[Finale] data check, gave it a whirl

* Remove Duplicate Library Elements: Text Expressions, Shape Expressions, Articulations * Retain Duplicate Elements With Unique Metatools. hey is that fab? i didn't know you could automatically do that now (and since when, exactly?!)! reduced a 4.3M file to 3.7M just by removing duplicate tex

[Finale] ensembles.txt file

okay so i understand that... InstCopies=1,4,2,1,2,1,1,4,2,1,2,1,1,5,4,4,1,1,2,1,4 indicates the number of copies of the piccolo, flute, oboe etc. parts, but how does it work (i have never installed the exercice wiz) and why can't i use it to automatically print multiple copies of parts? yes i k

[Finale] Re: instrument.txt file

another thing i noticed, setting useKeySigs to 0 in the file causes all instruments to be defined as transposing; the flute for example is now defined as a transposing instrument, at an interval of 0. doesn't affect the way the instrument functions, but is unnecessary, as far as i can tell. b

[Finale] instrument.txt file

1) TYPOS / MISSING DATA * under [ORD:Orchestral], "Ondes Martinot" should be spelled "Ondes Martenot", and "Ondes Martenot = x" should be added under the list [GRP:Keyboards] so that it shows up in the setup wizard list of instruments under keyboards (or put it under whatever GRP you see fit...

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

On Mar 3, 2005, at 7:10 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Removing blank staves returns a lot more usable space than vertically adjusting spacing within a staff. Taking up space is not the only criterion. An attractively spaced page is more optimal than one in which every system is cramped. To offer a

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:40 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Do you currently have to define default vertical spacing for systems on a per-system basis? No, of course not -- there are default settings already. The default setting for the system I describe would be that the default vertical spacing for a meas

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

On 3 Mar 2005 at 18:51, Mark D Lew wrote: > On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:25 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > The meaning of the word "optimization" would then be associated with > > something that is not remotely related to the concept the word > > represents. > > > > You "optimize" in Finale in order to

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:25 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: The meaning of the word "optimization" would then be associated with something that is not remotely related to the concept the word represents. You "optimize" in Finale in order to optimize the usage of space on the page, by eliminating blank stave

Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes

At 06:42 PM 3/3/05 -0600, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: >But to those who characterize the (what I consider to be) modest scheme >currently implemented by MakeMusic! to be "victimware", I would ask how >you would propose that MakeMusic! maintain the integrity of the >product. I've thought of several

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

On 3 Mar 2005 at 17:28, Mark D Lew wrote: > On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:49 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: [] > >> . . . I use this constantly, because the vertical height of a piano > >> accompaniment varies throughout the piece. A constant distance > >> from voice staff to piano-treble staff is unaccepta

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

On 3 Mar 2005 at 17:28, Mark D Lew wrote: > It's just that I would have worded it to say that removal of > empty staves is what needs to be separated from "optimization". The meaning of the word "optimization" would then be associated with something that is not remotely related to the concept t

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:49 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: My point is that simple optimization (i.e., removing blank staves from a systen) should happen automatically if you have optimization turned on for the passage of music represented on a system If I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:49 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: My point is that simple optimization (i.e., removing blank staves from a systen) should happen automatically if you have optimization turned on for the passage of music represented on a system If I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting

Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes

On 3 Mar 2005 at 18:42, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: > But to those who characterize the (what I consider to be) modest > scheme currently implemented by MakeMusic! to be "victimware", I would > ask how you would propose that MakeMusic! maintain the integrity of > the product. I've thought of several

[Finale] Authentication schemes

Friends: I am aware of the attitutes of some towards the current authentication schemes. I'm not entirely thrilled with the situation myself, and would like to see some mechanism whereby if MakeMusic! fails we could either obtain a patch to make authentication codes unnecessary, or failing tha

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] OT: Meredith Monk Travel Song

As a librarian, interlibrary loan was my first thought. However, there is no record on OCLC for this title. In fact, only 8 Monk scores are listed. For those of you who don't know, OCLC is the system used by virtually all libraries for interlibrary loan. So I am afraid that this might be a dead end

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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 > >

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

On 3 Mar 2005 at 15:22, Mark D Lew wrote: > On Mar 2, 2005, at 11:44 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > > > Just for the record, I just had to optimize many parts out of the > > score, which weren't empty at all. This was possible because the > > optimization information is stored with the absolute sy

Re: [Finale] Single Pitch plugin

This is actually all configurable, and you could, theoretically, configure the major enharmonic table to do whatever you want in a minor context. However, I have never seen any disadvantage to using the minor key sigs, and until I will I will keep using them. It does give me two separate enharm

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

On the other hand, I think I am not wrong in assuming that a good proportion of those conductors with older versions of Finale actually do not own the program at all, and just have illegal copies on their computers. Johannes Rafael Ornes wrote: RSimon Troup écrit: Still, considering the work tha

Re: [Finale] OT: Meredith Monk Travel Song

On Mar 3, 2005, at 8:58 AM, Linda Worsley wrote: Do any of you know this piece? Any suggestions for finding the music? Have you tried interlibrary loan? If the score was published, surely there are large public libraries or university libraries that carry it. mdl ___

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

On Mar 2, 2005, at 11:44 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Just for the record, I just had to optimize many parts out of the score, which weren't empty at all. This was possible because the optimization information is stored with the absolute system, and is in fact manually accessable. I do not wish t

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

> > 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

Re: [Finale] OT: Meredith Monk Travel Song

Linda Worsley wrote: I have been looking for over a year for a score of Meredith Monk's charming little piano piece "Travel Song." It's a Boosey publication, but not available in their online store and all the usual music providers OK. So I Google (R) did a google search on "Meredith Monk", and

Re: [Finale] String divisi

On 03 Mar 2005, at 4:54 PM, Dan Rupert wrote: B? That's a new one on me! Can anyone cite a composition (orch., chamber, or solo) that actually requires that note from the cb? It also occurs in some of the movie cues we copy. Two recent ones were, IIRC, Blade 3 (Ramin Djawadi) & the Star Wars video

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

Although I can see that it may be useful to some, it wouldn't be useful to me, so I am not interested (but I don't object). However, something I'd much rather see is automatic vertical staff spacing. ;-) Johannes David W. Fenton wrote: On 3 Mar 2005 at 11:40, Johannes Gebauer wrote: I am not a

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

RE: [Finale] String divisi

On Behalf Of Andrew Stiller >Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:21 AM >To: finale@shsu.edu; Ken Moore >Subject: Re: [Finale] String divisi >B? That's a new one on me! Can anyone cite a composition (orch., >chamber, or solo) that actually requires that note from the cb? It also occurs in some of

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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.

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

> > > >> 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

Re: [Finale] IExplorer

On 3 Mar 2005 at 12:41, Phil Daley wrote: > For those of you skeptics that suggested that IE wouldn't be upgraded > until LongHorn. > > Catching up on the news of two weeks ago? The reason we said IE wouldn't be updated was B

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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)

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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 > >

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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.

[Finale] multi-measure rest issues

Things are not so slow on my setup (G5 1.8 - 1.5 GB RAM), so some of these automated things seem OK to me. I mention - only to remind those involved in this discussion, that turning on "Special Part Extraction" in the Edit Menu, after highlighting the staff (with the Staff tool) will re-calculate

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] String divisi

At 14:20 -0500 3/03/2005, Andrew Stiller wrote: B? That's a new one on me! Can anyone cite a composition (orch., chamber, or solo) that actually requires that note from the cb? "Wozzeck" by Alban Berg, Universal Edition full score from page 398 onwards. A few bars before, Berg writes "Kb. stimmen

Re: [Finale] Single Pitch plugin

On 3 Mar 2005 at 14:17, Robert Patterson wrote: > Is there some downside to using major key signatures? The key of Eb > major looks exactly the same as that for c minor. Is there some > advantage to setting the key to c minor that you don't get with Eb > major? Well, correct enharmonic spellings,

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

On 3 Mar 2005 at 7:06, Christopher Smith wrote: > On Mar 2, 2005, at 10:35 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 2 Mar 2005 at 20:18, Christopher Smith wrote: > > > >>> disappearing measures, > >> > >> I've never seen that. What is that? I have occasionally seen > >> measures APPEAR to vanish, but

Re: [Finale] String divisi

Andrew Stiller wrote: On Mar 3, 2005, at 5:57 AM, Ken Moore wrote: ... some bass[es are] five-string (bottom string usually tuned to C in the US, B in Europe) B? That's a new one on me! Can anyone cite a composition (orch., chamber, or solo) that actually requires that note from the cb?

Re: [Finale] String divisi

Arcane bass lore: There are two (main) methods for getting pitches lower than the E string on the string bass. One is to have one or another kind of fingerboard extension added over the peg box. These are usually physically limited in length so that a C is the lowest practical note. When 5 stri

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

On 3 Mar 2005 at 11:40, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > I am not against an automatic function with manual override, although > I don't think I'd need or use it (because undoubtedly it will again > slow down Finale, as most of these automatic update routines do). What if there were an option to set it

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

On 3 Mar 2005 at 8:44, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > > I also think that staff optimization should not be something that > > you have to remove and then re-apply. If you insert new measures, or > > insert data in previously empty measures (or you clear/hide > > previously p

Re: [Finale] String divisi

Andrew Stiller wrote: On Mar 3, 2005, at 5:57 AM, Ken Moore wrote: ... some bass[es are] five-string (bottom string usually tuned to C in the US, B in Europe) B? That's a new one on me! Can anyone cite a composition (orch., chamber, or solo) that actually requires that note from the cb? No, but

Re: [Finale] String divisi

On Mar 3, 2005, at 5:57 AM, Ken Moore wrote: ... some bass[es are] five-string (bottom string usually tuned to C in the US, B in Europe) B? That's a new one on me! Can anyone cite a composition (orch., chamber, or solo) that actually requires that note from the cb? Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music P

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

RSimon Troup écrit: >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 difficult stuff!e: [Fina

RE: [Finale] Paper cutter recommendations

I suggest you look into the heavy duty rotary trimmers made by Carl: http://www.wilde-ideas.com/Vndrs/Crl/dc200series.cfm. I'm very happy with mine and highly recommend the vendor as well. -Lee > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of Raymond H

[Finale] String divisi

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Howell writes: >Outside always takes the top in a 2-part divisi, inside the bottom. >It's all automatic. One minor adjustment for bass sections (I only know about amateur orchestras, but I should be surprised if professionals in the same situation differed): so

[Finale] IExplorer

For those of you skeptics that suggested that IE wouldn't be upgraded until LongHorn. Phil Daley < AutoDesk > http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] JW Divider for OSX

Hans Swinnen writes: Hello Jari, First of all, a big thank you to both. One little problem however: the new added column "Finale 2004-2005 for Mac" doesn't show up in Safari. I searched desperately for a link on that page. Till I got the idea switching to IE (which I almost never use) and al

[Finale] OT: Meredith Monk Travel Song

Listers, so many of you are not only Finale or notation gurus, but also gifted musicians with wide ranging knowledge and experience... so... I have been looking for over a year for a score of Meredith Monk's charming little piano piece "Travel Song." It's a Boosey publication, but not availab

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

[Finale] Paper cutter recommendations

Last year or so a different sort of paper cutter from the guillotine type was recommended. I thought I had archived the message but can't find it now. Can any of you tell me what that was? I need to cut down small quantities of 11" x 17" paper and card stock. Thanks ' Raymond Horton Bass Tr

[Finale] Re: optimization (was fin vs. sib)

TGTools: layout: staff list manager: check for optimization errors From: David W. Fenton I also think that staff optimization should not be something that you have to remove and then re-apply. you can simply re-apply optimization, but this will of course remove any adjustments to the staff spacin

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

Jeremy, Unless I've very much misunderstood your explanation, it sounds like something a simple Update Layout will fix. You can even turn on Automatic Update Layout, if you like. (BTW, since there has been discussion of the sluggishness caused by Automatic Update Layout, Automatic Word Extensi

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

> 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

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

RE: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

  disappearing measures, I've never seen that. What is that? I have occasionally seen measures APPEAR to vanish, but that is usually because I had a multi-measure rest where I later entered notes, and forgot to turn off the rest.  That was a typo (although I have seen the measures w

Re: [Finale] Finale Interface, palettes

> I have no idea if most users heavily personalize their workspace while > depending on the operating system's common actions. Much of what you say makes sense to me as what you are attempting to do is maximise workspace. I'm not sure about Adobe applications on Windows but to me the Mac version

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

> 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

Re: [Finale] Single Pitch plugin

On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:16 AM, James Gilbert wrote: On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Christopher Smith wrote: On the other hand, if you enter a modulation from Eb major to C minor, the key signature stubbornly re-appears as if the number of flats has just changed. Grr. See Document options-Key Signature-Redisplay

Re: [Finale] Finale Interface, palettes

At 03:33 AM 3/2/05 +, Simon Troup wrote: >Professional applications don't need multiple choices of >icons types, or different desktop choices. One simple, >well designed set of icons would suffice. The whole rosewood >desktop and vellum paper idea borrowed from sibelius is totally >unnecess

Re: [Finale] Single Pitch plugin

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Christopher Smith wrote: > On the other hand, if you enter a modulation from Eb major to C minor, > the key signature stubbornly re-appears as if the number of flats has > just changed. Grr. See Document options-Key Signature-Redisplay key signature if only mode is changing

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

> >> 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

Re: [Finale] Single Pitch plugin

> Is there some downside to using major key signatures? The key of Eb major looks exactly the same as that for c minor. Is there some advantage to setting the key to c minor that you don't get with Eb major?< I believe that in MIDI Speedy Entry (using spelling tables) the enharmonics turn out bet

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

> 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

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

> 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

Re: [Finale] Single Pitch plugin

On Mar 3, 2005, at 9:17 AM, Robert Patterson wrote: If you knew anything about the convoluted way Finale stores pitch information, this would not only seem not an oddity but rather all too predictable. I learned years ago always to use major key signatures, because apparently they are the only o

Re: [Finale] Finale Interface, palettes

On Mar 3, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi Chris, There's a good example of my confusion. The window goes to the minimum width, good. However, the height is about half of my screen, with a scroll bar appearing on the right, even though I am able to manually resize the window so that

Re: [Finale] Single Pitch plugin

If you knew anything about the convoluted way Finale stores pitch information, this would not only seem not an oddity but rather all too predictable. I learned years ago always to use major key signatures, because apparently they are the only ones that programmers routinely test their code again

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

[Finale] Single Pitch plugin

Here's an oddity: the Single Pitch plugin works as advertised in major keys, but in minor it selects the pitch a minor 3rd below. John ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

> > 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

Re: [Finale] Finale Interface, palettes

Hi Chris, There's a good example of my confusion. The window goes to the minimum width, good. However, the height is about half of my screen, with a scroll bar appearing on the right, even though I am able to manually resize the window so that the entire contents appear WITHOUT a scroll bar. Th

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] JW Divider for OSX

Browsed again in Safari, same result and no scroll bar. But then, after clicking the reload button, the missing column appeared. Something to do with the cache, I presume? Hans Christopher Smith wrote: Hmm, it shows up fine for me, in all window sizes in Safari. When I make the window very narro

Re: [Finale] Finale Interface, palettes

On Mar 2, 2005, at 9:01 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi Chris, Presumably the Zoom button in AppleWorks doesn't zoom to an 8.5x11 page if you have a different page size selected for the active document? If not, that's a bug. With Safari, the zoom button takes you to the minimum width specified

Re: [Finale] Finale Interface, palettes

On 03 Mar 2005, at 7:28 AM, Jari Williamsson wrote: Darcy James Argue wrote: Quite apart from the fact that Finale ignores OS X conventions here, it's an incredible pain in the ass when you open up a set of 18 parts and have to maximize 17 of them. So are you saying that the "Maximize" check box

Re: [Finale] Finale Interface, palettes

> > Darcy James Argue: > > > > Quite apart from the fact that Finale ignores OS X conventions > > here, it's an incredible pain in the ass when you open up a set of > > 18 parts and have to maximize 17 of them. > Jari Williamsson: > > So are you saying that the "Maximize" check box in "Program > O

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] Finale Interface, palettes

Darcy James Argue wrote: Quite apart from the fact that Finale ignores OS X conventions here, it's an incredible pain in the ass when you open up a set of 18 parts and have to maximize 17 of them. So are you saying that the "Maximize" check box in "Program Options/New" isn't functional? Or doesn

Re: [Finale] JW Divider for OSX

Hmm, it shows up fine for me, in all window sizes in Safari. When I make the window very narrow, it moves off the right border, but I have a scroll bar that appears so I can get to it. Apparently Firefox (which operates very similarly to Safari) handles web pages that Safari has problems with.

Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004

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

Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison

On Mar 2, 2005, at 10:35 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 2 Mar 2005 at 20:18, Christopher Smith wrote: disappearing measures, I've never seen that. What is that? I have occasionally seen measures APPEAR to vanish, but that is usually because I had a multi-measure rest where I later entered notes, and

  1   2   >