John Howell wrote:
Yeah, that's unnecessarily ugly. But even worse, and for no obvious
reason, is the failure of stems for 16th notes and faster to extend to
the bottom beam. Very amateurish, but apparently done on purpose, and I
would guess this is built into the software.
It's actually what
At 06:07 PM 3/4/05 -0500, you wrote:
>I wonder if that is the french s/w, Berlioz? If so, I'm disappointed. Its
output looked better on its own site. The two sites appear similar upon one
quick look.
Probably. Same font (Hector), and also the stems don't go through the beams.
Dennis
__
17:17
To: finale@shsu.edu
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
At 8:30 PM +0100 3/4/05, d. collins wrote:
>Speaking of beaming, of Sibelius, etc., I was looking at the sample
>files of a new Frenc
At 8:30 PM +0100 3/4/05, d. collins wrote:
Speaking of beaming, of Sibelius, etc., I was looking at the sample
files of a new French publisher:
http://www.lasinfoniedorphee.com/catalogue/PDF/067.pdf
This seems worse, beam-wise, than anything Finale would do, even
without plug-ins and with the de
On 4 Mar 2005 at 10:43, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> The discussion these days seems to center very much "wouldn't it be
> nice if Finale did it this way" for many things which I doubt will
> actually make things better, at least for me.
You're missing the point of this discussion, which had its ori
d. collins wrote
Speaking of beaming, of Sibelius, etc., I was looking at the sample
files of a new French publisher:
http://www.lasinfoniedorphee.com/catalogue/PDF/067.pdf
This seems worse, beam-wise, than anything Finale would do, even without
plug-ins and with the default settings. Especiall
No I wouldn't object to better beam placement in Finale. However, I
think there are other areas in Finale which need the improvements more
than the beam placement, because it is already possible to get near
perfect beams in Finale through a plugin.
The discussion these days seems to center very
Johannes,
Surely you wouldn't mind if Finale's default beam placement were
better? For instance, if Finale did Henle-style beams by default? No
one is talking about taking away the plugin -- you could still run the
Patterson Beams plugins on selected measures as required. But I really
think
1) If you do not see a difference you probably don't know much about
proper beam placement. Finale's default beam placement (not beaming as
such) is dreadful.
2) The immense flexibility of what Patterson beams can do is unlikely to
ever be included in Finale's beam options.
3) Most importantly
Hi Johannes,
Sure, I understand that. I just think it might save steps to be able to select a document option which would always set the beams to come out with the Patterson settings you choose. I also realize that there may be a need for tweaks along the way, but it would be good for my needs t
On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Simon Troup wrote:
Just the whole thing of why clients want access to the Finale files,
what clients do with them, are engravers happy about giving them away,
shouldn't engravers be doing any corrections and being paid for it,
don't editors just mess things up if they
Simon Troup wrote:
> > That's great, and I applaud the intent, but I'd be worried that the
> > files would be passed to a spotty teenager paid a little over 12
> > grand for doing the job in house half as well for people who
> > frankly aren't very good at seeing the value added elegance that I
> >
On 4 Mar 2005 at 0:24, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> Patterson beams is actually much more flexible than any beam option in
> Finale could ever be.
How so? Why would that be? The data the plugin uses to make its
calculations is obviously there in the file and accessible to Finale.
Why couldn't Fina
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I originally didn't like to give away my Finale files, but have changed
my policy completely, and any client who wants it can have the originaly
Finale file. A lot of the time it's no use to them anyway, because I use
a number of fonts which I simply cannot give away for
I originally didn't like to give away my Finale files, but have changed
my policy completely, and any client who wants it can have the originaly
Finale file. A lot of the time it's no use to them anyway, because I use
a number of fonts which I simply cannot give away for copyright reasons.
Apar
True, but...
Patterson beams is actually much more flexible than any beam option in
Finale could ever be.
Johannes
Chuck Israels wrote:
On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:
(And wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone ran Patterson
Beams on everything?)
I'd like to be a
that goes into templates and libraries, I'm
suprised that submission of finale files isn't a hot topic. I'd be very
concerned that composers wouldn't gut the files and use them as templates,
then just call me in for the difficult stuff!e: [Finale] backwards conversion
fro
> > I was however _fascinated_ in the topic as some peoples
> > relationships with their clients were very far removed from my own
> > experience - Dennis and others have been talking about issues which
> > simply haven't arisen for me in ten years in the business.
>
> Umm, like what? Just wonderin
On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:
(And wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone ran Patterson Beams on everything?)
I'd like to be able to have it included as a choice in Document Options - Beams.
Chuck
Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
pho
On Mar 3, 2005, at 7:50 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Actually, I don't care enough about the secrecy of my libraries even
if I have spent a lot of time on them, and I DO give them away to
anyone who asks, particularly colleagues and students. If they like my
settings and copy them, then the worl
On Mar 3, 2005, at 5:42 AM, Simon Troup wrote:
We probably have very different working practices - no-one gets my
Finale files, they only get PS or EPS. If they want things changed
they pay me to do it. This probably explains most of our difference in
opinion.
Indeed it does. It also explains t
Dennis wrote, responding to Simon's suggestion that the need for
"backwards write" compatibility stems from "neglece
I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect.
and I would suggest that it seems to me that Simon is characterizing
overlooking the failure to determine what versi
At 03:19 PM 3/3/05 -0500, David W. Fenton wrote:
>On 3 Mar 2005 at 8:21, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
>
>> By creating victimware, they destroyed in one stroke my ten years of
>> customer loyalty.
>
>Er, hadn't they already done that with Finale 98's CD-based copy
>protection?
Almost. I skipped it
On Mar 3, 2005, at 4:29 PM, Simon Troup wrote:
I was however _fascinated_ in the topic as some peoples relationships
with their clients were very far removed from my own experience -
Dennis and others have been talking about issues which simply haven't
arisen for me in ten years in the business.
> > > >> I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. My
> > > >> and my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a
> > > >> corporation's ill will
> > > >
> > > > I think you're arguing along your own agenda regardless of what I
> > > > write.
> > >
> > > You used t
On 3 Mar 2005 at 16:05, Simon Troup wrote:
> > Actually, I don't care enough about the secrecy of my libraries even
> > if I have spent a lot of time on them, and I DO give them away to
> > anyone who asks, particularly colleagues and students. If they like
> > my settings and copy them, then the
Confessions of an upgrade whore:
There have been times that it's been more trouble than I'd like, but expression placement and tuplets, while not perfect, have made 2005 well worth it for me.
Chuck
Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360)
On 3 Mar 2005 at 15:02, Simon Troup wrote:
> > >> I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. My
> > >> and my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a
> > >> corporation's ill will
> > >
> > > I think you're arguing along your own agenda regardless of what I
> >
On 3 Mar 2005 at 14:34, Robert Patterson wrote:
> For me the final product is the PDF and/or the hard copy. The hard
> copy is certainly isolated from abusive copy protection or corporate
> bankruptcy, but it is vulnerable to fire and flood and the like, as
> well as toner breakdown and paper rot.
On 3 Mar 2005 at 14:29, Simon Troup wrote:
> > I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. My
> > and my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a
> > corporation's ill will
>
> I think you're arguing along your own agenda regardless of what I
> write.
I resent y
On 3 Mar 2005 at 8:21, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> By creating victimware, they destroyed in one stroke my ten years of
> customer loyalty.
Er, hadn't they already done that with Finale 98's CD-based copy
protection?
--
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
Davi
me in for the difficult stuff!e: [Finale] backwards conversion
from 2005 to 2004
In my situation, lack of backwards compatibility causes an endless series of
headaches. The Choral Public Domain Library (http://www.cpdl.org) has ~2,500
Finale files available for download, in formats stretching from
Some of the people with whom I work use older versions of Finale for
a variety of reasons. I keep copies of the most important older
versions on my drive and use them occasionally when there are to be
major edits. However, I've suggested to these people to get Finale
NotePad 2005, which is free
On Mar 3, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Simon Troup wrote:
Actually, I don't care enough about the secrecy of my libraries even
if I have spent a lot of time on them, and I DO give them away to
anyone who asks, particularly colleagues and students. If they like
my settings and copy them, then the world just m
> Actually, I don't care enough about the secrecy of my libraries even
> if I have spent a lot of time on them, and I DO give them away to
> anyone who asks, particularly colleagues and students. If they like
> my settings and copy them, then the world just may be a cleaner,
> neater, more understa
On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:27 AM, Simon Troup wrote:
Still, considering the work that goes into templates and libraries,
I'm suprised that submission of finale files isn't a hot topic. I'd be
very concerned that composers wouldn't gut the files and use them as
templates, then just call me in for the
> Protection of investment I can also understand. I had to re-do an
> entire cycle of songs from scratch recently because the original
> Finale files had not been provided to the composer, and the different
> people who did the work were no longer in the business. It was an
> expensive problem for
At 03:02 PM 3/3/05 +, Simon Troup wrote:
>I was interested to hear that many clients are wanting access
>to the Finale files. It brings lots of questions to mind such as
>unskilled editors tinkering with files that go out with your name
>on - Libraries that you may have spent many months dev
> >> I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. My
> >> and my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a
> >> corporation's ill will
> >
> > I think you're arguing along your own agenda regardless of what I
> > write.
>
> You used the pejorative "neglect" to prom
At 02:29 PM 3/3/05 +, Simon Troup wrote:
>> I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. My and
>> my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a
>> corporation's ill will
>
>I think you're arguing along your own agenda regardless of what I write.
You used the pej
> Why do they want to open the files? If they won't buy the latest version,
they should be paying you to do the work.
There are many different kinds of engraver-client relationships, most of
which are not helped by rigid ultimatums.
> We probably have very different working practices<
Undoubtedl
I long ago gave up making quixotic principled stands in the computer business.
The business changes too quickly, and there is too much else more important to
concern myself with. But I am very sympathetic to Dennis's point of view. For
this reason, I always assume that some day in the future I w
> I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. My and
> my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a
> corporation's ill will
I think you're arguing along your own agenda regardless of what I write.
--
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art
-
Final
At 01:42 PM 3/3/05 +, Simon Troup wrote:
>> > Apart from people starting work in the wrong version of
>> > Finale for customers who neglect or refuse to upgrade
>
>> Neglect? There seems to be an unpleasant subtext is some of these
>> messages...
>
>Yes neglect!
I don't think ethical refusal
> > Apart from people starting work in the wrong version of
> > Finale for customers who neglect or refuse to upgrade
> Neglect? There seems to be an unpleasant subtext is some of these
> messages...
Yes neglect!
Why do they want to open the files? If they won't buy the latest version, they
sh
At 12:30 PM 3/3/05 +, Simon Troup wrote:
>Apart from people starting work in the wrong version of
>Finale for customers who neglect or refuse to upgrade
Neglect? There seems to be an unpleasant subtext is some of these messages...
I just want to make sure it's understood that for some of us
Apart from people starting work in the wrong version of Finale for customers
who neglect or refuse to upgrade, what are the reasons for wanting backwards
compatibility?
Surely if things were commissioned correctly in the first place there wouldn't
be the need to "save backwards".
Reading back
Dennis, WRT your response to my latest post about backwards compatibility
As far as I know, they never promise any new features. They won't even
promise to fix the broken ones. I must say I don't follow your logic
here.
I must admit this is faulty perception on my part; I wasn't thinking of
the
David W. Fenton wrote:
Now, a translator layer would only have to take the memory version
and write it back in the older file version. This means that certain
features would be dropped, since they weren't supported by the old
file format.
and giving this matter some further thought, it occur
On 2 Mar 2005 at 15:00, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
> David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> >Keep in mind that when you open a Finale file in any version of
> >Finale, you're not actually editing the original file, but a copy in
> >memory. When you open a file from an earlier version, the memory copy
> > is tra
David W. Fenton wrote:
Keep in mind that when you open a Finale file in any version of
Finale, you're not actually editing the original file, but a copy in
memory. When you open a file from an earlier version, the memory copy
is translated from the old to the new format, without a name.
The e
On 2 Mar 2005 at 5:05, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
> d. collins wrote:
>
> > Not only [has Coda not] made this promise [of backwards write
> > compatibility], but they have always implied the contrary, as
> > confirmed by the interviews I read. That's precisely my point. Of
> > course, such a featu
Noel Stoutenburg / 05.3.1 / 06:01 PM wrote:
>The lack of backwards compatibility is easy enough to deal
>with,
>especially in these days when the smallest hard easily
>available is at
>least 60 GIG: load multiple versions of Finale on the same
>machine, and
>if you need write compatibility wit
d. collins wrote:
Not only [has Coda not] made this promise [of backwards write
compatibility], but they have always implied the contrary, as
confirmed by the interviews I read. That's precisely my point. Of
course, such a feature adds to the complexity of the program, but I
recall Tobias sayin
When you read part of what I wrote, please understand that instead of
when the smallest hard easily available is at least 60 GIG
I intended to write
"when the smallest hard drive easily availble is at least 60 GB". I
know that it is still possible to find smaller drives, but last time I
was in a
d. collins wrote:
Dennis wrote
If MakeMusic would consider giving us backwards compatibility (at
least one version), no one would one have to run that kind of risk.
But, after reading the interviews on Jari's site, I realize the
chances of seeing this are more than slim. Too bad. Finale is one o
On Mar 1, 2005, at 12:39 PM, d. collins wrote:
If MakeMusic would consider giving us backwards compatibility (at
least one version), no one would one have to run that kind of risk.
But, after reading the interviews on Jari's site, I realize the
chances of seeing this are more than slim. Too bad.
And I only bring up the caveat to warn that it might not work. ;-) It's
always risky (whether it works or not at first glance is immaterial) to
reverse-engineer an ETF. You never know what might happen when you open that
file down the line, or run a plug-in on it, so handle at your own risk!
On 3
> > Tuplets do work with this technique.
>
> How can you verify that?
I used the technique on a file with a tuplet. It came through unharmed.
> What you basically do is to store more data for
> tuplets than Fin2004 is supposed to store, and you import flags that are
> supposed to be off. As I see
Richard Yates wrote:
Tuplets do work with this technique.
How can you verify that? What you basically do is to store more data for
tuplets than Fin2004 is supposed to store, and you import flags that are
supposed to be off. As I see it, it's always a possibility that your
converted file will cr
Allen Fisher wrote:
>This probably won't work if you have Tuplets or Repeats in the document.<
Tuplets do work with this technique. I have not tried repeats. Perhaps you
could do so and let us know.
Richard Yates
> > Here is a technique by which you can convert FinWin2005 files into 2004
> > one
61 matches
Mail list logo
