Re: [Finale] instrument.txt file
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:27:59 -0500, shirling neueweise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) TYPOS / MISSING DATA Another incorrect but easily corrected problem is the group instrumentation for a wind quintet. If you traditionally use the bassoon on the fifth line, being that it is usually the most bass instrument of the group, the groups brackets stop at clarinet, and are not extended through the bassoon. After having created your ensemble in setup as you wish, then To correct this, go into C:\Program Files\Finale 2005\Component Files\ensembles.txt Finale's default for Group is WW,WW,WW,BRASS,WW --- change that to read WW,WW,WW,WW,WW and the group lines now go all the way through from flute to bassoon (I have done some other tweaking, because sometimes I prefer A Clarinet as the default and not Bb) [GRP:WW Quintet(A)] Name=WW Quintet(A) InstNames=Flute,Oboe,Clarinet in A,Horn in F,Bassoon Group=WW,WW,WW,WW,WW ORD:=Wind Quintet [GRP:WW Quintet(B)] InstNames=Flute,Oboe,Clarinet in Bb,Horn in F,Bassoon Group=WW,WW,WW,WW,WW Name=WW Quintet(B) ORD:=Wind Quintet Gregory -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
David W. Fenton wrote: 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). ...and given that there's a hacked version of Finale 2005 around (as there is for Office XP, Publisher XP, and just about anything else using authentication), it probably isn't even achieving that. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] String divisi
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Stiller writes: 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? Also Sprach Zarathustra, in the fugue. I remember it particularly because only one part goes that low, and the conductor asked me to play it on my four-string with C extension. That meant I had to tune down, which is straightforward, and because I didn't want to play the rest of this fairly difficult work in an unfamiliar tuning, up again. I found this very difficult, mainly because the long string goes round the scroll and suffers from friction. Also, having the extension, I never practise with the bottom string tuned down. IIRC, there is also a low B in Brandenburg 3, but that may have been intended for a six-string violone. -- 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] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
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 (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). In my case this has nothing to do with parts at all. The reason I need to optimize out parts which have got music in them has to do with doubling parts. For instance, in some situations the first and second violins play identical parts, and for space reasons I just want to show one of them, but the other one needs to have the music in it both for later part extraction but also because the decision to optimize out the second violin part is made at a later stage and needs to be reversible. Johannes -- 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
1) If you do not see a difference you probably don't know much about proper beam placement. Finale's default beam placement (not beaming as such) is dreadful. 2) The immense flexibility of what Patterson beams can do is unlikely to ever be included in Finale's beam options. 3) Most importantly: Patterson beams can be applied with different settings to different regions. This could not be done with built-in beaming options unless the whole concept of how Finale's options work would have to be changed. The only way I could see this be done with default options would be if beaming options became part of staff styles. Unlikely to say the least. Personally I think the plugin approach has advantages which I would not like to give up. Johannes David W. Fenton wrote: 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. -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: Re: [Finale] String divisi
-- Ken Moore[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? Also Sprach Zarathustra, in the fugue. You're talking about a scordatura. I'm based in Europe and it's nothing usual for double bass to tune the 5th string to B. Always C. Sometimes composers want a note lower than the range of a string instrument and then it's properly indicated that one of the strings has to be tuned down to X (in this case the db to B). Roger ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Johannes, Surely you wouldn't mind if Finale's default beam placement were better? For instance, if Finale did Henle-style beams by default? No one is talking about taking away the plugin -- you could still run the Patterson Beams plugins on selected measures as required. But I really think Finale's default beam placement ought to be improved. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 04 Mar 2005, at 3:54 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: 1) If you do not see a difference you probably don't know much about proper beam placement. Finale's default beam placement (not beaming as such) is dreadful. 2) The immense flexibility of what Patterson beams can do is unlikely to ever be included in Finale's beam options. 3) Most importantly: Patterson beams can be applied with different settings to different regions. This could not be done with built-in beaming options unless the whole concept of how Finale's options work would have to be changed. The only way I could see this be done with default options would be if beaming options became part of staff styles. Unlikely to say the least. Personally I think the plugin approach has advantages which I would not like to give up. Johannes David W. Fenton wrote: 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. -- 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] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
David, Optimization in Finale allows to remove blank staves _and_ makes the vertical spacing of each system independent from the global setting. It has *all* to do with the vertical spacing. You can optimize without removing empty staves. Unless I am missing something here it is you who hasn't understood the concept of optimization in Finale. The meaning of the word in this particular context is pretty much besides the point. But if anything to optimize means to make individual staves more optimal, and that could well mean increasing the space between staves. Johannes David W. Fenton wrote: 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). -- 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
No I wouldn't object to better beam placement in Finale. However, I think there are other areas in Finale which need the improvements more than the beam placement, because it is already possible to get near perfect beams in Finale through a plugin. The discussion these days seems to center very much wouldn't it be nice if Finale did it this way for many things which I doubt will actually make things better, at least for me. In the past we have seen such half-hearted improvements make it into Finale too often, while those areas which would probably be easy to fix never got the development time. Just one example: It is still not possible to have clefs after the barline appear after the key sig if they appear at the beginning of a system. The amount of time I waste to work around this problem to create properly formatted cue notes (which typically appear at the beginning of a system) is almost unbelievable. Beams? Why? They work fine. Need I mention EPS files? Johannes Darcy James Argue wrote: Johannes, Surely you wouldn't mind if Finale's default beam placement were better? For instance, if Finale did Henle-style beams by default? No one is talking about taking away the plugin -- you could still run the Patterson Beams plugins on selected measures as required. But I really think Finale's default beam placement ought to be improved. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 04 Mar 2005, at 3:54 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: 1) If you do not see a difference you probably don't know much about proper beam placement. Finale's default beam placement (not beaming as such) is dreadful. 2) The immense flexibility of what Patterson beams can do is unlikely to ever be included in Finale's beam options. 3) Most importantly: Patterson beams can be applied with different settings to different regions. This could not be done with built-in beaming options unless the whole concept of how Finale's options work would have to be changed. The only way I could see this be done with default options would be if beaming options became part of staff styles. Unlikely to say the least. Personally I think the plugin approach has advantages which I would not like to give up. Johannes David W. Fenton wrote: 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. -- 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] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
I appreciate all the feedback and ideas, everyone, thank you. I've worked with 2005 for the last day now, and already see many dramatic improvements, and appreciated the returned control over the end product. So it is back to Finale for me. I've also written a blog entry on this topic (Finale vs. Sibelius) on my website, would be interested in your feedback: http://www.jefferycotton.net/info.asp?pgs=blogentryblbe=10 (The entry is entitled Sex in the Concert Hall -- which has nothing to do with Finale, alas.) Jeffery - Jeffery Cotton President Wired Musician, Inc. http://www.wiredmusician.net see my own website at http://www.jefferycotton.net - -Original Message- ___ 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? The Berliner Philharmoniker owns a set of eight basses with extra low B (H) strings. A contrabassist in Frankfurt told me that the orchestra has a tradition of doubling at a lower octave in certain standard repertoire pieces as a kind of signature house sound, but I can't verify this nor can I say what repertoire came into question. Daniel Wolf ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] instrument.txt file
On Mar 3, 2005, at 11:27 PM, shirling neueweise wrote: 3) how do i override the automatic selection of alternate notehead fonts and percussion notation style with (single-line) percussion instruments (eg. triangle)? somewhere someone has defined the functioning of StaffType and i want access! To the best of my knowledge, that info is not accessible. When I first asked on the subject of drum parts years ago when the Setup Wizard first appeared, I was told by tech support that the feature was intended for newbies, and was never designed to have the control that manual score setup was supposed to have. I hope they will change their minds about that. is it possible to set the stem direction to always up somewhere in the instrument.txt file? i see some stuff in square brackets in that file (eg. [TAB - No Staff Name], [TAB With Stems]) that seems to have an impact on the look of the individual staves, so i assume there is a list of commands somewhere that noone has told us (me?) about... Once again, that info is most likely not available. Try macsupport just to be sure, though. I think they are getting the idea that everyone is using the Setup Wizard. Christopher ___ 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 4, 2005, at 5:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've also written a blog entry on this topic (Finale vs. Sibelius) on my website, would be interested in your feedback: Very nicely put, but for my money (all 0$ of it!) I would have liked more detail than just hairpin openings, particularly any details that might pertain to the accurate and readable, and not much else crowd. These are the ones I have to convince when talking about notation programs. BTW, in your second-last line in the blog, about getting out of Cassis, did you mean to write Maybe I can find that hansom cab driver again or did you really find him handsome? I wouldn't have been confused at all except for a previous line about Sibelius being the knockout bombshell in the tight dress talk about your mixed messages! No complaints from my end either way I am only interested in the idea that you want to express being clearly put across. 8-) Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
Thanks, Christopher -- I didn't want to go into too much detail about Sibelius' inadequacies in the blog, but as I do have to complete one piece I'm working on now in Sibelius (I'm too far along to start over now) it might be worth keeping a list of these things and posting them later. No, a hansom cab from Cassis to Marseille for 10 ten miles of southern French mountains would NOT be a good solution. I'm afraid I meant handsome (you can read the relevant blog entry here, and all will become clear: http://www.jefferycotton.net/info.asp?pgs=blogentryblbe=8). I didn't mean to cause confusion, but I doubt that the hot stud in leather chaps who can't spell 'hairpin' would have been quite as clear in its meaning -- to the majority anyway. Jeffery - Jeffery Cotton President Wired Musician, Inc. http://www.wiredmusician.net http://www.wiredmusician.net see my own website at http://www.jefferycotton.net http://www.jefferycotton.net - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Christopher Smith Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:45 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've also written a blog entry on this topic (Finale vs. Sibelius) on my website, would be interested in your feedback: Very nicely put, but for my money (all 0$ of it!) I would have liked more detail than just hairpin openings, particularly any details that might pertain to the accurate and readable, and not much else crowd. These are the ones I have to convince when talking about notation programs. BTW, in your second-last line in the blog, about getting out of Cassis, did you mean to write Maybe I can find that hansom cab driver again or did you really find him handsome? I wouldn't have been confused at all except for a previous line about Sibelius being the knockout bombshell in the tight dress talk about your mixed messages! No complaints from my end either way I am only interested in the idea that you want to express being clearly put across. 8-) Christopher ___ 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] instrument.txt file
shirling neueweise wrote: PS i also noticed that TAB instruments don't have the transpositions of their standard notation cousins, but i never use tablature, so i guess i don't really need to know... but, if someone has the answer, i'm listening! The TAB instrument definitions are based on MIDI pitch numbers for each string, so there's no transposition needed. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] String divisi
At 1:44 AM + 3/4/05, Ken Moore wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Stiller writes: 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? Also Sprach Zarathustra, in the fugue. I remember it particularly because only one part goes that low, and the conductor asked me to play it on my four-string with C extension. Well, clearly if Strauss and other Viennese composers wrote low Bs, they had players with low Bs. Q.E.D. This is similar to the flute parts with low Bbs (and I believe piccolo parts as well) found in the same place and in the same time period. Composers, generally speaking, know better than to write notes that can't be played! IIRC, there is also a low B in Brandenburg 3, but that may have been intended for a six-string violone. I with I had a score at hand to check this, but it seems kinda questionable. Could somebody check and report back to us? While bass tuning was and is the least standardized in the string family, I believe the violone was tuned an octave below the bass viola da gamba, which would take it down to a low D, a whole step below the low E of the normal bass violin, but nowhere near a low B. The lowest note I've seen throughout Bach's work is low C, the lowest note of the cello in standard tuning and the lowest note available on the organ keyboard. (This is entirely separate from the question of the original, intended pitch for the Weimar cantatas, which is a very special case.) John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've also written a blog entry on this topic (Finale vs. Sibelius) on my website, would be interested in your feedback: http://www.jefferycotton.net/info.asp?pgs=blogentryblbe=10 I hope you've also found the Interviews on the Finale Tips site. Those should give you many other aspects of what Finale is today. http://www.finaletips.nu/ Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] String divisi
Brandenburg III goes down to C but no lower. That is according to my copy of the Bach-Gesellschaft. Guy Hayden - Original Message - From: John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [Finale] String divisi IIRC, there is also a low B in Brandenburg 3, but that may have been intended for a six-string violone. I with I had a score at hand to check this, but it seems kinda questionable. Could somebody check and report back to us? -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ 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] String divisi
In my score of the Brandenburg concertos (Bärenreiter/Deutscher Verlag für Musik in 1971) I can't find anything lower than a low C for the violone in Number 3, but at the end of Concerto 6 the violone goes down to a low B-flat. But just the fact that Bach wrote the note doesn't necessarily mean that the violone had this range. John Howell wrote Composers, generally speaking, know better than to write notes that can't be played! but many composers, even those who know an awful lot about instrumentation, are prone to exceed the normal range of an instrument if it suits them. Richard Strauss is a case in point: there's a passage in 'Salome' where the second violins have a low E (a third below the lowest string). It's a fast, unaccented note, but just happens to be part of the melody. It would be a hell of a hassle to tune the G-string down a third just for this one note. There are many such instances in Strauss's works: he apparently explained to the players that if they imagined the note hard enough and looked as if they were playing it, nobody would hear the difference. Michael Cook IIRC, there is also a low B in Brandenburg 3, but that may have been intended for a six-string violone. I with I had a score at hand to check this, but it seems kinda questionable. Could somebody check and report back to us? While bass tuning was and is the least standardized in the string family, I believe the violone was tuned an octave below the bass viola da gamba, which would take it down to a low D, a whole step below the low E of the normal bass violin, but nowhere near a low B. The lowest note I've seen throughout Bach's work is low C, the lowest note of the cello in standard tuning and the lowest note available on the organ keyboard. (This is entirely separate from the question of the original, intended pitch for the Weimar cantatas, which is a very special case.) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Fooled by a measure expression's playback!
I just lost 20 minutes on a foolish problem. I am writing accompaniments to choral arrangements this week, and I tried to play back a file as a test for when the choir director is coming over. I don't use play back very often, but this was a special case. Everything was fine (or as fine as can be expected) until the last seven measures of one work, when it inexplicably started playing back in swing! I checked the Human Playback controls in the Playback window, I even ran the Human Playback plugin to see if I could remove something, I checked the MIDI tool, as this used to be the way to accomplish swing playback, I set Rhythm to every percentage of the original I could imagine, still nothing. Then I saw the Slower staff marking over the seventh last measure. Could I have edited another marking to create that one? I checked the playback on the expression, and sure enough, it was set to play back as Swing. I set it to None, and all was well. ARRGHHH! It just goes to show, practise safe staff expressions, everyone, or some unknown bug may infect you with strange symptoms... Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Fooled by a measure expression's playback!
I recall one release in which some expressions came from the factory incorrectly defined for playback. That produced a large volume of email when the release came out!! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Christopher Smith Sent: Fri 04-Mar-05 10:43 To: finale@shsu.edu Cc: Subject: [Finale] Fooled by a measure expression's playback! I just lost 20 minutes on a foolish problem. I am writing accompaniments to choral arrangements this week, and I tried to play back a file as a test for when the choir director is coming over. I don't use play back very often, but this was a special case. Everything was fine (or as fine as can be expected) until the last seven measures of one work, when it inexplicably started playing back in swing! I checked the Human Playback controls in the Playback window, I even ran the Human Playback plugin to see if I could remove something, I checked the MIDI tool, as this used to be the way to accomplish swing playback, I set Rhythm to every percentage of the original I could imagine, still nothing. Then I saw the Slower staff marking over the seventh last measure. Could I have edited another marking to create that one? I checked the playback on the expression, and sure enough, it was set to play back as Swing. I set it to None, and all was well. ARRGHHH! It just goes to show, practise safe staff expressions, everyone, or some unknown bug may infect you with strange symptoms... Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale winmail.dat___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] ensembles.txt file
Jef-- This controls the number of copies printed of a *lesson* via the exercise wizard, not a regular Finale score. If you step through the exercise wizard to the last page, you'll see different ensembles that a music educator might use to print exercises for his or her band, orchestra or choir. Before anyone jumps on me, the Exercise wizard doesn't create a score, it takes a group of pre-created exercises (that you choose in the Exercise Wizard), transposes it for each instrument and sends a print job for each copy to the printer. You adjust the instrumentation and number of copies to fit say your 4th period 5th grade band, or your 6th period advanced wind ensemble. It's a way to quickly create worksheets to work on technique. What you suggest is a great idea, and I think you should submit it to macsupport or winsupport. On 3/3/05 11:11 PM, shirling neueweise [EMAIL PROTECTED] saith: okay so i understand that... InstCopies=1,4,2,1,2,1,1,4,2,1,2,1,1,5,4,4,1,1,2,1,4 indicates the number of copies of the piccolo, flute, oboe etc. parts, but how does it work (i have never installed the exercice wiz) and why can't i use it to automatically print multiple copies of parts? yes i know i can do this in the print dialogue, but only on an individual file basis, not for a batch print... jef ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] data check, gave it a whirl
It used to be Data Check--Remove Deleted Items, but we updated the interface in Finale 2004b... On 3/3/05 11:20 PM, shirling neueweise [EMAIL PROTECTED] saith: (and since when, exactly?!) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fooled by a measure expression's playback!
Christopher Smith writes: I just lost 20 minutes on a foolish problem. I am writing accompaniments to choral arrangements this week, and I tried to play back a file as a test for when the choir director is coming over. I don't use play back very often, but this was a special case. Everything was fine (or as fine as can be expected) until the last seven measures of one work, when it inexplicably started playing back in swing! I checked the Human Playback controls in the Playback window, I even ran the Human Playback plugin to see if I could remove something, I checked the MIDI tool, as this used to be the way to accomplish swing playback, I set Rhythm to every percentage of the original I could imagine, still nothing. Then I saw the Slower staff marking over the seventh last measure. Could I have edited another marking to create that one? I checked the playback on the expression, and sure enough, it was set to play back as Swing. I set it to None, and all was well. ARRGHHH! It just goes to show, practise safe staff expressions, everyone, or some unknown bug may infect you with strange symptoms... Dear Christopher, I've noticed that when I use the Apply Human Playback plugin there is always an expression added at the beginning that is set to Swing for playback but the setting is zero (unless you had chosen Jazz as the playback option). The handle shows up, on the screen. I often use it for other MIDI settings (such as CC-1 when I'm using GPO). Maybe that expression shows up in your file where the swing begins, but this time with a setting other than zero. Go figure! 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] Fooled by a measure expression's playback!
On Mar 4, 2005, at 1:02 PM, Harold Owen wrote: Christopher Smith writes: I just lost 20 minutes on a foolish problem. I am writing accompaniments to choral arrangements this week, and I tried to play back a file as a test for when the choir director is coming over. I don't use play back very often, but this was a special case. Everything was fine (or as fine as can be expected) until the last seven measures of one work, when it inexplicably started playing back in swing! I checked the Human Playback controls in the Playback window, I even ran the Human Playback plugin to see if I could remove something, I checked the MIDI tool, as this used to be the way to accomplish swing playback, I set Rhythm to every percentage of the original I could imagine, still nothing. Then I saw the Slower staff marking over the seventh last measure. Could I have edited another marking to create that one? I checked the playback on the expression, and sure enough, it was set to play back as Swing. I set it to None, and all was well. ARRGHHH! It just goes to show, practise safe staff expressions, everyone, or some unknown bug may infect you with strange symptoms... Dear Christopher, I've noticed that when I use the Apply Human Playback plugin there is always an expression added at the beginning that is set to Swing for playback but the setting is zero (unless you had chosen Jazz as the playback option). The handle shows up, on the screen. I often use it for other MIDI settings (such as CC-1 when I'm using GPO). Maybe that expression shows up in your file where the swing begins, but this time with a setting other than zero. Go figure! Yes, I saw it there after I tried the Human Playback plugin, but removed it when I noticed it had no effect. Now that I know what caused the problem, it WOULD have had effect if it had come AFTER the Slower expression (which was on the 3rd beat of that measure.) The swing setting of the Slower expression was cancelling out the no swing, but two beats later. Ah, it's all so clear when you know. It's when you DON'T know that it kills... Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
d. collins wrote Speaking of beaming, of Sibelius, etc., I was looking at the sample files of a new French publisher: http://www.lasinfoniedorphee.com/catalogue/PDF/067.pdf This seems worse, beam-wise, than anything Finale would do, even without plug-ins and with the default settings. Especially the violin parts on the first bar of the first page! The stems even stick out (visible at 300%) below the slantedest beams I've ever seen. This seems to be done with the Berlioz software, which has many enthusiastic supporters here in France and which is supposed to be so elegant according to them. So much for elegance... But then, of course, there's no way of knowing if these shortcomings are the software's or the engraver's. Dennis Before opening that file, I guessed that it'd have those horrid 45-degree beams on pairs of quavers, and cramped semis demis, that are all too familiar from Debussy Ravel. Whaddya know, there they are! ;) This strikes me as a particular French preference that goes beyond software implications, but would explain the view of Berlioz as 'elegant'. ___ 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 19:37, Mark D Lew wrote: 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. We're talking past each other. I'm talking about system spacing and you're talking about spacing between staves within a system. Both are pre-defined when you go into page view, so, there's no reason that measure margins would not also be pre-defined by the same mechanism as system margins. 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. You never change your mind? I usually lay out a piece onscreen, then print it and then make adjustments to the layout because of problems I couldn't perceive onscreen. 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. I don't see why you couldn't have both. 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. The Windows dialog is the same, but there are no settings in the dialog that have anything whatsoever to do with vertical staff spacing -- all the settings have to do with showing/hiding systems. The way I see it is that this is the tail wagging the dog, because without having grafted the vertical spacing feature onto optimization, there'd be no logical reason to have the ability to optimize without hiding systems. That is, if as I suggest, all systems in page view had two handles (as happens currently after optimization), then there would no longer be any relationship between vertical staff spacing and the process of optimization, and the ability to uncheck Remove Empty Staves would then serve no function whatsoever, since right now, all it does is turn on the ability to space staves vertically (if it's unchecked). I understand your point of view that changing inter-system spacing is part of optimizing your layout for the pages, but I think it's a mistake in the design of Finale, as it means that, in cases where you *don't* want staves hidden if empty, you have to turn on optimization before you can adjust vertical spacing. I think that's a ridiculous requirement. 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
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
On 4 Mar 2005 at 9:50, Johannes Gebauer wrote: 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 (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). In my case this has nothing to do with parts at all. The reason I need to optimize out parts which have got music in them has to do with doubling parts. For instance, in some situations the first and second violins play identical parts, and for space reasons I just want to show one of them, but the other one needs to have the music in it both for later part extraction but also because the decision to optimize out the second violin part is made at a later stage and needs to be reversible. Well, again, if layout of score and parts all happened in a single score, both having settings that could be controlled independently (instead of parts inheriting all the settings from the score, with a few exceptions), then it wouldn't be a problem. Again, I'm not advocating the removal of present functionality, just a rationalization of default behavior. As I just said in another message, in many aspects Finale seems to me to be designed more to handle the exceptions well than to do normal tasks easily. -- 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 4 Mar 2005 at 10:43, Johannes Gebauer wrote: The discussion these days seems to center very much wouldn't it be nice if Finale did it this way for many things which I doubt will actually make things better, at least for me. You're missing the point of this discussion, which had its origins in a post by a Sibelius user who has problems with Finale. I'm trying to point out things that we long-time Finale users know as second nature (and can work just fine with) that I think fail to function in a natural or common sense fashion. So, the kinds of improvements I'm proposing probably wouldn't make the lives of long-time Finale users easier to any significant degree (and would probably require a certain amount of adjustment), but that's not the audience my suggested improvements are aimed at. Of course, automatic (or semi-automatic) optimization and automatic/semi-automatic multi-measure rests would make *my* life substantially easier, because I've often been annoyed at the way Finale does these things already. And I also think that making independent vertical adjustment of staves within systems a subsidiary feature of optimization is a mistake (why shouldn't they just all be vertically adjustable in the first place, as with lyrics?), as to get an obvious feature (dragging staves vertically within a system) is something you can't get except by applying a feature that is not obviously related to what you want to do (though I agree that in terms of the bigger picture, vertical staff spacing obviously *is* akin to removal of blank staves). So, for me, these kinds of changes would make things easier because they've been stumbling blocks for me in the past. And I also think it would make things substantially easier for new users. I shudder to think how I'd justify the current situation with staff optimization and vertical staff spacing to a new user -- it only makes sense if you already are accustomed to using it that way. -- 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
On 4 Mar 2005 at 9:07, John Howell wrote: [] IIRC, there is also a low B in Brandenburg 3, but that may have been intended for a six-string violone. I with I had a score at hand to check this, but it seems kinda questionable. Could somebody check and report back to us? While bass tuning was and is the least standardized in the string family, I believe the violone was tuned an octave below the bass viola da gamba, which would take it down to a low D, a whole step below the low E of the normal bass violin, but nowhere near a low B. The lowest note I've seen throughout Bach's work is low C, the lowest note of the cello in standard tuning and the lowest note available on the organ keyboard. (This is entirely separate from the question of the original, intended pitch for the Weimar cantatas, which is a very special case.) NYU is about to take delivery of a new violone. I really know not much of anything about it, but I do know that it has a low A string (I don't know if it is 6 strings, A to A or what, or if it's a 7- string instrument). Also, keep in mind that Bach's gamba sonatas assumed a 7-string gamba with a low A string (because two of the three sonatas require low B), so if the violones were an octave below this 7-string instrument, then they'd also have a low A string (regardless of what strings they had above it). -- 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
Taken from Cecil Forsyth' book on orchestration "The name Violone, i.e "big Viola, was given to the Double-Bass, and in accordance with the accurate if somewhat limited principles of the Italian laguage, the intermediate instrument was christened, Red-Indian-fashion, "little big Viola, " Violoncello". It's a four stringed instrument. Godofredo David W. Fenton wrote: On 4 Mar 2005 at 9:07, John Howell wrote: [] IIRC, there is also a low B in Brandenburg 3, but that may have been intended for a six-string violone. I with I had a score at hand to check this, but it seems kinda questionable. Could somebody check and report back to us? While bass tuning was and is the least standardized in the string family, I believe the violone was tuned an octave below the bass viola da gamba, which would take it down to a low D, a whole step below the low E of the "normal" bass violin, but nowhere near a low B. The lowest note I've seen throughout Bach's work is low C, the lowest note of the cello in standard tuning and the lowest note available on the organ keyboard. (This is entirely separate from the question of the original, intended pitch for the Weimar cantatas, which is a very special case.) NYU is about to take delivery of a new violone. I really know not much of anything about it, but I do know that it has a low A string (I don't know if it is 6 strings, A to A or what, or if it's a 7- string instrument). Also, keep in mind that Bach's gamba sonatas assumed a 7-string gamba with a low A string (because two of the three sonatas require low B), so if the violones were an octave below this 7-string instrument, then they'd also have a low A string (regardless of what strings they had above it). ___ 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 4, 2005, at 12:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: 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. You never change your mind? I usually lay out a piece onscreen, then print it and then make adjustments to the layout because of problems I couldn't perceive onscreen. When I print a rough draft to visualize layout, it's generally before I've adjusted the spacing of staves within systems. That is, I'm looking at a printout that has unoptimized systems (um, my definition of unoptimized, I mean) and I'm just visualizing what the spacing needs will be. Later I'll make further adjustments, but it's rare that it includes changing any system breaks. That is, if as I suggest, all systems in page view had two handles (as happens currently after optimization), then there would no longer be any relationship between vertical staff spacing and the process of optimization, and the ability to uncheck Remove Empty Staves would then serve no function whatsoever, since right now, all it does is turn on the ability to space staves vertically (if it's unchecked). As I mentioned before, I agree with you about separating the functions. Our only difference is that I'm accustomed to using the word optimizing for the other half of the conjoined function. I understand your point of view that changing inter-system spacing is part of optimizing your layout for the pages, but I think it's a mistake in the design of Finale, as it means that, in cases where you *don't* want staves hidden if empty, you have to turn on optimization before you can adjust vertical spacing. I think that's a ridiculous requirement. I personally have no use for a system with only one handle. If there were a function that acted to restore any system to its scroll view defaults, that should pretty much take care of anyone who ever has use for the my-definition half of remove optimization. There very well might be better conceptual ways to implement this than what I've described, but I think my point is clear: the way Finale works requires more work than it need have, as it requires you to think of systems as empty slots that the music pours into, and that the slots have their own characteristics (vertical spacing, hidden staves) that are independent of what music is displayed in them. Now, yes, we can all think of unusual situations where this can actually be turned to advantage, but it is still antithetical to the most obvious way of thinking about how it should happen (in my opinion). Spacing of systems and hidden blank staves should be determined by the content of the music, not by which system slot the measures end up in. Well, this is a larger matter than just splitting the two optimization functions or having vertical-spacing requirements attached to measures. I think you can see how the numbered system as an item to which qualities are attached is pretty fundamental to its data structure, in terms of drawing the page and so forth. I'm not saying that couldn't be changed, mind you, I'm just saying that it's a rather large reworking of Finale's definition that's going to be a lot more programming work with a lot more cans of worms opened along the way. I agree that pouring into system slots sometimes makes things awkward, and I can see how those problems would be compounded for someone who makes system-based adjustments and then later makes a large addition or deletion which bumps a lot of music into different systems. But at the same time, I don't think you can let go of systems as fundamental units, because many things really do depend on the system context and not just the music within its measures. Changing divisis from one staff to two really does happen at a system break. I really do decide whether to leave a blank vocal staff showing or remove it depending on the vertical density of the page as a whole. There are certain decisions that can only be made within the context of the completely laid out page. I still don't understand what you mean by system margins. In Page View, click on the handle in the upper left of the system and from the context menu choose EDIT MARGINS. That's what I'm talking about -- the margins of the system. Ah! How funny. I use that dialog all the time but somehow I never paid any attention to the name of it. I leave that window open at all times, so that it automatically shows whenever I go to the Page Layout tool. As I said above, you were talking about spacing between staves within a system, I was talking about spacing between whole systems, and the solution I described only solved that problem. I see no reason (other than increasing complexity of UI and onscreen representation of the margins) that my ideas couldn't be applied within between staves within a
Re: [Finale] String divisi
On Mar 4, 2005, at 7:06 AM, Michael Cook wrote: There are many such instances in Strauss's works: he apparently explained to the players that if they imagined the note hard enough and looked as if they were playing it, nobody would hear the difference. Wow! I'll have to try that technique with my chorus mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] String divisi
On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Mark D Lew wrote: On Mar 4, 2005, at 7:06 AM, Michael Cook wrote: There are many such instances in Strauss's works: he apparently explained to the players that if they imagined the note hard enough and looked as if they were playing it, nobody would hear the difference. Wow! I'll have to try that technique with my chorus Doesn't work so well with bass trombone. I've tried it. Everyone noticed. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
At 8:30 PM +0100 3/4/05, d. collins wrote: Speaking of beaming, of Sibelius, etc., I was looking at the sample files of a new French publisher: http://www.lasinfoniedorphee.com/catalogue/PDF/067.pdf This seems worse, beam-wise, than anything Finale would do, even without plug-ins and with the default settings. Especially the violin parts on the first bar of the first page! Yeah, that's unnecessarily ugly. But even worse, and for no obvious reason, is the failure of stems for 16th notes and faster to extend to the bottom beam. Very amateurish, but apparently done on purpose, and I would guess this is built into the software. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] String divisi
At 3:46 PM -0500 3/4/05, David W. Fenton wrote: Also, keep in mind that Bach's gamba sonatas assumed a 7-string gamba with a low A string (because two of the three sonatas require low B), Hmm. The only one I'm really familiar with is the G major, and that one certainly doesn't require the newfangled 7th string. Also please note that the gamba obbligato in the St. John Passion (No. 58 in the old numbering), which he wrote a year after leaving Coethen, was for a 6-string instrument, as are the Brandenburg parts in No. 6, while the gamba parts in the St. Matthew Passion do require the 7th string. By 1729 he was not only aware of the modification introduced by St. Colombe and Marais, but had someone with an instrument that would play the parts. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] String divisi
At 5:25 PM -0400 3/4/05, Godofredo Romero wrote: Taken from Cecil Forsyth' book on orchestration The name Violone, i.e big Viola, was given to the Double-Bass, and in accordance with the accurate if somewhat limited principles of the Italian laguage, the intermediate instrument was christened, Red-Indian-fashion, little big Viola, Violoncello. It's a four stringed instrument. Godofredo Hi, Godofredo. Kurt Sachs got into big trouble trying to reason from terminology, which is very often unstable, and Forsyth seems to have picked this up from him. We know that there were both contrabass violins (presumably with 4 strings) and contrabass violas da gamba (with 5 or 6 strings) available in the early 17th century, because Monteverdi called for both instruments in the score to L'Orfeo and was very picky about where each should play. And we know that large instruments often had a variety of tunings, and beyond that were often re-engineered when musical styles changed so as not to discard a large and expensive instrument. Berlioz' comments on the contrabass section are fascinating. (I wish I could quote directly, but do not have a copy of his treatise to hand.) He said, and I paraphrase, You will find a variety of instruments, with 3, 4, or 5 strings, and tuned in a variety of ways. With luck, someone will be playing an open string on every note to stabilize the pitch.!!! John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
I wonder if that is the french s/w, Berlioz? If so, I'm disappointed. Its output looked better on its own site. The two sites appear similar upon one quick look. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Howell Sent: Fri 04-Mar-05 17:17 To: finale@shsu.edu Cc: Subject: Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004 At 8:30 PM +0100 3/4/05, d. collins wrote: Speaking of beaming, of Sibelius, etc., I was looking at the sample files of a new French publisher: http://www.lasinfoniedorphee.com/catalogue/PDF/067.pdf This seems worse, beam-wise, than anything Finale would do, even without plug-ins and with the default settings. Especially the violin parts on the first bar of the first page! Yeah, that's unnecessarily ugly. But even worse, and for no obvious reason, is the failure of stems for 16th notes and faster to extend to the bottom beam. Very amateurish, but apparently done on purpose, and I would guess this is built into the software. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale winmail.dat___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
At 06:07 PM 3/4/05 -0500, you wrote: I wonder if that is the french s/w, Berlioz? If so, I'm disappointed. Its output looked better on its own site. The two sites appear similar upon one quick look. Probably. Same font (Hector), and also the stems don't go through the beams. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
David W. Fenton wrote: In my case this has nothing to do with parts at all. The reason I need to optimize out parts which have got music in them has to do with doubling parts. For instance, in some situations the first and second violins play identical parts, and for space reasons I just want to show one of them, but the other one needs to have the music in it both for later part extraction but also because the decision to optimize out the second violin part is made at a later stage and needs to be reversible. Well, again, if layout of score and parts all happened in a single score, both having settings that could be controlled independently (instead of parts inheriting all the settings from the score, with a few exceptions), then it wouldn't be a problem. I still don't see how parts-within-the-score would solve this problem. But whatever the case I actually like the current idea of optimization. Yes, there could be more automatic updating, but I would like any development time here going into automatic vertical spacing. Whether this has to be invoked or is updated automatically is actually a pretty minor point in terms of time savings - at least for the way I do my work. Johannes -- 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
John Howell wrote: Yeah, that's unnecessarily ugly. But even worse, and for no obvious reason, is the failure of stems for 16th notes and faster to extend to the bottom beam. Very amateurish, but apparently done on purpose, and I would guess this is built into the software. It's actually what some refer to as French Beaming, others as Schott beaming, and it's a standard of its own. Not amateurish as such, or would you say that 1970s Schott Editions are amateurish? BTW, Patterson Beams can do that. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] OT Violone tuning in Bach
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Howell writes: IIRC, there is also a low B in Brandenburg 3, but that may have been intended for a six-string violone. I with I had a score at hand to check this, but it seems kinda questionable. Could somebody check and report back to us? While bass tuning was and is the least standardized in the string family, I believe the violone was tuned an octave below the bass viola da gamba, which would take it down to a low D, a whole step below the low E of the normal bass violin, but nowhere near a low B. The lowest note I've seen throughout Bach's work is low C, the lowest note of the cello in standard tuning and the lowest note available on the organ keyboard. (This is entirely separate from the question of the original, intended pitch for the Weimar cantatas, which is a very special case.) I found the score, and my memory was at fault. The part is marked Violone e Cembalo and has lots of low Cs. Of course, if he had that note on his keyboard but not on his violone, he might still have written a single part and left it to the player to cope, but rather more tellingly, in the second concerto, the keyboard and 'cello have the combined part, and the Violone di ripieno part has low Cs. -- 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
[Finale] OT Bass low B
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Roger Satorra writes: You're talking about a scordatura. I don't think of all cases of tuning a lower string down as scordatura. I associate that with notation that tells you where to put your fingers, but because the string is tuned in a non-standard manner, the pitch that comes out is not the one notated. That is what I recall from the Bach suites for unaccompanied 'cello. Do any readers know differently? I'm based in Europe and it's nothing usual for double bass to tune the 5th string to B. Always C. Not in the UK, in my experience, and the number of examples of low B being demanded suggests that Austrian practice may not be so, but I don't know for sure. I recall reading somewhere that tuning to B was more common in Europe and less so in the US. The point of tuning to B was mentioned earlier: it keeps the same relationship between the strings and therefore the same correspondence between intervals and finger spacing. Sometimes composers want a note lower than the range of a string instrument and then it's properly indicated that one of the strings has to be tuned down to X (in this case the db to B). I have no recollection of the Also Sprach Zarathustra part giving me any warning. Strauss just assumed that the low B would be available. In Metamorphosen he puts low F# into violin parts, but the brackets around them indicate that he doesn't really expect them to be played and that they are doubled by violas. -- 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] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
On Mar 4, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Whether this has to be invoked or is updated automatically is actually a pretty minor point in terms of time savings - at least for the way I do my work. Yep. Especially if all the systems are pre-optimized in the template. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT Bass low B
On 04 Mar 2005, at 4:53 PM, Ken Moore wrote: In Metamorphosen he puts low F# into violin parts, but the brackets around them indicate that he doesn't really expect them to be played and that they are doubled by violas. I actually did that once with a tenor sax doubling a trombone line. The line went down to low (written) A for the tenor sax, and rather insert a rest (which would interrupt the line), I put the low A for the tenor in parentheses so the player knows what the contour of the line is, even if he can't play that note. It goes by very quickly and the absence of the tenor on a single eighth isn't missed, but I don't want the tenor player to reattack the note following the low A as if it were the beginning of a new line, because it isn't. I get asked about that a lot, though, so I suppose I ought to include an explanatory note in the part. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
