Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
Hi Johannes, There's no reason why Finale couldn't have automatically updating optimization with the option to do a manual override. You had to do a manual override anyway to hide staves containing notes. It would be easy for Finale to keep track of which staves have been manually hidden/shown and leave those untouched when doing an automatic optimization update. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 03 Mar 2005, at 2:44 AM, 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 populated measures), if you've got optimization turned on, it should automatically cause the system to re-optimize. I think it's crazy that the optimization information is stored with the absolute system rather than as a global setting that automatically updates the optimization when conditions change to warrant it. 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 this to be changed, simply because the way it works is ideal for the work I do. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
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 occured to me that the problem may, at least in some cases, not be as simple as merely dropping some features, but rather, it may have to drop a feature, and know how and where to add in a previous feature. The dropping is trivial; the adding in is more problematic Further, since they never promised backwards write compatibility anyway, I can understand why, as a business decision, the elected not to try to add it later. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] JW Divider for OSX
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 all went fine. Is this fixable? Hans Jari Williamsson wrote: Hello! Tobias has just ported JW Divider to OSX (Finale 2004-2005 for Mac). http://www.jwmusic.nu/freeplugins/ According to Tobias, the small arrow controls don't fully work, so don't report that. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
I was merely commenting to what David said: I think it's crazy that the optimization information is stored with the absolute system rather than as a global setting that automatically updates the optimization when conditions change to warrant it. It is precisely the fact that the optimization information is is stored with the absolute system rather than globally which makes it so flexible. 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). Johannes Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi Johannes, There's no reason why Finale couldn't have automatically updating optimization with the option to do a manual override. You had to do a manual override anyway to hide staves containing notes. It would be easy for Finale to keep track of which staves have been manually hidden/shown and leave those untouched when doing an automatic optimization update. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 03 Mar 2005, at 2:44 AM, 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 populated measures), if you've got optimization turned on, it should automatically cause the system to re-optimize. I think it's crazy that the optimization information is stored with the absolute system rather than as a global setting that automatically updates the optimization when conditions change to warrant it. 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 this to be changed, simply because the way it works is ideal for the work I do. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] New Real Book font
It was Finale for all the Real Books after Vol 1. The font was a custom font by the copyist, and they are guarding it jealously (I asked!) If you compare the Vol 1 to say Vol 2, the quality of the hand copying in Vol 1 is quite astonishing, IMHO. I don't think I have ever seen anything quite like it in a jazz idiom. Compact, well-spaced, an excellent eye for compromises in a very dense page that is nevertheless clearly laid out - it set a new standard, just in time to be supplanted by computer copying. 8-( Christopher On Mar 2, 2005, at 9:27 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi Roger, The first New Real Book was hand-copied. Subsequent editions (Vol. 2, Vol. 3, the Standards Real Book, etc.) were done with some kind of music notation software, possibly Finale. However, their fonts were developed in-house, and they are proprietary to Sher Music Co. They are not available to the general public. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 02 Mar 2005, at 8:52 PM, Roger Julià Satorra wrote: Hi, Does anyone know which is the font used in the New Real Books? Thanks, Roger ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 forgot to turn off the rest. Well, that does strike me as the kind of problem that no intelligent application should allow to happen. Notes in measures should automatically break multi-measure rests, without the user being required to do anything. I'm not sure I want ANOTHER automatic sweep through a subroutine slowing down the performance of the program, like Auto Update Layout, Auto Update Hyphens and Smart Word Extensions and the like. Especially given how often this problem (if it is one) would show up. I've only seen it myself a couple of times, and I am a heavy user who revises works constantly. 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 populated measures), if you've got optimization turned on, it should automatically cause the system to re-optimize. I Re-optimize to what parameters? There's a whole window of options there for that process. I don't want to be asked every time, and I don't want Finale choosing the parameters for me. I would rather do it myself. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 proposal for backwards compatability as a new feature. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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. I am presently experimenting with it and am suitably impressed. Christopher PS, Jari and Tobias, the plugin works as flawlessly as ever! Thanks! On Mar 3, 2005, at 5:55 AM, Hans Swinnen wrote: 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 all went fine. Is this fixable? Hans Jari Williamsson wrote: Hello! Tobias has just ported JW Divider to OSX (Finale 2004-2005 for Mac). http://www.jwmusic.nu/freeplugins/ According to Tobias, the small arrow controls don't fully work, so don't report that. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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't the OSX version include that option? Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ 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, 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 that sounds quite provocative, it's not meant to be, I'm just curious because in ten years professional work I've never needed such a feature. We had Quark 4 ages before any of our clients, we'd never have started a job in it unless we knew the client had upgraded. Isn't this analagous? There are probably some other scenrarios thats I'm overlooking. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 Options/New isn't functional? Or doesn't the OSX version include that option? Correct, Maximize doesn't appear in Fin OSX Program Options/New. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 in Program Options/New isn't functional? Or doesn't the OSX version include that option? There is no such option in the Mac version. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 by the web page, and the minimum height needed to display the site's entire contents (or full-screen height if, as with most websites, you need to scroll down to read it all). If you click it again, it will normally toggle back to wherever it was before you hit the zoom button. If any portion of the window has been dragged off-screen, the zoom button will also reposition the window so that it fits entirely on the screen. You can test all of this on a web page that has a relatively narrow width and short height, like, for instance, the home page of: http://davedouglas.com/ 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. This does not appear to be the minimum height to display the page's contents? I don't find this confusing at all. Moreover, the behavior in OS X is for the most part extremely similar to the way the zoom button in Mac OS has always worked. The widget *looks* different now (green circle instead of a square inside a box) but the behavior is virtually identical. It's certainly identical behavior in Finale -- the zoom button works exactly the same in OS X as it did in OS 9 and earlier. Yes, in Finale. Just not in AppleWorks, nor in a couple of other apps used often by me. I guess I was assuming that it would always work identically. You'll notice that if you click the Zoom button in Mail, it always maximizes the window. That's because modern plain-text emails don't have a fixed width -- they wrap to the user's window width. Finale's behavior is similar -- it always maximizes when you click the Zoom button, because in scroll view, there's no fixed width, and Finale's programmers didn't want the Zoom button to behave differently depending on whether you are in scroll view or page view. I'm fine with that, because all of my Finale windows are maximized all of the time. What *is* broken is that Finale doesn't follow OS X conventions for remembering window placement, and for stacking (not cascading) new windows when the current (or default) window is maximized. 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. I agree. There isn't a keyboard command for Maximise, is there? Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 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. I am presently experimenting with it and am suitably impressed. Christopher PS, Jari and Tobias, the plugin works as flawlessly as ever! Thanks! On Mar 3, 2005, at 5:55 AM, Hans Swinnen wrote: 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 all went fine. Is this fixable? Hans Jari Williamsson wrote: Hello! Tobias has just ported JW Divider to OSX (Finale 2004-2005 for Mac). http://www.jwmusic.nu/freeplugins/ According to Tobias, the small arrow controls don't fully work, so don't report that. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 backwards compatibility is not merely an issue of convenience or neglect. Some customers will not upgrade for these incremental upgrades that Finale sells as full upgrades, and some customers will not upgrade to victimware until it is absolutely unavoidable. There is very little beyond user convenience that can't still be done in Finale 2.2. Until Finale revokes their victimware scheme and until they provide a full, functioning upgrade with the major broken areas fixed (among them the Postscript issues), I will be one of Brian Williams's despised @#$%*! composers who remains with Finale 2003 -- and continue shopping for alternatives. By creating victimware, they destroyed in one stroke my ten years of customer loyalty. If they want my money this time, they'll have to give me good reason to hand it over. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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. This does not appear to be the minimum height to display the page's contents? What version of Safari/OS X are you using? What's your window position and size before you click the Zoom button? I don't get the behavior you describe. For me, clicking the zoom button on this page causes the window to resize so that no scroll bars are visible. I agree. There isn't a keyboard command for Maximise, is there? No -- you can program one in iKey, and iKey supposedly has a Zoom All feature, but it doesn't work in Finale. I don't find this confusing at all. Moreover, the behavior in OS X is for the most part extremely similar to the way the zoom button in Mac OS has always worked. The widget *looks* different now (green circle instead of a square inside a box) but the behavior is virtually identical. It's certainly identical behavior in Finale -- the zoom button works exactly the same in OS X as it did in OS 9 and earlier. Yes, in Finale. And in the Finder, and in MS Word, and in iTunes, and in most instances I can think of... - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ 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 should be paying you to do the work. 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. If I had your clients and their needs I would probably share your opinions. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[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
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 to accept victimware is neglect. My and my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a corporation's ill will -- and I'm sure it plays into why the company has no backwards-compatibility to untethered versions on the table. If it is introduced, I'll bet it will only back-convert to F2K4 or later. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 against. Finale itself has a history of bugs related to minor key signatures. 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? -Original Message- From: John Bell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2005 01:57 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: [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 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 the entire contents appear WITHOUT a scroll bar. This does not appear to be the minimum height to display the page's contents? What version of Safari/OS X are you using? What's your window position and size before you click the Zoom button? I don't get the behavior you describe. For me, clicking the zoom button on this page causes the window to resize so that no scroll bars are visible. Starting from a window larger than the page, clicking the green button makes the page smaller than the content. Starting from a window manually resized to be smaller than the content makes the zoom behave as expected. I am using the latest updates of both OS and Safari. I don't find this confusing at all. Moreover, the behavior in OS X is for the most part extremely similar to the way the zoom button in Mac OS has always worked. The widget *looks* different now (green circle instead of a square inside a box) but the behavior is virtually identical. It's certainly identical behavior in Finale -- the zoom button works exactly the same in OS X as it did in OS 9 and earlier. Yes, in Finale. And in the Finder, and in MS Word, and in iTunes, and in most instances I can think of... I guess I just don't find myself maximising windows in those situations. Probably because once I set the windows to a size I like, the app remembers them for the next time. 8-( Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 ones that programmers routinely test their code against. Finale itself has a history of bugs related to minor key signatures. 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? If you modulate from a major key to a minor key with a different number of sharps or flats, you don't have to reset your Enharmonic Spelling tables. That's the only advantage I can think of. 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. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 will no longer be able to edit my Finale files, or at least not without great expense and difficulty. (Indeed, this is already effectively true for my oldest Finale files. And then there are those files from Professional Composer and Deluxe Music Construction Set!) 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. At this point I am counting on the ubiquity of PDF to isolate it from anything its parent, Adobe, may throw at it. While this hope may be misplaced, I think it has good odds, and it is the most reliable practical digital archiving format I can see at the moment. From: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz My and my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a corporation's ill will ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 Undoubtedly. - no-one gets my Finale files, they only get PS or EPS. Wouldn't that be nice. Richard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 pejorative neglect to promote your agenda, so I'm making clear that refusal to buy victimware or accept incremental upgrades is not neglect but an ethical point of view undeserving of an epithet. Attention must be paid before we all start implanting RFID chips in our kids because it happens to be convenient. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 better, e.g. you get f# with a G minor signature, but g flat in a B flat major signature. Richard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 promote your agenda I don't really have an agenda on this issue, although I don't subscribe to your victimware POV. 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 developing being released for other to simply copy and benefit from. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 developing being released for other to simply copy and benefit from. I very much appreciate this. Fortunately, my clients tend not to want to do it themselves (and I don't put my name anywhere on the scores). My clients' desire is merely to protect their investment, so I happily provide the Finale files. 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 my client, who merely wanted his set of songs made to look consistent. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 James Gilbert http://www.jamesgilbertmusic.com/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 unnecessary and just bloats the app. I think it actually 'cheapens' the application. You don't see options like these in Photoshop or ProTools. [...] Customising should be about ergonomics, not style. I agree about the kind of 'look' or skinning issues, and think Sibelius looks hokey (I have the version 3 demo). For me, the interface becomes very personal. 10+ hours per day has made me very productive in my Windows environment. But programs such as Photoshop slow me down with their different implementation of context menus, floating-only toolbars, etc., so most of my work is done in the compliant Paint Shop Pro until I actually need Photoshop for something. My first Finale was 2.2, which was so un-Windows-like that I would have dumped it had Finale not been the only game in town back then. There are many interface improvements that could be made to Finale, but I come at it with a Windows-only perspective, and am efficient using its mouse actions and especially standard keystrokes. I know F5 will refresh my screen (but Finale is CTL-D), CTL-TAB will switch between a program's child windows (okay in Finale), ALT-TAB between programs, etc. I know Home, End, Page Up, Page Down, and the arrows will work as advertised. (One of the worst for me is PageMaker's usurpation for other commands of the longstanding toggles of italic, underscore and bold CTL-I, U, B. I've wrecked many a document because I type along without looking at the screen!) Distractions make me crazy, so only the current application appears on my desktop, maximized with child windows also maximized, and border lines reduced to zero. There's no edge clutter, as my Windows taskbar auto-hides. The colors of background and active inactive window bars, the scrollbar widths, font sizes, etc., are all set for my eyes and attention. Icons are reduced in size, or where they cannot be reduced (as in some browsers), eliminated in favor of text. (Some Adobe products ignore the font size I have chosen for user interface elements as well as the open-maximized setting.) I have no idea if most users heavily personalize their workspace while depending on the operating system's common actions. I do. Where a program deviates from the environment's repertoire of behaviors while refusing to respect the environment's customizations, it very much gets in my way. Alas, where a program attempts the virtuous goal of cross-platform compatibility, it tends to break the standard expectations and slows me down. My same frustration, though, is visible in the eyes of Mac users or even my Linux-devotee stepson when they try to operate my machine, with its Dennis-centric interface, left-handed trackball, right-handed tablet, and two monitors. But my hands fly. :) Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 key signature if only mode is changing That's it! Heh, heh, I knew there was something... Christopher P.S., So why is this option checked by default? Just wondering... ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 my client, who merely wanted his set of songs made to look consistent. Interesting situation. I can appreciate the argument in such a case. 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! My apologies if this is going somewhat tangential, it's all loosely related, after all my very next customer may try to insist on such a thing. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 versions are state of the art - minimal, can be arranged to suit the user (they even have the ability to save in sets to suit the type of work you're doing), and have great auto hide and palette well features. It seems to me that Photoshop and Indesign are good analogies to Finale because of the depth of the feature set, I know they're very different applications to Finale but in their respective fields all are very complete. If I had the time I'd love to take screenshots of Photoshop and Finale and mockup a pic of what Finale would look like with a photoshop like interface! Mercifully two children, a dealine and a bad cold stop me from descending into such geekdom. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 with music"hidden" inside a multiple rest before) I should have said disappearing systems. A while back I was doing a string quartet score, for example, with two systems per page. After completing all the horizontal layout and editing,I set the top and bottom margins for all pages in an appropriate spot and the did Page Layout/Space Systems Evenly..., whereby Finale pushes the top system to the top of the page and the bottom system to the bottom of the page. What I discovered was that occasionally the bottom system would simply go missing, so page x would e.g. be system 10 and 11, page y would be system 12 with no bottom system, and page z would be sytem 14 and 15. So system 13 simply disappeared. If I looked in scroll view the music was still all there, just not in page view. Once I saw this I realized it was happening very frequently. Again, this was Finale 2002. Jeffery www.jefferycotton.net ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 difficult stuff! It IS a hot topic. The sentiment among the pros on the list is generally that the Finale files are work product, (while the paper or PDF copy is the deliverable) and a copyist shouldn't give them away unless adequately compensated. 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 understandable place for musicians around that person, and I am comfortable with that. I have benefitted from more experienced fellow Finale users sharing their settings, techniques and libraries, and I will freely pass them on for the benefit of the world at large (yes my ego really is that big!) What I WON'T do, though, is give a client the work product files so that he or she can make an end run around me to another contractor, or change my content without my permission (actually the latter is more my concern.) This is the same as a photographer not giving away the negatives to a client. You have to go back to him for more prints, or compensate him for the work he will undoubtedly lose from giving them to you. In reality, I use so many custom fonts that my Finale files would be unusable on another computer anyway. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 understandable place for musicians around that person, and I am comfortable with that. I have benefitted from more experienced fellow Finale users sharing their settings, techniques and libraries, and I will freely pass them on for the benefit of the world at large (yes my ego really is that big!) 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 provide in the first place. (Breethe). -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 Extensions, etc -- in my opinion, it's ridiculous that Finale does not handle these simple tasks automatically *and* quickly, especially on today's hardware. It's enormously frustrating that Finale seems to keep getting *slower* even as the hardware keeps getting faster. Updating the layout automatically ought not to be a hugely processor-intensive task, and I really wish Coda would take a year off the constant upgrade cycle and work *exclusively* on making the program run more efficiently.) - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 03 Mar 2005, at 10:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 forgot to turn off the rest. That was a typo (although I have seen the measures with musichidden inside a multiple rest before) I should have said disappearing systems. A while back I was doing a string quartet score, for example, with two systems per page. After completing all the horizontal layout and editing,I set the top and bottom margins for all pages in an appropriate spot and the did Page Layout/Space Systems Evenly..., whereby Finale pushes the top system to the top of the page and the bottom system to the bottom of the page. What I discovered was that occasionally the bottom system would simply go missing, so page x would e.g. be system 10 and 11, page y would be system 12 with no bottom system, and page z would be sytem 14 and 15. So system 13 simply disappeared. If I looked in scroll view the music was still all there, just not in page view. Once I saw this I realized it was happening very frequently. Again, this was Finale 2002. Jeffery www.jefferycotton.net ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[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 spacing you have done. i only use this tool for adjusting inter-staff spacing and forcing empty staves to show or hiding staves with stuffinnem (stored in score for part extraction), after optimizing through finale. i don't think finale's built-in optimizer should automatically re-optimize, but in the there should be a document option allowing the user to have it function that way, which would be very useful when (eg.) pushing a measure into another system out of which its staff has already been optimized. also, running the optimization dialogue box for a system which has already been optimized should be able to take into account any adjustments to the layout the user has done: * optimize systems _ to _ (default inter-staff spacing) * re-optimize systems _ to _ (incorporate existing inter-staff spacing) in the latter case, staves which have been force-hidden will now appoerar again... maybe a staff style could eventually be developed which allows for the designated region of measures to be automatically optimized out whenever possible (as little as one measure in the same system without this staff style applied to it would override and force the staff to show). -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[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 Trombonist Louisville Orchestra arranger, composer ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 may be a cleaner, neater, more understandable place for musicians around that person, and I am comfortable with that. I have benefitted from more experienced fellow Finale users sharing their settings, techniques and libraries, and I will freely pass them on for the benefit of the world at large (yes my ego really is that big!) 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 provide in the first place. (Breethe). But if the spotty teenager can't provide the elegance you can, then your settings aren't doing him any good, are they? I'm speaking of using settings in ANOTHER work, not editing work you have already done. Keep those for yourself, by all means! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[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 available in their online store and all the usual music providers (Patelson's et al.) have no record of ever having had it. It may be out of print. But I'm editing a lesson for middle-schoolers to accompany a listening experience using Travel Song, and the author has talked about changing between duple and triple meter. I know the recording of the song very well, and it's clear to me that there is a section of three against four, but NO change to triple meter. Without a score, I can't challenge that, even though I know I'm right. Do any of you know this piece? Any suggestions for finding the music? Thanks, Linda Worsley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 all went fine. Is this fixable? Safari shows it on my screen - no problem (G4 iMac). Hal -- Harold Owen 2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at: http://uoregon.edu/~hjowen FAX: (509) 461-3608 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/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 so that I can send them files I have made in 2005. This seems to solve the problem nicely. Hal -- Harold Owen 2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at: http://uoregon.edu/~hjowen FAX: (509) 461-3608 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] IExplorer
For those of you skeptics that suggested that IE wouldn't be upgraded until LongHorn. http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=60403301 Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[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): some bass sections have a mix of standard four- string instruments, four-string with extension to C, and five-string (bottom string usually tuned to C in the US, B in Europe) and in a 2-part divisi in which the lower part goes below E (usually octaves), each player takes a part that his instrument can play, irrespective of seating. -- Ken Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: http://www.mooremusic.org.uk/ I reject emails 100k automatically: warn me beforehand if you want to send one ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 Horton Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 8:39 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: [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 Trombonist Louisville Orchestra arranger, composer ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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: [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 Filae 98 to 2005 (with XML and .ETF formats thrown in). I constantly field emails from conductors asking for older versions compatible with their software. As a result, I do what Noel suggested, i.e. keep 5 versions of Finale on my computer, and never save to an updated format, to allow the maximum compatibility. Of course, my situation is very different from yours, but it is becoming an increasingly common issue. Best, Rafael Ornes Choral Public Domain Library [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 I've heard them! Actually, the C tuning is the new one to me! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 populated measures), if you've got optimization turned on, it should automatically cause the system to re-optimize. I think it's crazy that the optimization information is stored with the absolute system rather than as a global setting that automatically updates the optimization when conditions change to warrant it. 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 this to be changed, simply because the way it works is ideal for the work I do. What if it were an option to do it the old way, or what I consider the common sense way (as I described)? -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 to only update on Ctrl-U? Keep in mind that it certainly wouldn't take anything like the processing power that automatic music spacing takes up, as there are not nearly as many objects to be calculated (you only need to check if the frames in a system are empty/holding only non-visible music). Also, automatic music spacing was such an annoyance because it caused the music to jump around while you were entering it. That simply couldn't happen, even if you were entering in page view, precisely because a frame that has been optimized out can't have data entered into it (it's not visible). And how many people do any major entry in page view, anyway (other than editing)? I don't see it as a practical problem, even if it weren't settable to be part of the Ctrl-U update (which I'd probably prefer, myself). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 strings are used on a specially built instrument, it is more intuitive and practical to maintain the fingering relationships by tuning the low string to B, a 4th below the E. Most bassists I know find the whole thing kind of messy for a number of reasons, and the relative power of those pitches is diminished by the fact that the bass is quite a bit too small to support the sound of the fundamentals it is required to sound already in its normal state (in relation to the proportions of a violin), so it's good to have a number of players doubling those pitches if they are expected to be heard effectively in an orchestra. Some brave souls have resorted to tuning the bass in 5ths, like an octa-cello. This has some advantages, but the amount of real estate that must be covered by the left hand in order to negotiate scale passages is daunting. Chuck On Mar 3, 2005, at 11:22 AM, Owain Sutton wrote: 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 I've heard them! Actually, the C tuning is the new one to me! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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? -- Certainly! Respighi _Pines of Rome_ last movement. Many, many of them. Raymond Horton Louisville Orchestra ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 that is usually because I had a multi-measure rest where I later entered notes, and forgot to turn off the rest. Well, that does strike me as the kind of problem that no intelligent application should allow to happen. Notes in measures should automatically break multi-measure rests, without the user being required to do anything. I'm not sure I want ANOTHER automatic sweep through a subroutine slowing down the performance of the program, like Auto Update Layout, Auto Update Hyphens and Smart Word Extensions and the like. . . . All of those can be turned off, right? So why do you assume that automatic breaking of multi-measure rests would not also have the option to turn it off? Or, as I suggested with automatic optimization in a response to Johannes, perhaps a setting to have it occur with Ctrl-U. . . . Especially given how often this problem (if it is one) would show up. I've only seen it myself a couple of times, and I am a heavy user who revises works constantly. Multi-measure rests only appear in page view. Since you can see or edit the measures the multi-measure rests represent, the change of layout would happen when you switch from scroll view to page view. So, there wouldn't be any need for a process constantly running to check for multi-measure rests -- the code to do that would need to fire only at the point where you switch from scroll to page view. And it would be nice if it would fire with a Ctrl-U, as well, I think, especially for cases where you remove existing data and want rests combined. On the other hand, that raises some problems, and might be better left as a manual process because you probably wouldn't want it automatically combining two multi-measure rests (e.g., if you had an 8-mm rest followed by a measure of music followed by another 8-mm rest -- you probably wouldn't want the two rests combined with the new empty measure into a 17-mm rest). You could have a behavior where if there's a multi-measure rest on *one* end of the measure you empty, that the empty measure would then automatically combine with the adjacent rest, but then there'd be different behaviors for different contexts, so that's probably not a good idea (at least not as a default behavior). So, probably the creation of *new* multi-measure rests after music has been removed should probably not happen automatically while editing in page view, since there's too many cases where it will simply guess wrong because of all the ambiguities involved. Overall, I'd think the multi-measure rest re-calculation should have a setting to turn it off, but then should be controllable where it fires. I think it should fire with the switch from scroll to page view and on Ctrl-U. 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 populated measures), if you've got optimization turned on, it should automatically cause the system to re-optimize. I Re-optimize to what parameters? There's a whole window of options there for that process. I don't want to be asked every time, and I don't want Finale choosing the parameters for me. I would rather do it myself. Well, as in all these suggestions, I'm not suggesting that the behavior be changed by completely eliminating the old way. Others have already outlined how that could work. Automatic optimization would happen according to the settings in the Staff System Optimization dialog box, just as they do now. It's just that you wouldn't have to invoke the dialog to make it happen, nor un- optimize and re-optimize when you change the layout. And it would be nice to be able to lock optimizations to absolute systems, as Johannes suggested, which is rather similar to the way you can lock systems already (it's not too much of a different concept). I still think these are two examples where Finale doesn't behave with common sense, and it's precisely these kinds of things that cause people to prefer programs like Sibelius, which behave according to one version of common sense but then prohibit you from making it behave any other way. If Finale retained user control, but also incorporated common sense by default, who could complain? Honestly, I'd *never* need to know anything about the optimization dialog if Finale did it automatically, or much of anything about breaking/combining multi-measure rests (though I certainly do believe these should correspond to musical phrase divisions and large sectional boundaries, which isn't something that can happen automatically). Why should I need to
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 David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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, for one. Of course, I have poor luck with the default settings already, and end up changing lots of accidentals in just about any piece I enter (and not just in the sections that have modulated without changing the key signature). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 die C Saite nach H (Basses tune the C string to B). Michael Cook ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 your clear implication that there's something wrong with people who don't upgrade to the latest version. That attitude probably represents the annoyance it causes you when your clients don't keep up with you, but it certainly doesn't represent reality. There are good reasons to not upgrade, the most important being: The program does EVERYTHING I want to do exactly the way I want to do it, and exactly the way I expect and know how to accomplish things. In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Yes, there are often advantages to upgrading, but they often are not proportional to the cost of the upgrades. And upgrades often have downsides, too. Choosing to avoid the risk of the downside and saving the money and sticking with a familiar version of the program are all completely rational reasons for not upgrading. I just don't see the value of upgrading to every new version of Finale (I upgrade about every 3 versions). But that's not to say that other people who use Finale differently than I do will *not* see the value. I also don't collaborate with other people, so backwards conversion simply isn't an issue for me (and I suspect I'm in the majority on that one). Indeed, I am prejudiced to believe that it's more irrational to quickly jump to new versions of application software than it is to stay with older versions, because of 15 years of observing software upgrades in any number of classes of application. The conservative user who skips upgrade almost always ends up with better value and productivity in the long run than the one who is constantly upgrading and encountering all the problems of change (not even mentioning bugs). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[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 the MM rests, and it's a good idea to do this if you have copied new information into a parts template. I have been caught too often with hidden music that I did not notice was in a different place when copying from one part to another. (A frustrating waste of rehearsal time ensues, causing me to swear to do this every time - but I don't!) Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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. At this point I am counting on the ubiquity of PDF to isolate it from anything its parent, Adobe, may throw at it. While this hope may be misplaced, I think it has good odds, and it is the most reliable practical digital archiving format I can see at the moment. Bitmaps ought to be an even better digital archiving format, as they are so simple in the way they encode data that it is very easy (relatively speaking, especially compared to something like Acrobat Reader) to write a program to display and print them. I would think of them as digital photocopies. However, as long as Acrobat Reader *is* widely available, PDFs are certainly easier to deal with, as they can hold multiple pages in a single file (something that wouldn't be very convenient in a bitmap format). But if you're truly looking for a viable long-term digital storage format, I'd recommend the bitmaps over PDFs (and then keep both). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 write. You used the pejorative neglect to promote your agenda I don't really have an agenda on this issue, although I don't subscribe to your victimware POV. The point is that Dennis's reasons for not upgrading are rational, not, as you said, due to some form of neglect. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 world just may be a cleaner, neater, more understandable place for musicians around that person, and I am comfortable with that. I have benefitted from more experienced fellow Finale users sharing their settings, techniques and libraries, and I will freely pass them on for the benefit of the world at large (yes my ego really is that big!) 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 provide in the first place. (Breethe). Nicely-tweaked libraries to not make a good engraver. Good engraving goes well beyond such minor issues. Yes, good libraries make a good engraver better, but by themselves they certainly do nothing to create a well-engraved piece of music. I definitely believe that the soft skills that make a good engraver cannot be stolen by someone who simply has access to the file produced by the good engraver. There's simply much more to the process than a few well-chosen settings. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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. http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=60403301 Catching up on the news of two weeks ago? The reason we said IE wouldn't be updated was BECAUSE MICROSOFT HAD EXPLICITLY SAID EXACTLY THAT ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. The announcement of IE7 was a big deal precisely because it was a high-profile reversal of a previous policy that Microsoft had trumpeted quite widely. Of course, the discussion on this list about updating IE was about IE *Mac*, and IE7 is *not* going to be created for any OS but WinXP and Win2K3 Server. They do not plan to create a version for Win2K nor for the Mac. So, the situation is pretty much exactly as it was before in regard to the subject in question, the updating of the Mac version of IE. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 promote your agenda I don't really have an agenda on this issue, although I don't subscribe to your victimware POV. The point is that Dennis's reasons for not upgrading are rational, not, as you said, due to some form of neglect. Don't get hung up on neglect, it was used loosely, you probably didn't read to the end of that particular email - it was just stream of counciousness typing :) I don't care which version people use as it doesn't affect me in the least (yet). 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. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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. Umm, like what? Just wondering. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 the movie cues we copy. Two recent ones were, IIRC, Blade 3 (Ramin Djawadi) the Star Wars video game (Jeff Marsh). ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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, even thought its protection only required the original CD, and hence was not actually tethered to the company. But when they came back with the clear version the next year, I bought it immediately as a sign of good faith. This is now two years of tethered software. They don't need my upgrades, I guess. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 version of Finale a client is using before starting a project in which finale files might are to be provided to the customer, as neglect. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 the question from your earlier message... I'm just curious because in ten years professional work I've never needed such a feature. If you never share files then of course you wouldn't. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 world just may be a cleaner, neater, more understandable place for musicians around that person, and I am comfortable with that. I have benefitted from more experienced fellow Finale users sharing their settings, techniques and libraries, and I will freely pass them on for the benefit of the world at large I concur in this sentiment. I did a lot of work for a client who sells the Finale files outright, so anyone who wants it can get my basic piano-vocal template for five bucks. Whatever benefit anyone can get by stealing my templates, they are welcome to it. I hate that there is so much ugly music out there, and to whatever extent the world is improved by my settings going forth and multiplying, I'm all for it. Like many on this thread, I doubt that anyone gains much from just copying my template. Things like line thicknesses and tie settings, maybe, but you can probably copy those from someone's Finale help site anyway. I think a lot more of my quality comes from my routine practices, but I'd be just as happy if someone found a way to copy those. To name just one example, I hate it that a short slur on a second where the further note is on the space but still within the staff -- eg, treble staff A-B beamed together so that both are upstem -- the default slur draws so that the center of its curve lands right over the staff line. Any time this comes up, I have a standard nudge that I do to push the slur up into the space. I think it looks better that way, but hardly anyone else seems to care enough to bother. Maybe I'm just weird and this really isn't worth fixing, but if other engravers were to copy my tweak and start doing it in their scores, too, I would consider that a good thing, not a theft of my work. And likewise for a dozen other standard tweaks I regularly do. (And wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone ran Patterson Beams on everything?) mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 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 to only update on Ctrl-U? Keep in mind that it certainly wouldn't take anything like the processing power that automatic music spacing takes up, as there are not nearly as many objects to be calculated (you only need to check if the frames in a system are empty/holding only non-visible music). Also, automatic music spacing was such an annoyance because it caused the music to jump around while you were entering it. That simply couldn't happen, even if you were entering in page view, precisely because a frame that has been optimized out can't have data entered into it (it's not visible). And how many people do any major entry in page view, anyway (other than editing)? I don't see it as a practical problem, even if it weren't settable to be part of the Ctrl-U update (which I'd probably prefer, myself). -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 game (Jeff Marsh). This isn't really relevant to the issue at hand, but Dan's reference to the Star Wars video game made me chuckle -- do you know how many video games there have been based on the Star Wars franchise? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 the first item on the list, was the Meredith Monk Website, (www.meredithmonk.org), with an email link (admittedly in very small print) at the bottom. Maybe a direct contact here ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 wondering. 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 play with the files ... 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 version of Finale a client is using before starting a project in which finale files might are to be provided to the customer, as neglect. That was what I was suggesting when I was blathering on about my experience of owning Quark 4 when all the publishers were still on 3.3, I was presumed there had to be other reasons, a couple of good ones were quickly pointed out. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 this to be changed, simply because the way it works is ideal for the work I do. For what it's worth, I also will occasionally choose to optimize out a system which has music in it. I would be disappointed if this possibility were taken away. I have no problem with some sort of warning or changeable default that helps newbies avoid getting confused by disappearing music without reducing the functionality for everyone else. Some on this thread seem to be discussing optimization as if it were only the matter of making staves disappear in systems where they are empty. I don't see how optimization can be separated from the matter of specifying vertical positions for staves which vary from system to system. 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 unacceptable because I don't want markings running into the lyrics on some staves, but neither do I want large unnecessary gaps of white space on others. Of course, this is layout-dependent, and if you later make changes to the piece which alter the layout, you're going to have to redo all the system optimization values. This isn't a bug in the software; it's inherent in the nature of the task. Maybe some day Finale will cook up a function to look for vertical collisions and provide vertical positions for staves accordingly, and perhaps it will even do a consistently good job of it. Until that happens, I don't see how optimization can be taken away from the user and handed over to the software. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 able to have it included as a choice in Document Options - Beams. Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 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 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 Filae 98 to 2005 (with XML and .ETF formats thrown in). I constantly field emails from conductors asking for older versions compatible with their software. As a result, I do what Noel suggested, i.e. keep 5 versions of Finale on my computer, and never save to an updated format, to allow the maximum compatibility. Of course, my situation is very different from yours, but it is becoming an increasingly common issue. Best, Rafael Ornes Choral Public Domain Library [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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. Apart from this, I recently gave away a Finale file which I had done for a client, and later some in-house engravers changed some of it. Much to my satisfaction I did actually notice in the final publication that they did not get anywhere close to my beam placements (the beams just use Finale's very own and very ugly beam placement). So now someone with a good eye for these things can look up the edition and easily find the place where they tampered with it. Fortunately my name is not published with it. Tells you that libraries and settings are by far not all of it. Johannes Mark D Lew wrote: 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 world just may be a cleaner, neater, more understandable place for musicians around that person, and I am comfortable with that. I have benefitted from more experienced fellow Finale users sharing their settings, techniques and libraries, and I will freely pass them on for the benefit of the world at large I concur in this sentiment. I did a lot of work for a client who sells the Finale files outright, so anyone who wants it can get my basic piano-vocal template for five bucks. Whatever benefit anyone can get by stealing my templates, they are welcome to it. I hate that there is so much ugly music out there, and to whatever extent the world is improved by my settings going forth and multiplying, I'm all for it. Like many on this thread, I doubt that anyone gains much from just copying my template. Things like line thicknesses and tie settings, maybe, but you can probably copy those from someone's Finale help site anyway. I think a lot more of my quality comes from my routine practices, but I'd be just as happy if someone found a way to copy those. To name just one example, I hate it that a short slur on a second where the further note is on the space but still within the staff -- eg, treble staff A-B beamed together so that both are upstem -- the default slur draws so that the center of its curve lands right over the staff line. Any time this comes up, I have a standard nudge that I do to push the slur up into the space. I think it looks better that way, but hardly anyone else seems to care enough to bother. Maybe I'm just weird and this really isn't worth fixing, but if other engravers were to copy my tweak and start doing it in their scores, too, I would consider that a good thing, not a theft of my work. And likewise for a dozen other standard tweaks I regularly do. (And wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone ran Patterson Beams on everything?) mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 copyright reasons. Apart from this, I recently gave away a Finale file which I had done for a client, and later some in-house engravers changed some of it. Much to my satisfaction I did actually notice in the final publication that they did not get anywhere close to my beam placements (the beams just use Finale's very own and very ugly beam placement). So now someone with a good eye for these things can look up the edition and easily find the place where they tampered with it. Fortunately my name is not published with it. I've never provided a Finale file, and never will, for such reasons. I get plenty of requests for a score that I can print my parts from, etc. Sometimes I've had to give an explanation of how unsatisfactory any one-click process to create parts can be, and that it's not much of a problem for me to prepare parts as well. There's no way I'm going to provide a product that constitutes files that can be screwed up by anybody with access to the software. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 enharmonic tables. Johannes Richard Yates 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? I believe that in MIDI Speedy Entry (using spelling tables) the enharmonics turn out better, e.g. you get f# with a G minor signature, but g flat in a B flat major signature. Richard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 system, and is in fact manually accessable. I do not wish this to be changed, simply because the way it works is ideal for the work I do. For what it's worth, I also will occasionally choose to optimize out a system which has music in it. I would be disappointed if this possibility were taken away. I have no problem with some sort of warning or changeable default that helps newbies avoid getting confused by disappearing music without reducing the functionality for everyone else. 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 (while I understand that Johannes has a use for optimization being stored in absolute systems, I think that's a different kind of issue that comes about because of the way one is forced to create parts in Finale -- if they were all stored in the same file instead of in separate files, his issue would likely go away, since you'd have a score layout and a part layout, all stored in a single file; but that's another issue where I think Finale is confusing and less than ideal). My point is not that the way Finale does it now is wrong or unnecessary, but that it's not the common sense way it should work. Adding in the common sense approach in no way implies that you'd be forced to do it that way or that you'd lose the control you currently have over optimization. My common sense optimization would make a best guess and then you'd be able to tweak it to fit special needs. And if your particular pieces had characteristics that made my common sense optimization turn out wrong all the time, then you could simply turn off the common sense optimization and do it the way Finale has always done it. Some on this thread seem to be discussing optimization as if it were only the matter of making staves disappear in systems where they are empty. I don't see how optimization can be separated from the matter of specifying vertical positions for staves which vary from system to system. . . . I think it's wrong of Finale to *not* separate independent vertical positioning of staves within a system from optimization. Why should you need to optimize before you are allowed to move staves vertically within a system? Where's the logic there? It's not how lyrics work -- you don't have to do anything special to vertically reposition a system of lyrics. And the reason for repositioning a staff within a single non- optimized system is exactly the same as for lyrics -- to avoid collisions with other elements, most often notes that are in the ledger line stratosphere or basement, or to allow more room for things that project outside the regular vertical space of a staff. Why shouldn't systems in page view just automatically always have two handles for dragging, rather than only when a system has been optimized? . . . 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 unacceptable because I don't want markings running into the lyrics on some staves, but neither do I want large unnecessary gaps of white space on others. Of course, this is layout-dependent, and if you later make changes to the piece which alter the layout, you're going to have to redo all the system optimization values. This isn't a bug in the software; it's inherent in the nature of the task. No, it's not. If the vertical spacing requirements were stored with the frames, instead of with the system, then the vertical spacing could flow with the measures themselves, regardless of what system they end up on. Maybe some day Finale will cook up a function to look for vertical collisions and provide vertical positions for staves accordingly, and perhaps it will even do a consistently good job of it. Until that happens, I don't see how optimization can be taken away from the user and handed over to the software. Optimization and vertical spacing to allow for things that project outside the normal staff space are two separate issues that are intertwined not because of any conceptual necessity, but because that's the way Finale implements it. I see no reason why page view couldn't add top and bottom margins for each measure, and for measures that needed more space, you'd simply increase the top or bottom margin (which would in turn automatically expand the system's top/bottom margin). Then you wouldn't have to worry about re-doing your vertical spacing if your system layout changed. My point here is not really about any specific
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 Finale do the same things? I also don't see what all the excitement is. I know that Finale's default beaming is not very good in many cases (though it's now substantially better than it was even 5 years ago), but whenever I attempt to apply Patterson Beams, I see virtually no difference in the results. Perhaps I don't understand the plugin or am not applying good values (I believe I'm pretty much using just the defaults, which maybe don't do anything at all?). But I still see absolutely no reason why Finale could not do what the plugin does. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 provide in the first place. (Breethe). David Fenton wrote: Nicely-tweaked libraries to not make a good engraver. Good engraving goes well beyond such minor issues. Yes, good libraries make a good engraver better, but by themselves they certainly do nothing to create a well-engraved piece of music. I definitely believe that the soft skills that make a good engraver cannot be stolen by someone who simply has access to the file produced by the good engraver. There's simply much more to the process than a few well-chosen settings. I'm not sure if you're criticising me here for thinking that getting hold of my files would mean someone could do the job as well as me? If so you missed the phrases ... 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 provide in the first place. ... *of course* I know that libraries and templates don't make the engraver, the trouble is that it may be all the fuel needed to make someone think they can do it instead of you - and hence you don't get the gig. I bet you know as well as I that our editors can see how good we are, but can our editors boss! -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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. Wade Kotter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/03/05 4:26 PM 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 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 play with the files ... I can easily imagine that certain users would make a hash of Finale files, but that's their problem, not mine. If I hand over a Finale file, it's when I'm done with the job. If they screw it up, they can hire me again to fix it, or they can live with their mess. But in reality, I've never had that problem. I've got only two clients to whom I regularly give Finale files. One is a publisher who knows Finale well. Although he doesn't do regular work as an engraver, he certainly understands the business. He does occasionally make some tweaks on the files, and I'm fine with that because he knows what he's doing. We never have any issues with version compatibility, because any contract is always clear about what version we're working in for any piece. The other is a computer-phobic composer who wants nothing to do with engraving. That's why she hires me. The only reason she asks for the Finale files is because if I ever disappear she wants to be able to have something to offer to the next engraver if she wants to make revisions to a piece. She's a little paranoid about this, because she lost contact with the engraver before me, and she had to have some pieces re-engraved. (Truth is, they probably would have been re-engraved anyway. It looked to me like they were done in Score) I have no worries about her messing up the Finale files. I know that she'll never touch them willingly. If she hires someone else to edit them, that's the next guy's problem. She and I have an excellent working relationship, and I know I'm always her first choice. One time she needed a song in a hurry while I was incommunicado on a long trip. She found someone else to do the song, and he did a sloppy job of it. Later she paid me to fix it up. She offered me a Finale file, but it was such a mess it was easier for me to just retype it from scratch. It was only about five pages, so reimposing all my regular layout and settings over would have been nearly as much work, and much more frustrating. If the piece were longer, I probably still would have started with my own template, but done some sort of cut and paste. I really don't want to mess with someone else's Finale file unless I know it's tidy. Too many possible surprises. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[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 that, would continue to make authentication codes available. And it would be nice if the system were set up so the installation could be completed, and the code could be entered at any time within a certain time window. 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 myself, and everyone I've thought of I like less than the current situtation. As I see it, the present arrangement is a reasonably good balance between the priviledges of the licensors (us) and the rights of the licensee (MakeMusic!). ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 myself, and everyone I've thought of I like less than the current situtation. As I see it, the present arrangement is a reasonably good balance between the priviledges of the licensors (us) and the rights of the licensee (MakeMusic!). All such schemes are defeatable, so you're only actually restricting the honest users, while not actually preventing any significant piracy. In other words, they inconvenience their dedicated user base while accomplishing nothing at all in terms of increased revenues (they don't get any more sales, they just have fewer casual users running the program illegally). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 that any system which has been optimized with remove empty systems checked should be marked as such (perhaps it already is; I don't know), and then subsequent layout changes should be monitored so that if music is added to a removed staff in such a system, that staff will be reinstated in the page layout. (And similarly, I assume, if all music is deleted from a non-removed staff.) I'm not sure exactly what events would need to trigger this check. Maybe it's sufficient just to do it with any Update Layout, rather than checking every time a frame is altered by Simple, Speedy, Mass Copy, etc.. If that's what you're suggesting, I think that's a fine idea -- so long as there is some sort of override that allows me to remove a non-empty staff when I want to. (while I understand that Johannes has a use for optimization being stored in absolute systems, I think that's a different kind of issue that comes about because of the way one is forced to create parts in Finale -- if they were all stored in the same file instead of in separate files, his issue would likely go away, since you'd have a score layout and a part layout, all stored in a single file; but that's another issue where I think Finale is confusing and less than ideal). I don't know what Johannes's needs are, but mine have nothing to do with score vs parts. When I use optimization to remove non empty staves is in a large choral piece where the divisis change in such a way that it makes sense to display some sections with the two parts on a single staff and other sections with them on separate staves. When I have a piece like this, it is often most convenient for me to create enough staves in score view that I have one for each part separate AND one for the parts combined. When entering the music, I have a rough idea of where it makes sense to switch from combined to separate, but I don't know exactly where the system break is going to end up. Typically, I'll have a few bars of overlap, where I enter both in score view. Then that gives me the flexibility to twiddle around with it in page view, and once I have the layout settled, I remove the unnecessary staves from each system and it all reads smoothly. There are other ways to achieve the same thing, of course, but I find that the ability to use optimization to remove a non-empty staff facilitates the process, and that's why I don't want that option removed. And if your particular pieces had characteristics that made my common sense optimization turn out wrong all the time, then you could simply turn off the common sense optimization and do it the way Finale has always done it. That's fine with me. I think it's wrong of Finale to *not* separate independent vertical positioning of staves within a system from optimization. Why should you need to optimize before you are allowed to move staves vertically within a system? Where's the logic there? OK, I think I understand now. This is just a matter of semantics. In my mind, the essence of optimization is the fact that an optimized system has its own definition for vertical positioning of staves and a non-optimized takes staff positioning from the scroll view default. From my view, asking why one should need to optimize in order to move staves vertically is nonsensical, since that's exactly what optimization is. The ability to add or remove staves while adding optimization is just a side effect. No doubt this is due to the different natures of our respective work. I mess with vertical position of staves all the time, whereas I rarely have need to remove an empty staff. Indeed, when I apply optimization, I generally leave remove empty staves unchecked, unless I have a specific staff in mind to remove. I actually agree with you that the two features may as well be separate. It's just that I would have worded it to say that removal of empty staves is what needs to be separated from optimization. When I read your messages about making optimization automatic, I thought you were arguing for the computer to apply vertical position of staves automatically. That would be nifty if it could do a good job of it, but I think it's a big step MakeMusic isn't going to take any time soon. In any case, that's a separate discussion from the matter of removing empty staves from page view. And the reason for repositioning a staff within a single non- optimized system is exactly the same as [...] Again, to my ear this sentence is meaningless. If you're repositioning a staff, the system if optimized by definition. Why shouldn't systems in page view just automatically always have two handles for dragging, rather than only
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 that any system which has been optimized with remove empty systems checked should be marked as such (perhaps it already is; I don't know), and then subsequent layout changes should be monitored so that if music is added to a removed staff in such a system, that staff will be reinstated in the page layout. (And similarly, I assume, if all music is deleted from a non-removed staff.) I'm not sure exactly what events would need to trigger this check. Maybe it's sufficient just to do it with any Update Layout, rather than checking every time a frame is altered by Simple, Speedy, Mass Copy, etc.. If that's what you're suggesting, I think that's a fine idea -- so long as there is some sort of override that allows me to remove a non-empty staff when I want to. (while I understand that Johannes has a use for optimization being stored in absolute systems, I think that's a different kind of issue that comes about because of the way one is forced to create parts in Finale -- if they were all stored in the same file instead of in separate files, his issue would likely go away, since you'd have a score layout and a part layout, all stored in a single file; but that's another issue where I think Finale is confusing and less than ideal). I don't know what Johannes's needs are, but mine have nothing to do with score vs parts. When I use optimization to remove non empty staves is in a large choral piece where the divisis change in such a way that it makes sense to display some sections with the two parts on a single staff and other sections with them on separate staves. When I have a piece like this, it is often most convenient for me to create enough staves in score view that I have one for each part separate AND one for the parts combined. When entering the music, I have a rough idea of where it makes sense to switch from combined to separate, but I don't know exactly where the system break is going to end up. Typically, I'll have a few bars of overlap, where I enter both in score view. Then that gives me the flexibility to twiddle around with it in page view, and once I have the layout settled, I remove the unnecessary staves from each system and it all reads smoothly. There are other ways to achieve the same thing, of course, but I find that the ability to use optimization to remove a non-empty staff facilitates the process, and that's why I don't want that option removed. And if your particular pieces had characteristics that made my common sense optimization turn out wrong all the time, then you could simply turn off the common sense optimization and do it the way Finale has always done it. That's fine with me. I think it's wrong of Finale to *not* separate independent vertical positioning of staves within a system from optimization. Why should you need to optimize before you are allowed to move staves vertically within a system? Where's the logic there? OK, I think I understand now. This is just a matter of semantics. In my mind, the essence of optimization is the fact that an optimized system has its own definition for vertical positioning of staves and a non-optimized takes staff positioning from the scroll view default. From my view, asking why one should need to optimize in order to move staves vertically is nonsensical, since that's exactly what optimization is. The ability to add or remove staves while adding optimization is just a side effect. No doubt this is due to the different natures of our respective work. I mess with vertical position of staves all the time, whereas I rarely have need to remove an empty staff. Indeed, when I apply optimization, I generally leave remove empty staves unchecked, unless I have a specific staff in mind to remove. I actually agree with you that the two features may as well be separate. It's just that I would have worded it to say that removal of empty staves is what needs to be separated from optimization. When I read your messages about making optimization automatic, I thought you were arguing for the computer to apply vertical position of staves automatically. That would be nifty if it could do a good job of it, but I think it's a big step MakeMusic isn't going to take any time soon. In any case, that's a separate discussion from the matter of removing empty staves from page view. And the reason for repositioning a staff within a single non- optimized system is exactly the same as [...] Again, to my ear this sentence is meaningless. If you're repositioning a staff, the system if optimized by definition. Why shouldn't systems in page view just automatically always have two handles for dragging, rather than only
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 to have this possibility. Chuck On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:24 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: 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 able to have it included as a choice in Document Options - Beams. Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 the word represents. You optimize in Finale in order to optimize the usage of space on the page, by eliminating blank staves, so you can fit more systems in fewer pages. This has *zilch* to do with vertical positioning of staves within systems. So, I think you have a completely backwards conception of what optimization actually is -- optimization *is* removing blank staves, and the part that you use of it is something else entirely that has nothing to do with optimizing space on the page (though you might reduce spacing between staves in order to fit more systems on one page; but you could also *increase* spacing in order to avoid overlap of extreme elements, and that is the opposite of optimizing). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 unacceptable because I don't want markings running into the lyrics on some staves, but neither do I want large unnecessary gaps of white space on others. Of course, this is layout-dependent, and if you later make changes to the piece which alter the layout, you're going to have to redo all the system optimization values. This isn't a bug in the software; it's inherent in the nature of the task. No, it's not. If the vertical spacing requirements were stored with the frames, instead of with the system, then the vertical spacing could flow with the measures themselves, regardless of what system they end up on. But then I'd have to define my vertical spacing requirements on a measure-per-measure basis. . . . 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 measure would be equal to the system margins. If you reduced the vertical spacing for all the measures in a system, the system margins could then automatically contract. If you increased the vertical spacing for a selected block of measures, it would cause the system margins to expand to accommodate it. And since it was defined per measure, it would travel to any system that this measure migrated to. Say you had only one measure in a system that needed expanded vertical space. In the current situation, you adjust the vertical spacing for the system to accommodate the measure that is the extreme case. If that measure gets moved to another system, you have to start over, changing two systems. If, on the other hand, you set the vertical spacing for that one measure, if it got moved to another system, the target system would then expand accordingly, and the original system would contract back to the defaults (or to the next smallest setting in the measures in that system). . . . I don't want to do that. . . . As I just explained above, you wouldn't have to, any more than you have to manually set system or page margins in Finale right now. . . . How I choose to space a system vertically is dependent on information that is specific to the system, not the measure. For example, if an entire page is crowded vertically, I'm going to be more inclined to tighten each individual system than I would be otherwise. That's layout-dependent, not frame-dependent. If a hairpin continues from m.10 to m.12 and there are high LH notes in m.10 and low RH notes in m.12, then it's going to need more space if m.10 and m.12 are on the same system than it will if the hairpin is split over a system break and I can move half to a different vertical position. That's layout-dependent, not frame-dependent. Well, I'm not advocating eliminating system-oriented spacing adjustments -- I'm just suggesting allowing the storing of spacing requirements connected to measures, which would be much more useful to *me*. Optimization and vertical spacing to allow for things that project outside the normal staff space are two separate issues that are intertwined not because of any conceptual necessity, but because that's the way Finale implements it. Substitute removing empty systems from page view for optimization and I agree. You have a very strange definition of the word. Optimization means REMOVING BLANK SYSTEMS. Read the optimization dialog box -- it says nothing about vertical spacing of staves within systems. I suppose my recommendations along these lines would be this: 1. Every system has a value that specifies staves are movable (ie, use independent vertical values) or unmovable (ie, use vertical values from scroll view). A global setting specifies whether new systems added will be movable or unmovable. Various means in the UI allow the user to change the movable/unmovable value for any individual system, or for all systems at once. 2. The standard default documents have all systems defined as movable. The setting for new systems defaults to movable. That would be just like lyrics. 3. Every systemstaff has a value that specifies does or doesn't show in the page view. Various means in the UI allow the user to change the show/don't show value for any individual systemstaff, or all systems at once. 4. A global setting tells whether the Update Layout procedure should include a check to set any empty systemstaff to don't show and set any non-empty systemstaff to show. By default, this setting will be on. Well, it would be nice to allow overrides for specific systems (though I'd want it to be measure-specific). 5.
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 myself, and everyone I've thought of I like less than the current situtation. As I see it, the present arrangement is a reasonably good balance between the priviledges of the licensors (us) and the rights of the licensee (MakeMusic!). Not at all. And I've made the proposal in great detail here: http://maltedmedia.com/books/papers/sm-copyp.html I've mentioned this on the list before. Please read especially the 8-part detailed solution in the section Are There Solutions? Any company unwilling to take these basic steps is to me unethical in its behavior toward customers. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 staves, so you can fit more systems in fewer pages. This has *zilch* to do with vertical positioning of staves within systems. In the loosest sense, anything that improves your document makes it more optimal, but it's such a vague term that it's meaningless in Finale, except by association with what the function actually does. What the function actually does is make staves vertically adjustable within a system. It may or may not also remove blank staves from page view. As we've already noted, you can have an optimized system which does not have the blank staves removed. So, I think you have a completely backwards conception of what optimization actually is -- Right, and I think the same of you. Like I said, our only real disagreement here is just semantics. optimization *is* removing blank staves, and the part that you use of it is something else entirely [...] If Optimization is equivalent to removing blank staves, then how come Remove Empty Staves is an optional checkbox within the Optimization dialog box? So that you have the option of optimizing without optimizing? mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 optimize the usage of space on the page, by eliminating blank staves, so you can fit more systems in fewer pages. This has *zilch* to do with vertical positioning of staves within systems. In the loosest sense, anything that improves your document makes it more optimal, but it's such a vague term that it's meaningless in Finale, except by association with what the function actually does. The function is available only in page view, so, you're obviously optimizing the pages in your score. Seems transparent and obvious to me. What the function actually does is make staves vertically adjustable within a system. It may or may not also remove blank staves from page view. As we've already noted, you can have an optimized system which does not have the blank staves removed. Removing blank staves returns a lot more usable space than vertically adjusting spacing within a staff. Look at the optimization dialog box -- there is absolutely nothing there except options that control removal or inclusion of blank staves. Seems pretty definitive and clear to me! So, I think you have a completely backwards conception of what optimization actually is -- Right, and I think the same of you. Like I said, our only real disagreement here is just semantics. optimization *is* removing blank staves, and the part that you use of it is something else entirely [...] If Optimization is equivalent to removing blank staves, then how come Remove Empty Staves is an optional checkbox within the Optimization dialog box? So that you have the option of optimizing without optimizing? Tell me: what are the defaults? -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 measure would be equal to the system margins. If you reduced the vertical spacing for all the measures in a system, the system margins could then automatically contract. If you increased the vertical spacing for a selected block of measures, it would cause the system margins to expand to accommodate it. I don't understand this paragraph. The default vertical spacing for any system is the global positions set up in scroll view (ie, what I think of as the unoptimized' spacing). I have no idea what you mean by system margins. Maybe I do things differently, or maybe this is another semantic thing. Say you had only one measure in a system that needed expanded vertical space. In the current situation, you adjust the vertical spacing for the system to accommodate the measure that is the extreme case. If that measure gets moved to another system, you have to start over, changing two systems. If, on the other hand, you set the vertical spacing for that one measure, if it got moved to another system, the target system would then expand accordingly, and the original system would contract back to the defaults (or to the next smallest setting in the measures in that system). OK, that makes sense. I'm in the habit of doing all my layout adjustments only after layout is set, so the change wouldn't really benefit me much, but I can see how it would be a great help to people who make large changes to a piece after layout has already been set. I doubt that Finale would want to have that AND the ability to adjust by system. If so, and the change is made, then whenever I have page-specific adjustments I'd have to do them indirectly by simply selecting all the measures in that system and adjusting accordingly. But that would be all right. At that point, I won't be changing the layout anyway, so it all comes out the same. You have a very strange definition of the word. Optimization means REMOVING BLANK SYSTEMS. Read the optimization dialog box -- it says nothing about vertical spacing of staves within systems. I'm using Fin Mac 2k2. My optimization dialog box says this: Optimizing can remove empty staves from Page View AND/OR make staves in specified systems independently adjustable. In other words, Finale thinks that both functions are part of optimization. In fact, the AND/OR is not quite accurate. While it is possible to optimize without removing empty staves, it is not possible to optimize without making staves independently adjustable. I've quoted verbatim from the dialog box. If your version of Finale says something different, that could explain our disagreement about the meaning of the term. I believe this would satisfy both us, yes? Pretty much. But I still like the idea of vertical spacing travelling with the measure, not being permanently anchored to an absolute system position. I'd be OK with that. Aside from the matter of what to call it, it looks like you and I are in agreement on this. I just don't see why it is conceptually any different than what we have now with the way system margins live inside page margins. I still don't understand what you mean by system margins. . . . Then again, I don't trust Finale to do a decent job of horizontal spacing for any music that includes lyrics, either, which is why I'm always tweaking them. . . . Does it do an OK job for music *without* lyrics? I don't do lyrics all that often, so defaults that got it right on the first try without lyrics would greatly speed up my work. I've got a lot of little minor complaints, but on the general question of how beat spacing lays out the beat chart, I'm mostly pretty happy. I'll occasionally tweak a measure here and there, but most of the time I'm reasonably satisfied with the default music spacing in all but exceptional cases. That's not the case with lyrics, where I find that unattractive spacing is the rule rather than the exception. Unless the accompaniment is consistently denser than the syllables, or the entire layout ends up loose, I just assume that I'm going to end up tweaking a whole lot of beat charts. Mind you, I don't mean this as a criticism of Finale. I think that good spacing of music with lyrics just doesn't lend itself nicely to algorithmic treatment. The TG plug-in makes a good run at it, and it's definitely an improvement over Finale's default, but it still fails to deliver spacing I would consider particularly good. Why would I *ever* suggest taking away the fine control that Finale has always offered? I know you well enough to know that you wouldn't want that. But you did say: I think it's crazy that the optimization information is stored with the absolute system
