Christopher Smith wrote:
Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself getting ahead of Speedy
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale remembers the
numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as
you
Hi Darcy- top work!
Love the lead sheet.
How do you get the shadow effect on rehearsal numbers?
Cheers K in OZ
Keith Helgesen.
Director of Music, Canberra City Band.
Ph: (02) 62910787. Band Mob. 0439-620587
Private Mob 0417-042171
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:36 AM, keith helgesen wrote:
Hi Darcy- top work!
Love the lead sheet.
How do you get the shadow effect on rehearsal numbers?
Thanks, Keith. The drop-shadow rehearsal letters/numbers are done with
Bill Duncan's Rehearsal font, available here:
On 6 Jul 2005, at 20:30, Darcy James Argue wrote:
There is no New Window menu item on the Mac.
Where are you looking? This menu item has been in every version of
Finale I've had, from 3.0 to 2005b. It's in the Window menu.
Michael Cook
___
On 07 Jul 2005, at 3:21 AM, Michael Cook wrote:
On 6 Jul 2005, at 20:30, Darcy James Argue wrote:
There is no New Window menu item on the Mac.
Where are you looking? This menu item has been in every version of
Finale I've had, from 3.0 to 2005b. It's in the Window menu.
I stand
On Jul 7, 2005, at 1:10 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
It just strikes me as potentially confusing to have separate windows
for each part (plus the score) when they are not, in fact, separate
documents. The name in the title bar is different for each part
(obviously), but this really is like
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Richard Yates [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote:
What does a 12th-note look like?
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg
I make that a 3/32 note.
--
K C Moore
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
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
Paul Hayden schrieb:
Two questions about using tacet:
1. An instrument is not used in the first movement of a multi-movement
work. Should the instrument be included on the first page of music in
the score (and then perhaps deleted on other pages of the first movement)?
I was recently
Owain Sutton wrote:
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
David W. Fenton opined:
part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't
preparing any performance materials at all.
Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
part extraction: 1) hymn tunes
Richard Yates wrote:
What does a 12th-note look like?
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg
That's a joke, right?
I am sure that it will turn up in Finale2007 if enough people ask for it.
Apparently only if those people who ask for it aren't currently Finale
users -- many
Mark D Lew wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 3:46 AM, dhbailey wrote:
And I fail to see how this linked score/parts would not benefit
practically every Finale user.
Well, it wouldn't benefit me, since I almost never extract parts. My
work is about 99% piano-vocal or choral, so there's never any
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Jul 2005 at 20:40, Christopher Smith wrote:
[re: Human Playback:]
Some items, like trills, are surprisingly good, though.
How do you control what note it starts on?
And are the trills metronomically regular, or do they start slow and
then speed up? Can they
What does a 12th-note look like?
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg
I make that a 3/32 note.
Maybe we should drop all of this fraction nonsense, join the rest of the
world, and go with the metric system.
___
Finale mailing list
Richard Yates wrote:
What does a 12th-note look like?
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg
I make that a 3/32 note.
Maybe we should drop all of this fraction nonsense, join the rest of the
world, and go with the metric system.
I'm trying to learn a Ferneyhough piece at
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
Owain Sutton wrote:
Richard Yates wrote:
What does a 12th-note look like?
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg
I make that a 3/32 note.
Maybe we should drop all of this fraction nonsense, join the rest of the
world, and go with the metric system.
I'm trying to learn
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
If a plugin has trouble doing cue notes, why would it be any easier in the
native program? If you care how the cue notes look, no automation MM is likely
to come up with is like to be good enough. If you don't care, then TGTools is
sufficient, although there are a few tweaks that would be
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
Yes, that's at the top of my list too: Intelligent vertical spacing for
staves within each system and between each system.
I can't imagine which users would not benefit from this feature. As a
performer, I'm sick of having to use scores where the staves are too
far apart: in many cases people
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
Robert,
I don't think you quite understood what I am after. I find the basic
concept of how cue notes are included in the first place very short
sighted. Simply adding them to a free layer is always going to cause all
sorts of problems. What I want is a separate cue notes layer.
The reason
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.
On 7/6/05, Aaron Sherber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score.
From a software engineering standpoint, this is the way it should be.
Word processors and many other applications have been doing this for
years: Store the
I do see what you are after (a cue note layer). I just don't see enough added
benefit to enough users that it will happen. That said, from what I've seen
starting in Fin04, MM has laid the groundwork for more than 4 layers. Whether
they ever implement them remains to be seen.
Obviously, you
At 11:51 AM -0600 7/6/05, John Abram wrote:
A twelfth note is a triplet eighth note. They are sometimes used in
new music (eg Mark-Anthony Turnage has used it frequently I believe)
Henry Cowell was way ahead of the game with this sort of thinking.
Why is 12/12 not like 12/8? Because 12/8 is
John Howell wrote:
If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it sounds like triplets, it's
triplets.
Except if it's not grouped in threes.
Feel free to invent your own notation; just don't
expect us old fogey traditionalists to read it.
We're not inventing it - we're nearly a
At 8:27 PM -0600 7/6/05, John Abram wrote:
On 6-Jul-05, at 5:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're really splitting hairs here -- putting 3 evenly spaced notes
within one beat sounds like triplets to me, no matter how it's
represented in the time signature.
Yes it sounds the same, like
At 01:08 PM 7/7/05 -0400, John Howell wrote:
Poor example, I'm afraid, and one that suggests you are not a singer.
Which, whoa, and other wh words like where properly start
with a phoneme produced by a puff of air blown through pursed lips.
Witch, and woe and ware do not. The pronunciation is
On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:44 AM, Richard Yates wrote:
What does a 12th-note look like?
http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg
I make that a 3/32 note.
Maybe we should drop all of this fraction nonsense, join the rest of
the
world, and go with the metric system.
You've been
Putting the mechanics aside for a moment, could someone please explain what you
can do with 12/12 that you CANNOT do using standard meters, or combinations
thereof ?
There must be a good cause to write something that most accomplished musicians
may have difficulty sight reading because of some
On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:00 AM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Christopher Smith wrote:
Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself getting ahead of Speedy
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale remembers the
numeric keypad keys I
Hey all,
If you have any requests for improving Human Playback, you should send
them directly to the guy responsible for the feature, Robert Piéchaud.
He's very nice and very responsive.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:30 AM, dhbailey
At 5:45 PM +0100 7/7/05, Owain Sutton wrote:
John Howell wrote:
If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it sounds like triplets,
it's triplets.
Except if it's not grouped in threes.
In which case it doesn't sound like triplets!
Feel free to invent your own notation; just don't expect
Some people simply have, for whatever reason, a vested interest in
superficial complexity.
(Flame-retardant suit snugly on. Somebody has to say that the Emperor
sometimes has little or no clothing.)
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: finale@shsu.edu
Sent: Thursday, July
I once readan article on the subject of the "modern composer's" love
affair with making life as difficult as possible for the performer. The
article ended with an example. The rythms were amazingle complex and the
example looked someone had spilt a bag of sharps and flats over the page.
--- 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
On Jul 7, 2005, at 1:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Putting the mechanics aside for a moment, could someone please explain
what you can do with 12/12 that you CANNOT do using standard meters,
or combinations thereof ?
Not so much 12/12, but say 5/12.
Let's say you were honking along
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Putting the mechanics aside for a moment, could someone please explain what you
can do with 12/12 that you CANNOT do using standard meters, or combinations
thereof ?
Turning again to Ferneyhough:
A passage of four bars, with the following time signatures:
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
On 7-Jul-05, at 11:00 AM, John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A twelfth note is a triplet eighth note. They are sometimes used in
new music (eg Mark-Anthony Turnage has used it frequently I believe)
Henry Cowell was way ahead of the game with this sort of thinking.
Why is 12/12 not like
On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:12 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
But then later, you are playing some triplets which work out perfectly, but you ONLY NEED FIVE OF THEM, not six. If you needed 6, then a bar of 2/4 with triplets marked normally would be great. But if you want a new downbeat after you've only
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
Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:12 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
But then later, you are playing some triplets which work out
perfectly, but you ONLY NEED FIVE OF THEM, not six. If you needed 6,
then a bar of 2/4 with triplets marked normally would be great. But
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,
On 7 Jul 2005 at 0:22, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 11:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
[]
Is your MIDI interface USB? If so, you may have something else
contending for the bandwidth of the USB interface, and that could be
the reason you're having the problem.
I have a USB
On 7 Jul 2005 at 1:10, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 06 Jul 2005, at 11:25 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
But you HAD objected to the concept of having two different windows
open on the same file - why?
I personally much prefer the default Sibelius behavior, where you can
simply click a
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A sincere thank you for the resposes to my question.
My humble opinion still stands, that using an esoteric meter such as anything/12 will return an uncertain performance.
*Can* result in it, not *will* result.
PS - What is the notation for a twelth note ? If
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 Jul 6, 2005, at 1:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
It seems to me self-evident that linked parts are the way Finale
should have been designed from the beginning. ...The data
file is a database, and there are various report views for showing
that data and subsets of that data
Then the only
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 Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are reflected
immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the notes are only
stored in one place. On the other
Thank you Owain for your response.
If I understand your correction of will to can correctly, you agree that it
can return an uncertain result. Okay, I can accept that.
Richard
From: Owain Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/07/07 Thu PM 04:17:50 EDT
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re:
On 7 Jul 2005 at 1:00, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Christopher Smith wrote:
Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself getting ahead of Speedy
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale remembers the
numeric keypad keys I
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you Owain for your response.
If I understand your correction of will to can correctly, you agree that it can return an uncertain result. Okay, I can accept that.
Yep - and so can any notation ;)
___
Finale mailing
On Jul 6, 2005, at 6:52 PM, Paul Hayden wrote:
Two questions about using tacet:
1. An instrument is not used in the first movement of a multi-movement
work. Should the instrument be included on the first page of music in
the score (and then perhaps deleted on other pages of the first
On 7 Jul 2005 at 17:57, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I don't think you quite understood what I am after. I find the basic
concept of how cue notes are included in the first place very short
sighted. Simply adding them to a free layer is always going to cause
all sorts of problems. What I want is a
On 7 Jul 2005 at 10:15, Technoid wrote:
On 7/6/05, Aaron Sherber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score.
From a software engineering standpoint, this is the way it should be.
Word processors and many other
On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:27 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:12 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
But then later, you are playing some triplets which work out perfectly, but you ONLY NEED FIVE OF THEM, not six. If you needed 6, then a bar of 2/4 with triplets marked normally would be
On 7 Jul 2005 at 12:37, John Howell wrote:
Seems to me that talking about beats compounds (sorry!) the
confusion. Yes, 12/8 can indicate 4 beats per bar; that's sort of
the default interpretation. At a slower tempo, however, it can
indicate 12 beats per bar. I've conducted Bach slow
On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Do you have a non-USB keyboard port? If so, I'd try getting the
keyboard off the USB bus so that MIDI is on USB and the rhythmic
values you're typing is *not* on USB.
Umm, AFAIK USB is the only option for Mac keyboard plugging in.
That
Andrew Stiller schrieb:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are reflected
immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the notes are only
stored
David W. Fenton schrieb:
I've always felt that the key to a sensible implementation of cue
notes was in the MIRROR feature.
But nobody uses that because it's all bollixed up and doesn't really
work.
If they fixed that, it would give you a lot of what you desire with
linked cue notes. If
Owain Sutton wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you Owain for your response.
If I understand your correction of will to can correctly, you
agree that it can return an uncertain result. Okay, I can accept that.
Yep - and so can any notation ;)
Now there's no need to bring hemiolas
Richard
As Creston sez:
It looks exactly the same but what it looks like is a 'transposition'
in that a 1/6 note looks exactly like a 1 quarter note in a quarter
note triplet. In 6/6 the tuplet bracket would still be applied.
Either way this kind of rhythm will entail explication. The
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 07 Jul 2005, at 4:36 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are
reflected immediately in the parts and vice versa is because
Owain Sutton wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you Owain for your response.
If I understand your correction of will to can correctly, you
agree that it can return an uncertain result. Okay, I can accept that.
Yep - and so can any notation ;)
And I can agree with that statement
Hi Chris,
You have two possible solutions:
1) Get a FireWire MIDI interface.
2) Get a USB 2.0 card and a Belkin Tetrahub:
http://tinyurl.com/6s9mf
I have a FW MIDI interface and I never have a problem with Speedy not
keeping up with MIDI input.
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On Jul 7, 2005, at 1:08 PM, John Howell wrote:
Which, whoa, and other wh words like where properly start with
a phoneme produced by a puff of air blown through pursed lips.
Witch, and woe and ware do not. The pronunciation is often
confused by young children, rap artists, and some speakers
Looking that MOTU just updated Digital Performer to 4.6 for free to it's
4.5 users, and seeing all the GREAT improvements, it makes me laugh at
MakeMusic and Finale. My God, there are a lot of useful, functional
features that I can get for FREE updating to 4.6. Congrats MOTU!
Honestly, this
On 7 Jul 2005 at 13:08, John Howell wrote:
At 8:27 PM -0600 7/6/05, John Abram wrote:
On 6-Jul-05, at 5:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're really splitting hairs here -- putting 3 evenly spaced notes
within one beat sounds like triplets to me, no matter how it's
represented in the time
On Jul 7, 2005, at 1:34 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Next year, metric clocks!
...which you can see, BTW, on the walls in Fritz Lang's Metropolis.
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
Robert Patterson and Johannes Gebauer have raised some excellent points
about the feasibility of a single-file solution for Dynamic Parts in
Finale. There is also the issue of a possible additional performance
hit if Finale were to implement live updating as Sibelius does.
What about a
On 7 Jul 2005 at 14:04, John Howell wrote:
But the
purpose of notation is, and always has been, communication. I simply
do not choose to learn or perform music that requires me to learn new
notation, unless the music itself is so great that the effort is worth
while.
That's an odd
And you can add to these: music examples for books.
BF
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
David W. Fenton opined:
part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't
preparing any performance materials at all.
Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
Christopher Smith wrote:
and I would put a bracketed 3 tuplet over
the first group, and the same over the second group (even though there
are only TWO notes in it) for clarity.
while i certainly agree with your post i think that tuplets are redundant
here, as the /12 is meaning that already.
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
At 05:52 PM 7/7/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
Notation and musical style should be intimately linked.
I agree with you in all respects, from early music to new music.
And, in case I haven't mentioned it, I highly recommend the brand new
SoundVisions by Moeller/Shim/Staebler. It's a worthy
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
Gerald Berg wrote:
As for 7/10 or 13/20 -- there's a fraction too far.
Why? It's easily playable, and it's something that cannot possibly be
notated another way, unlike x/12. And, like it or not, it's found its
way into mainstream notation and publication.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I respect the opposing point of view, I am not convinced that 12/12 is required.
I agree that 12/12 is unnecessary - for the same reason as 8/8 is hardly
ever used. However, 7/12, 5/10 etc have a distinct function that cannot
be substitued with a 'normal'
David W. Fenton wrote:
I think the use of a note as denominator would eliminate all these
problems. 6/8 would become 2/Q., and would also allow one to notate
6/E if one actually wanted it.
I would love this system...but
That makes far more sense than the absolutely idiotic 12/12.
On 7 Jul 2005 at 16:24, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
It seems to me self-evident that linked parts are the way Finale
should have been designed from the beginning. ...The data file is a
database, and there are various report views for showing
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
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
