post about the
inclusion of GPO being a catch up to Sibelius
Kontakt
implementation - this isn't the case. Finale was
already pretty much on par. The sounds weren't
quite
up to
Lee,
It's not Finale. It's the Native Instruments Kontakt Player. The Mac
version sucks. Results are equally awful playing back GPO instruments
from a sequencer.
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:50 PM, Lee Actor wrote:
At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200,
Tyler Turner wrote:
No, I'm quite sure that a large majority of Finale
users use Finale at least in part for their own
personal compositions. I can draw this conclusion from
my own experience dealing with a sampling of thousands
of Finale users as well as other sources.
Compositional use of
dhbailey schrieb:
Now that we have seen how Sibelius has done it (very elegantly from what
I've seen of the demo) and we know it can be done, we're clamoring for
it more.
Although I agree, Robert P. has got me thinking. I do fear that not only
is this going to be a really major change in
I don't know how efficient Finale playback is on Macs without GPO, but on
PCs it's horrendous. I use Finale to drive external MIDI devices, which you
wouldn't think would very strenuous, but I can't even reliably record the
audio output from my mixer in another app at the same time, on a very
On 7 Jul 2005 at 19:48, Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote:
Tyler wrote:
Now if you want to get specific,
the reason other people wanted it was because those
other people saw a point in it. And quite frankly so
did the people at MakeMusic. But when it comes right
down to it, the
On 7 Jul 2005 at 11:46, Lon Price wrote:
I'm surprised that this dynamic part linking issue is suddenly such a
big deal to everybody. Like I said in an earlier post, MOTU's Mosaic
had that feature, and if MOTU hadn't completely abandoned that
program, I would never have bought Finale.
On 7 Jul 2005 at 11:50, Lee Actor wrote:
At 08:30 PM 7/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Well, actually, on any mid-range Mac, my pretty new iBook included,
8 sounds is already over the top. Crackling, drop outs etc. So
don't give me that, 64 is probably even impossible on a top range
On 7 Jul 2005 at 22:15, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
However, here is an idea: How about inventing a Project File
architecture, where the linking is done via a project file which
doesn't include any actual notation data, but just keeps track of all
linked score and part files. When you need to
Darcy James Argue schrieb:
Also, you'll notice that one of the most accomplished engravers on this
list, Johannes Gebauer, now uses GPO -- and in fact was recently
complaining that GPO-Finale integration in 2k5 leaves a lot to be
desired, and requires far too much hand-tweaking. I happen to
Well, I think the GPO thing is a good idea, however, it assumes that you
have a computer that is capable of running it. So, for me, it's useless on
my 933Mhz G4, which runs Finale just fine if it is to a Midi device.
I like the sounds with GPO, it is just unrealistic to bill it as a
feature when
On 06 Jul 2005, at 2:48 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Sorry, Darcy, but I am not with you on this one. I would have given
anything for linked score and parts, and I actually find GPO is a
gimmick and couldn't have cared less had it not been included with
Finale.
But you bought it! I
Darcy Argue wrote:
BUT... having said all that, it's still a little galling to see
Sibelius stealing our thunder like that. I think we came up with an
excellent plan for dynamic score-part linking in Finale (one that, I
should add, looks very very similar to the one Sibelius implemented),
On 06 Jul 2005, at 4:43 AM, Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote:
Darcy Argue wrote:
BUT... having said all that, it's still a little galling to see
Sibelius stealing our thunder like that. I think we came up with
an excellent plan for dynamic score-part linking in Finale (one that,
I
Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 06 Jul 2005, at 4:43 AM, Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote:
Darcy Argue wrote:
BUT... having said all that, it's still a little galling to see
Sibelius stealing our thunder like that. I think we came up with
an excellent plan for dynamic score-part linking
I didn't say I didn't care about playback, but linked score and parts
would have been 100x more interesting to me. And I couldn't care less
about the mixer.
Johannes
Darcy James Argue schrieb:
On 06 Jul 2005, at 2:48 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Sorry, Darcy, but I am not with you on this
At 11:48 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
Now, linked parts and score, that would have been an amazing idea. Wait,
hasn't someone else announced it?
Didn't Igor have something like this feature?
Ken
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:35 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Lots of people on this list have expressed an interest in GPO, but
are still sitting on the fence, or waiting to see what Fin2006 brings,
or waiting until they upgrade their machines, or waiting to see what
the sample GPO instruments
When Sibelius contacted me RE what features I would like to see in Sib
4, I asked for the solutions to my two pet peeves: The ability to apply
a single bracket type at multiple horizontal positions in a single
system, and the ability to break secondary beams at will.
Anybody know if either
On 5 Jul 2005 at 22:31, Ken Durling wrote:
OK, just looked at the Finale Insert measure dialogue, (as per page
14/6 in the F2K manual) and it's really no different from the
Sibelius CreateBarOther (or Single multiple times) which allows you
to insert any number of measures of the time
On 6-Jul-05, at 10:27 AM, Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Didn't Igor have something like this feature?
Ken
Oh Yes YES IT DID!
Igor was such a great fledgeling programme.
The Igor way was that there were no separate files for parts - a
part was simply a layout of the score
--- Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jul 5, 2005, at 11:07 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:
Discussing the merits of the feature from a
functionality standpoint isn't really what's
needed
here. The justification for the feature was that
people wanted it. It was in high demand
On 5 Jul 2005 at 19:35, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Actually, I believe the addition of a mixer has been the
most-requested new Finale feature request for many years now. It's
ridiculous for you to claim there isn't a demand for it just because
you don't need it.
A mixer in Finale makes
David,
People have been requesting a mixer for use with the QuickTime
Instruments (and, later sound fonts) since Finale starting supporting
QuickTime instruments and sound fonts. Why is that illogical? The
need for some kind of mixer is the same regardless of whether you're
using Coda's
On 5 Jul 2005 at 20:14, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 05 Jul 2005, at 8:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 at 19:35, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Actually, I believe the addition of a mixer has been the
most-requested new Finale feature request for many years now. It's
ridiculous
On 05 Jul 2005, at 8:54 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 at 20:42, Darcy James Argue wrote:
While I never actually tried to do this myself, my recollection is
that it was possible to convert a Finale-generated QuickTime MIDI file
to audio.
Using Finale? How?
No, using QuickTime.
On 5 Jul 2005 at 21:31, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 05 Jul 2005, at 8:54 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 at 20:42, Darcy James Argue wrote:
While I never actually tried to do this myself, my recollection is
that it was possible to convert a Finale-generated QuickTime MIDI
On 05 Jul 2005, at 10:27 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, you could *not* do it *before* the Finale sound font existed.
That's entirely my point -- before that point, there was no
justification for having a mixer inside Finale. Once that was
provided for playback along with Finale (and, I'd
--- David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er, you could *not* do it *before* the Finale sound
font existed.
That's entirely my point -- before that point, there
was no
justification for having a mixer inside Finale.
.
Discussing the merits of the feature from a
On 5 Jul 2005 at 22:43, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 05 Jul 2005, at 10:27 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, you could *not* do it *before* the Finale sound font existed.
That's entirely my point -- before that point, there was no
justification for having a mixer inside Finale. Once that was
On 05 Jul 2005, at 11:10 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 at 22:43, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I believe you *can* play back a MIDI file with the Finale soundfont
from a separate sequencer. It's a standard soundfont and I think you
can use it in any situation you'd use any other
At 11:10 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 at 22:43, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I believe you *can* play back a MIDI file with the Finale soundfont
from a separate sequencer. It's a standard soundfont and I think you
can use it in any situation you'd use any other soundfont.
Discussing the merits of the feature from a
functionality standpoint isn't really what's needed
here. The justification for the feature was that
people wanted it.
What is discouraging is that it apparently is the only justification that is
needed. This kind of thinking has seemed to
At 09:17 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
Going over the promo videos for Sib 4, one other thing I notice is that
Sibelius has finally fixed what was one of the most frustrating and
infuriating aspects of its UI back when I was learning to use it -- it now
has an insertion point.
Darcy -
Could you
OK, just looked at the Finale Insert measure dialogue, (as per page 14/6
in the F2K manual) and it's really no different from the Sibelius
CreateBarOther (or Single multiple times) which allows you to insert any
number of measures of the time signature or in a different one. Am I
missing
At 10:31 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
OK, just looked at the Finale Insert measure dialogue, (as per page 14/6
in the F2K manual) and it's really no different from the Sibelius
CreateBarOther (or Single multiple times) which allows you to insert any
number of measures of the time signature or in
On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:54 AM, Tyler Turner wrote:
Are you sure this is in there? I've been playing with
the demo and can't find a way to insert. If you're
talking about that cursor, I think that's for playback
only.
Guys, guys guys,
I'm talking about the INSERTION POINT. During Step-Time
--- Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, just looked at the Finale Insert measure
dialogue, (as per page 14/6
in the F2K manual) and it's really no different from
the Sibelius
CreateBarOther (or Single multiple times) which
allows you to insert any
number of measures of the
69 matches
Mail list logo
