On Jul 13, 2005, at 3:51 AM, dhbailey wrote:
I don't think Finale is easy to use without a mouse, so I'm not sure
where your comment about hoping Sibelius being easy to use without a
mouse comes from.
We were talking about Speedy entry with qwerty. I use the mouse a lot
when tweaking
Richard Smith wrote:
These explanations are very wordy but if you play with it, I think you
will find Sibelius easy to use without a midi. I work quickly on both my
desktop and my laptop without midi. Just give yourself a little time to
get adjusted to Sibelius before making a judgment.
Mark D Lew wrote:
On Jul 12, 2005, at 9:18 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
These explanations are very wordy but if you play with it, I think you
will find Sibelius easy to use without a midi.
And without a mouse, too, I hope.
I work quickly on both my desktop and my laptop without midi. Just
At 03:52 AM 7/13/2005, you wrote:
Sibelius asks that you
define these properties of a note before you enter the
note itself.
Not true. I use Sibelius (as well as Finale) regularly, and I never input
in this manner. I always enter the notes first and then everything else
afterwards. Just
At 06:51 AM 7/13/05 -0400, dhbailey wrote:
I think that speedy entry in Finale, where you can work along without a
mouse once you have clicked to enter the editing frame, and you use only
the computer keyboard without the numeric keypad, isn't quite possible
in Sibelius.
I see. This is the
Dan Carno wrote:
Not true. I use Sibelius (as well as Finale) regularly, and I never
input in this manner. I always enter the notes first and then
everything else afterwards. Just as in Finale, it is a simple matter to
do mass entry of articulations, mass copying of expressions, etc.
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 06:51 AM 7/13/05 -0400, dhbailey wrote:
I think that speedy entry in Finale, where you can work along without a
mouse once you have clicked to enter the editing frame, and you use only
the computer keyboard without the numeric keypad, isn't
On 13 Jul 2005 at 9:37, Jari Williamsson wrote:
Richard Smith wrote:
These explanations are very wordy but if you play with it, I think
you will find Sibelius easy to use without a midi. I work quickly on
both my desktop and my laptop without midi. Just give yourself a
little time to
--- Dan Carno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Snip
At 03:52 AM 7/13/2005, you wrote:
Sibelius asks that you
define these properties of a note before you enter
the
note itself.
Not true. I use Sibelius (as well as Finale)
regularly, and I never input
in this manner. I always enter the notes
At 04:01 PM 7/13/2005, you wrote:
Sibelius
DOES ask you to specify the accidentals and
augmentation dots before entering the notes. This is
not optional unless you backtrack to the note, a
method which is obviously not efficient.
Hello Tyler,
Well, this brings us right back to the point I
On Jul 9, 2005, at 8:12 AM, Ken Durling wrote:
Not sure I understand this. Sib's whole basis seems to me to be
basically similar to Speedy Entry, using a MIDI keyboard and the
keypad. And I certainly find it speedy! I realize there are
differences, but not huge.
For many of us Speedy
On 13 Jul 2005, at 05:05, Mark D Lew wrote:
For many of us Speedy Entry means Speedy entry using the Qwerty
keyboard. I assumed that's what Matthew meant.
Does Sibelius have a good method of entry with the Qwerty keyboard?
If not, that would be a big negative for me.
You can easily find
Mark D. Lew asked:
Does Sibelius have a good method of entry with the Qwerty keyboard? If
not, that would be a big negative for me.
Sibelius has always had an elegant set of keyboard entry tools They appear
to have been the model for the ones introduced in Finale 2004. After an
initial
On Jul 12, 2005, at 9:18 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
These explanations are very wordy but if you play with it, I think you
will find Sibelius easy to use without a midi.
And without a mouse, too, I hope.
I work quickly on both my desktop and my laptop without midi. Just
give yourself a
We've been doing this as long as I can remember...
On 7/10/05 4:33 AM, Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] said this:
I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken:
http://www.finalemusic.com/store/specialoffers.aspx
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
And very cynical Americans...
On 7/10/05 4:59 PM, Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said this:
Maybe it was a dry British-type joke that only they and Canadians get,
but it WAS a joke.
--
Allen J. Fisher
Quality Assurance Developer
MakeMusic! Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jul 10, 2005, at 5:59 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Sheesh, everyone!
It was a JOKE!
Maybe it was a dry British-type joke that only they and Canadians get,
but it WAS a joke.
Maybe it's something about the e-mail medium, but except for puns and
items with clear joke markers in their
On Jul 11, 2005, at 10:41 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 10, 2005, at 5:59 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Sheesh, everyone!
It was a JOKE!
Maybe it was a dry British-type joke that only they and Canadians
get, but it WAS a joke.
Maybe it's something about the e-mail medium, but
That was exactly my thought, too, and I was trying to be funny - well
that didn't quite work...
Johannes
Andrew Stiller schrieb:
On Jul 10, 2005, at 5:59 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Sheesh, everyone!
It was a JOKE!
Maybe it was a dry British-type joke that only they and Canadians get,
On 11/07/05, Allen Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/10/05 4:33 AM, Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] said this:
I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken:
http://www.finalemusic.com/store/specialoffers.aspx
We've been doing this as long as I can remember...
However, it isn't as
On 7/9/05, Noel Stoutenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is also the issue of just how accurate Sibelius' claim of 1
users switching from Finale to Sibelius really is. I would expect that
it is true that 1 users took advantage of the competitive upgrade;
however, this was painless,
Technoid said:
Since that time, I have upgraded my Win/XP computer, and noticed the
other day that I hadn't reinstalled Sibelius. (In the back of my mind
I seem to recall that I had to phone Sibelius when I activated my
upgrade version, and decided that I wasn't up to waiting on hold for
On 10 Jul 2005, at 12:22 AM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
First, while Sibelius offered a competitive discount to Finale owners,
to my knowledge, C/N/M has never offered Sibelius users a competitive
discount.
I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken:
http://www.finalemusic.com/store/specialoffers.aspx
However, from reading your post it seems there is a small but important
difference: with Finale you have to hand in your Sibelius master disk.
As far as I understood the Sibelius offer does not require this, it just
requires proof of ownership.
Perhaps I am wrong?
Johannes
Darcy James Argue
John Howell wrote:
At 9:28 AM -0500 7/9/05, Robert Patterson wrote:
Isn't the fundamental problem here that the pie is not getting bigger?
Sibelius had the luxury of learning from Finale's mistakes. Its
original features list was a litany of Finale's (then) shortcomings.
Apparently its
Robert Patterson wrote:
[snip]
I don't agree about a big showdown. Both programs will more likely
stumble and muddle along in their respective directions. Honestly, I
can't believe so many grown adults are so worked up over software
marketing hype (which sfaict is the only thing anyone has
Robert Patterson wrote:
[snip]
There was that ultra-expensive Synclavier system that some were working
on in Dartmouth in the early eighties. This certainly predated Finale,
and it may have been a precursor to Sib. But I don't think it bore much
resemblance to the Mac/Win program that came
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
However, from reading your post it seems there is a small but important
difference: with Finale you have to hand in your Sibelius master disk.
As far as I understood the Sibelius offer does not require this, it just
requires proof of ownership.
Perhaps I am wrong?
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
I have not explored in any detail, the
Sibelius software patents, and if there are any that relate to items
like dynamic parts linking, or house styles
I have no inside knowledge, but I think it is highly unlikely MM will be
hesitant to implement dynamic parts linking
dhbailey schrieb:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
However, from reading your post it seems there is a small but
important difference: with Finale you have to hand in your Sibelius
master disk. As far as I understood the Sibelius offer does not
require this, it just requires proof of ownership.
To my comment,
First, while Sibelius offered a competitive discount to Finale owners,
to my knowledge, C/N/M has never offered Sibelius users a competitive
discount.
Darcy James Argue wrote:
I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken:
to which I can only note, that it's not the first time I've
On 10 Jul 2005, at 13:53, dhbailey wrote:
Why not let the Finale developers spend a bit more time on each
upgrade (as it was in the older days) and give us a more substantial
upgrade?
They could charge a bit more (like Sibelius does) for each of their
non-regular upgrades, to provide
Does anyone have an address for a Finale mailing list?
I have some questions I'd like to ask,
All the best,
Lawrence
"þaes
ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.ukDulcian
Wind Quintet: http://dulcianwind.co.uk
___
Finale mailing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have an address for a Finale mailing list?
I have some questions I'd like to ask,
All the best,
You've joined it, this message came through it.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 7:05
PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] The ultimate
Sibelius question...
Does
anyone
Michael Cook schrieb:
My bet is that MakeMusic would gain in the long run by not releasing a
Finale 2007 next year and bringing out a real must-have update a
year or so later.
I would agree with you, except that I think MakeMusic cannot afford to
let Fin2k6 stand against Sibelius 4 for
What? You mean another one?
Johannes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Does anyone have an address for a Finale mailing list?
I have some questions I'd like to ask,
All the best,
Lawrence
þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg
http://lawrenceyates.co.uk http://lawrenceyates.co.uk/
Dulcian Wind
Guys,
Lawrence was making a JOKE -- that with all the recent Siblelius talk,
one might think this was a Sibelius list. (Kinda spoils the joke if
you have to explain it.)
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 10 Jul 2005, at 4:06 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
What? You mean
On 9 Jul 2005 at 23:22, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
It occurs to me, too, that there is an aspect to some of these things
that may affect certain items. I have not explored in any detail, the
Sibelius software patents, and if there are any that relate to items
like dynamic parts linking, or
dhbailey wrote:
They've already
reduced their development department for Finale so they could put more
developers to work on MakeMusic.
Can you please include some proof to this statement?
Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
___
Finale mailing list
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is wonderful for the continued growth and
survival of MakeMusic,
but it doesn't bode so well for Finale, I'm afraid.
They've already
reduced their development department for Finale so
they could put more
developers to work on MakeMusic.
On Jul 10, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
What? You mean another one?
Johannes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Does anyone have an address for a Finale mailing list?
I have some questions I'd like to ask,
Sheesh, everyone!
It was a JOKE!
Maybe it was a dry British-type joke
On 10 Jul 2005 at 20:58, Michael Cook wrote:
[re: non-annual upgrades of Finale:]
There's another thing to consider: many users prefer not to purchase
the upgrade every year anyway: they will wait another year or two
until the latest version really seems to represent a substantial
improvement
Jari Williamsson wrote:
dhbailey wrote:
They've already reduced their development department for Finale so
they could put more developers to work on MakeMusic.
Can you please include some proof to this statement?
I can't recall the exact message from a few years ago in which it was
I thought it was a great joke!! :-)
Rick Neal
Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 10, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
What? You mean another one?
Johannes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Does anyone have an address for a Finale mailing list?
I have some questions I'd like to ask,
After quoting a bit of my comments, including
It occurs to me, too, that there is an aspect to some of these things
that may affect certain items. I have not explored in any detail, the
Sibelius software patents, and if there are any that relate to items
like dynamic parts linking, or house
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Can someone remind me why I _shouldn't_ switch to Sibelius? Seems like
it much more fulfills the promises of CAE (computer aided engraving...).
My quick 2c:
- No scroll view in Sibelius. Having the last bars on the page jump
around I find intensely irritating.
Can someone remind me why I _shouldn't_ switch to Sibelius? Seems like
it much more fulfills the promises of CAE (computer aided
engraving...).
My music school gave me Sibelius 3, including a five lesson course in how to
use it. I was excited and prepared really well for the first lesson:
Isn't the fundamental problem here that the pie is not getting bigger?
Sibelius had the luxury of learning from Finale's mistakes. Its original
features list was a litany of Finale's (then) shortcomings. Apparently
its entire reason for existing and strategy for growth was to be the
answer to
At 9:28 AM -0500 7/9/05, Robert Patterson wrote:
Isn't the fundamental problem here that the pie is not getting bigger?
Sibelius had the luxury of learning from Finale's mistakes. Its
original features list was a litany of Finale's (then) shortcomings.
Apparently its entire reason for
Matthew, this is a pretty good list. I wish I knew a bit more
(learning) about some of the features in Finale that you mention as I
think some things are there in different form. A few comments.
At 06:48 AM 7/9/2005, you wrote:
My quick 2c:
- No scroll view in Sibelius. Having the last
Robert Patterson schrieb:
If MM's strategy works, then Finale will be around a long, long time.
However, it may no longer be the program of choice for high-end
engravers. (Although that remains to be seen as well.) In any case, much
as I personally wish MM would stick to notation needs for
Finale came out in (I believe) 1988, and it should immediately or very
quickly have been available in the UK. It had regular upgrades until
about 1991, then it vanished until about 1994. I first began hearing
about Sibelius (running on Acorn) in the early nineties. The first set
of features
The Synclavier system was the basis for Graphire, IIRC.
Is Graphire being produced/supported??
- Original Message -
From: Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: finale@shsu.edu
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
about 1991
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
This will secure MakeMusic the educational
market, but not in the notation field, where Sibelius has already taken
over (perhaps not in numbers but with the V4 update certainly in
fame).
This seems overly pessimistic to me. Sib is a strong competitor. It
looks like
On 09 Jul 2005, at 12:10 PM, Robert Patterson wrote:
Honestly, I can't believe so many grown adults are so worked up over
software marketing hype (which sfaict is the only thing anyone has
seen about these linked parts).
Robert -- the Sibelius 4 demo is available NOW. It was immediately
--- Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Isn't the fundamental problem here that the pie is
not getting bigger?
To some extent this is true. The number of people
interested in a professional notation product
increases somewhat slowly. The biggest source might be
in the form of
On 08/07/05, Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Download the demo, read the manual, try inputting a page of music.
I tried out the Sib4 demo, and while the dynamic parts is really cool
(based on tests that were fairly superficial) I still felt stymied in
my attempts at numeric control
At 10:36 AM 7/9/05 -0500, Jim wrote:
The Synclavier system was the basis for Graphire, IIRC.
Is Graphire being produced/supported??
No. It has a support group, but no active development.
Dennis
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
At 10:30 AM 7/9/05 -0500, Robert Patterson wrote:
There was that ultra-expensive Synclavier system that some were working
on in Dartmouth in the early eighties.
That was what was renamed Graphire when the programmer took it independent.
It predated Finale, and was never to my knowledge marketed
Robert Patterson wrote:
Meanwhile, I suspect Finale has a poor track record of stealing users
from Sibelius. I do not say this because I think Sib is better or
worse. I'm just reporting my personal impressions of fact.
I would submit that there are two additional reasons Sibelius did a
Can someone remind me why I _shouldn't_ switch to Sibelius? Seems like
it much more fulfills the promises of CAE (computer aided engraving...).
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
Hi Johannes,
Not saying you *shouldn't* investigate Sib 4 -- they have a very nice
competitive upgrade price for Finale uses, and it's a good idea to try
to stay on top of the competition.
But I have a hunch that you will feel that the slurs are unacceptable
by your standards.
Have you
Darcy James Argue schrieb:
Hi Johannes,
Not saying you *shouldn't* investigate Sib 4 -- they have a very nice
competitive upgrade price for Finale uses, and it's a good idea to try
to stay on top of the competition.
But I have a hunch that you will feel that the slurs are unacceptable by
Johannes,
Trust me, you really are better off downloading the demo and
experimenting for yourself. You are the only one who knows which
Finale features are essential to you, and which you can do without, and
nothing can take the place of hands-on experimentation.
Download the demo, read
Darcy, I wasn't 100% serious anyway. I have no time nor intention to do
a quick switch to Sibelius, but I do want to put some pressure on
MakeMusic to move into the right direction.
Johannes
Darcy James Argue schrieb:
Johannes,
Trust me, you really are better off downloading the demo and
Johannes:
I agree with Darcy though, you should download the demo and check it
out. It's pretty amazing. I've owned Finale since 1989, Mosaic since
1990, and Sibelius since 2000, but I've primarily used Sibelius since
2002 for music prep and engraving, and this new version seems really
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Can someone remind me why I _shouldn't_ switch to Sibelius? Seems like
it much more fulfills the promises of CAE (computer aided engraving...).
Johannes
These days the older complaints of Sibelius being too rigid in the
placement of items and not allowing engraver
Indeed. We should start a petition or something. Light a fire under
MakeMusic's ass. Or something.
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Darcy, I wasn't 100% serious anyway. I have no time nor intention to
do a quick switch to Sibelius, but I do want to put some pressure on
MakeMusic to move into the
On 08 Jul 2005, at 6:53 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Indeed. We should start a petition or something. Light a fire under
MakeMusic's ass. Or something.
By all means, if you want this feature implemented in future versions
of Finale, tell Coda. If you have any detailed suggestions about
The HOW part is up to them. Playing with the Demo of Sibelius 4, I think
what they did is very good. So, they could just COPY them
Darcy James Argue wrote:
By all means, if you want this feature implemented in future versions
of Finale, tell Coda. If you have any detailed suggestions
On 08 Jul 2005, at 7:11 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
The HOW part is up to them.
I meant how do you want this feature to work, not how do we
implement this feature.
Playing with the Demo of Sibelius 4, I think what they did is very
good. So, they could just COPY them
If that's
Can someone remind me why I _shouldn't_ switch to Sibelius? Seems like
it much more fulfills the promises of CAE (computer aided
engraving...).
I thought that and tried it and discovered that it just couldn't do the job.
The performance claims were over exaggerated and if you didn't want to
73 matches
Mail list logo
