[Finale] Marek Tabisz wants to talk with you on Skype
If you are unable to see the message below, click here to view.Or, copy http://recp.rm02.net/servlet/MailView?ms=ODMxNgS2=MzI0NTc0OTcyS0=MTkzMjQxMDYS1 into your browser. Hello. Ściągnij Skype i zacznij rozmawiać za darmo na całym świecie.. Skype me at marektabisz Download Skype Read more about Skype ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius to Finale
Richard Yates wrote: Is there any way at all, short of reentering all the notes, of getting a Sibelius score into Finale (even just as MIDI)? Richard Yates It'll cost some money, but if you buy the MusicXML plug-in for Sibelius from www.recordare.com, you can export the music into MusicXML format, then with Finale you can import that format using the MusicXML plug-in which ships with the program. If that doesn't quite do the job, you might need to purchase the full-blown MusicXML plug-in for Finale also. Contacting Michael Good from Recordare (he's a member of this list) can provide more specific details on just what you'll need. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Handwritten fonts
Aaron Sherber wrote: At 09:17 PM 03/18/2005, Carl Dershem wrote: I'm glad I'm not the only one that pulls their hair out when they run across this. It looks so professional, it MUST be right! when the parts make no sense at all... Better: When you point out a wrong note in the (Finale-generated) part and are told, No, I checked the score, and it's the same note there. Well, that is a bit more difficult, isn't it? Especially for new works for which there are no historical sources to check. It's one thing to find a wrong note in a modern engraving of a Mozart symphony, but it's a completely different thing to find a wrong note in a brand new work. Perhaps the composer wants that effect. If the score and the parts don't match, that's one thing. If the score and the parts DO match, it's different. Even better is going to check the manuscript and finding the same wrong notes there. Only checking with the composer can resolve that point. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
Jim Williamson wrote: It may not define form and I don't care. However, I've seen it that way a million times and I like it. Jim I see from your e-mail address that you're from Nashville -- I've always heard that Nashville musicians have their own way of doing things, and with the fantastic music that comes from there, you won't find me arguing with their methods! And as long as all concerned understand the same numbering system, there really isn't any problem with any of us doing it in an idiosyncratic way. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Handwritten fonts
Carl Dershem wrote: John Bell wrote: Computers arrived. One of the first problems I encountered then was that players, given beautifully printed parts, couldn't believe that there was a wrong note there -- it was printed as F# so it must be F#. Some composers and arrangers found that using the Jazz or Inkpen font ameliorated this situation. Players seeing the handwritten font no longer felt that their parts had somehow been authorised by a superior body. I'm glad I'm not the only one that pulls their hair out when they run across this. It looks so professional, it MUST be right! when the parts make no sense at all... I used to work for a music store where the invoices were all either hand-written or typed manually, and they would get ignored for long times. The owner bought a word-processor and the manager of the music department figured out how to get calculations done and came up with an invoice form and began doing regular statements which looked professional. The invoices started being paid so quickly, it was really amusing. I wonder where this the machine can't be wrong mind-set came from -- I was never actively taught it that I can remember. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
A-NO-NE Music wrote: Darcy James Argue / 05.3.18 / 05:26 PM wrote: No. Chris and Hiro are, with due respect, not adhering to standard jazz practice here. Ha-ha, Let me ask you this. A 32 bar standard jazz form with two bars of pickup measures, Do you call this a 34 bar form? I still call it 32 bar form. I call it a 32 bar form with a 2-bar introduction. Why not be specific? We definitely travel in different circles -- if I called out Start at measure 7 everybody I've ever worked with would start counting from the first printed measure and count until they got to the 7th printed measure. I would have to say Start at the 7th measure after the introduction to get to where it seems your musicians would naturally start when you ask them to start at measure 7. It really doesn't matter one iota how things are done, as long as everybody concerned understands them. My main concern would be for publishing arrangements where the numbering system isn't traditional. I've been involved in too many rehearsals where such is the case and it is so frustrating and time-wasting. I've played from published concert band arrangements where the score had rehearsal letters and the parts had rehearsal numbers which weren't measure numbers. I've also played from published music where only half of the parts had measure numbers (actual counting numbers) and the other half didn't have anything. So these days all my music either has rehearsal letters (if the phrases are all short enough and varied enough for each phrase to get a letter and it's easy to say the 4th measure of D) or the music gets measure numbers, starting from the first full measure on the page, so there can be no confusion. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] eMusic Theory
Dear all - Maybe a lot of you know about this already, but I found this site, and (so far) it has proved useful to me in my beginning theory class. It allows you to assign pre-designed theory drills that your students can complete on their own time (on their own computers, even), and then you get a score report when they are satisfied with their score. It is a subscription site (with free demos), but the price is very reasonable. Check it out at http://www.emusictheory.com/ Disclaimer - I am not invested in this site in any way, except it looks like it will be helpful to me! Later - (Mr.) Jamin Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Another good site is at http://www.musictheory.net Really good drills, very easy to use, and even better, it's free! There is an aural training site at http://e-lr.com.au/ which is also pretty good - harder aural exercises than you get at most sites, and even better is that the students have to write the answers out by hand first, rather than clunky point-and-click on the computer. However it's a subscription-based system rather than free. Matthew -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Sibelius into Finale
Richard Yates wrote: Is there any way at all, short of reentering all the notes, of getting a Sibelius score into Finale (even just as MIDI)? Richard Yates It'll cost some money, but if you buy the MusicXML plug-in for Sibelius from www.recordare.com, you can export the music into MusicXML format, I'm no Finalist, but I did once save a Sibelius score as MIDI and then open it in Finale. I wanted to see if it would (unlike Sibelius) notate multiple Scotch Snaps correctly, which it did. The formatting seemed to have flown out the window, and others will know better than I whether that was recoverable. I'd be interested to know, actually, because I'm still sitting on a folder with about 200 backward-facing scotch snaps, and it's either Finale or pen and ink. john harding ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Handwritten fonts
At 06:37 AM 03/19/2005, dhbailey wrote: Aaron Sherber wrote: Better: When you point out a wrong note in the (Finale-generated) part and are told, No, I checked the score, and it's the same note there. Well, that is a bit more difficult, isn't it? Especially for new works for which there are no historical sources to check. It's one thing to find a wrong note in a modern engraving of a Mozart symphony, but it's a completely different thing to find a wrong note in a brand new work. Perhaps the composer wants that effect. Sorry, my earlier post was too brief. I was writing from the perspective of conductor and arranger/editor. I will occasionally point out a wrong note in the parts which I myself prepared in Finale and will be told by the player that he looked in my score during the break and found the same note there. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: Justifying Text in Expression Designer
Thanks Noel, I'm not sure that's it...Finale obviously has given us the ability to create multi-line text expressions within the expression designer. The Text menu for the Expression Designer has some, but not all, of the capabilities of the Text Tool and Justification is one of them. I'm just trying to figure out what toggles that feature from greyed to activated. I'm on a Mac, btw... --- Noel Stoutenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob Deemer wrote: Hello all, I'm finishing up orchestrating a ballet (aka my dissertation) and I'm running into an odd problem. When I'm working in the Text Expression Designer and have an expression that has more than one line, the Justification tools are greyed out. Any ideas on why this is and how I can get it working again? Thanks! My best answer: the designers of Finale consider that an expression is going to be so short that it can fit into a single line, and that therefore, justification is unnecessary, and didn't provide for justification in expressions. Best workaround: hide the expressions, and create a duplicate expression as a measure attached text-block if you need the justification. I haven't had the need to use this feature yet, so I've not tried this second choice: use hard [non-breaking] spaces to put the justification in manually. In windows, the nonbreaking space is created by pressing down the Alt- key, while entering the digits 0173 on the numeric keypad. ns -Rob Rob Deemer Doctoral Candidate in Music Composition, Assistant Director, UT New Music Ensemble The University of Texas at Austin ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
On 19 Mar 2005, at 12:10 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: I was ready to capitulate on the numbering-all-complete-measures issue, but this went over the edge. You can say Measure numbers have NOTHING TO DO with the form. all you like, but in standard even-numbered forms, especially when written in lead-sheet format, many jazz musicians depend on the measure numbers to orient themselves. Do any of the tunes in The New Real Book series have any measure numbers at all? Is it hard to orient yourself when playing from a lead sheet from one of those books? Now, why is that? It's because the charts are laid out intelligently, with new sections beginning new systems, and proper use of double bars and rehearsal letters. Nobody minds the lack of measure numbers, because measure numbers don't actually do the work you are claiming they do. Or rather, they are only pressed into service for that purpose if the copyist did a lousy job with the layout and section markers (double bars, rehearsal letters). I know you understand about aligning the phrases with the beginnings of systems for readability; this is exactly the same. I disagree. The first -- aligning the beginnings of phrases with the beginnings of systems and marking them with double bars and rehearsal numbers/and or letters -- is absolutely standard practice, is instantly obvious at a glance, and is still useful in situations where you aren't shackled to cycling through a 32-bar AABA form. Measure numbers just can't do that kind of work. They are not instantly visible at a glance (even when every measure is numbered) and they aren't reliable indicators of where you are in the form, precisely because even in the arrangement of a standard, you may -- or, working today, you almost certainly will be -- dealing with all kinds of extended or truncated phrases, introductions, interludes, interjections, etc. Even if you have a chart that is absolutely slavishly literally 32-bar AABA all the way through, how many choruses does it take before the measure numbers cease to twig anything in the mind of a player? I'll accept that 1, 9, 17, and 25, but 73? 81? 113? Come on. Yet, as Hiro said, if one is not composing in symmetrical phrases, it won't matter. Again, I think it is an absolutely terrible idea to have one numbering system for pieces with symmetrical 8-bar phrases all the way through, and a different numbering system for pieces without. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Justifying Text in Expression Designer
Rob, Justification is not one of the features that staff expressions have, at least, not in the present version of Finale. Yes, I bemoaned that fact, too, and sent off a request to Finale to include justification next time, as that is the last thing you can do in Text expressions that you can't do in Staff Expressions. The two tools use the same engine, apparently, that's why the feature is there in the box, but grey. Christopher On Mar 19, 2005, at 8:10 AM, Rob Deemer wrote: Thanks Noel, I'm not sure that's it...Finale obviously has given us the ability to create multi-line text expressions within the expression designer. The Text menu for the Expression Designer has some, but not all, of the capabilities of the Text Tool and Justification is one of them. I'm just trying to figure out what toggles that feature from greyed to activated. I'm on a Mac, btw... --- Noel Stoutenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob Deemer wrote: Hello all, I'm finishing up orchestrating a ballet (aka my dissertation) and I'm running into an odd problem. When I'm working in the Text Expression Designer and have an expression that has more than one line, the Justification tools are greyed out. Any ideas on why this is and how I can get it working again? Thanks! My best answer: the designers of Finale consider that an expression is going to be so short that it can fit into a single line, and that therefore, justification is unnecessary, and didn't provide for justification in expressions. Best workaround: hide the expressions, and create a duplicate expression as a measure attached text-block if you need the justification. I haven't had the need to use this feature yet, so I've not tried this second choice: use hard [non-breaking] spaces to put the justification in manually. In windows, the nonbreaking space is created by pressing down the Alt- key, while entering the digits 0173 on the numeric keypad. ns -Rob Rob Deemer Doctoral Candidate in Music Composition, Assistant Director, UT New Music Ensemble The University of Texas at Austin ___ 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] pick-up measure
dhbailey / 05.3.19 / 06:31 AM wrote: We definitely travel in different circles -- if I called out Start at measure 7 everybody I've ever worked with would start counting from the first printed measure and count until they got to the 7th printed measure. I would have to say Start at the 7th measure after the introduction to get to where it seems your musicians would naturally start when you ask them to start at measure 7. Ah, you don't number every measure then. I do. Bar 7 is where it says bar 7 :-) -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
On Mar 19, 2005, at 6:31 AM, dhbailey wrote: I've also played from published music where only half of the parts had measure numbers (actual counting numbers) and the other half didn't have anything. I am currently rehearsing for a performance of the _Missa Solemnis_. The chorus and orchestra have totally different sets of rehearsal letters, and the orchestra members have had to go thru their parts and pencil in all the choral letters, which are in different places than the orchestra's letters. 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] Sibelius into Finale
On Mar 19, 2005, at 7:28 AM, john harding wrote: I'm no Finalist, but I did once save a Sibelius score as MIDI and then open it in Finale. I wanted to see if it would (unlike Sibelius) notate multiple Scotch Snaps correctly, which it did. The formatting seemed to have flown out the window, and others will know better than I whether that was recoverable. I'd be interested to know, actually, because I'm still sitting on a folder with about 200 backward-facing scotch snaps, and it's either Finale or pen and ink. OK, I have to ask. What's a Scotch Snap? Does it have to do with Scottish drumming (utterly amazing, when done well!) Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
On Mar 19, 2005, at 8:26 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 19 Mar 2005, at 12:10 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: I was ready to capitulate on the numbering-all-complete-measures issue, but this went over the edge. You can say Measure numbers have NOTHING TO DO with the form. all you like, but in standard even-numbered forms, especially when written in lead-sheet format, many jazz musicians depend on the measure numbers to orient themselves. Do any of the tunes in The New Real Book series have any measure numbers at all? Is it hard to orient yourself when playing from a lead sheet from one of those books? Now, why is that? It's because the charts are laid out intelligently, with new sections beginning new systems, and proper use of double bars and rehearsal letters. Nobody minds the lack of measure numbers, because measure numbers don't actually do the work you are claiming they do. Or rather, they are only pressed into service for that purpose if the copyist did a lousy job with the layout and section markers (double bars, rehearsal letters). Your point about the New Real Book not having measure numbers illustrates my point even better than it does yours. Turn to the Daahoud lead sheet in the original Real Book (sorry, not the New Real Book) in a rehearsal. Say to the musicians, I would like the rhythm section to break in bar 3. Which bar are they going to break on, the 3rd bar of the form, or the 3rd full bar (which is the 2nd bar of the form)? Pretty much 100% of the musicians I play with are going to ignore the pickup bar completely for purposes of measure counting, despite it being notated as a complete measure. In fact, Finale-copied lead sheets that HAVE bar numbers sometimes serve to confuse the issue. In the case of Daahoud, if I referred to bar 3, they might ask back, Bar NUMBER 3, or the 3rd bar of the form? I know you understand about aligning the phrases with the beginnings of systems for readability; this is exactly the same. I disagree. The first -- aligning the beginnings of phrases with the beginnings of systems and marking them with double bars and rehearsal numbers/and or letters -- is absolutely standard practice, is instantly obvious at a glance, and is still useful in situations where you aren't shackled to cycling through a 32-bar AABA form. Measure numbers just can't do that kind of work. They are not instantly visible at a glance (even when every measure is numbered) and they aren't reliable indicators of where you are in the form, precisely because even in the arrangement of a standard, you may -- or, working today, you almost certainly will be -- dealing with all kinds of extended or truncated phrases, introductions, interludes, interjections, etc. Even if you have a chart that is absolutely slavishly literally 32-bar AABA all the way through, how many choruses does it take before the measure numbers cease to twig anything in the mind of a player? I'll accept that 1, 9, 17, and 25, but 73? 81? 113? Come on. One chorus. That's all it takes. It's important to musicians playing lead sheets, because they spend a lot of their careers playing standards with symmetrical forms. Not recognizing that fact might cause me to inadvertently create weirdness that reduces the readability of a lead sheet, instead of increasing it. If we are talking about a full-fledged arrangement, with extended intro, coda, yada yada, then I agree with you, of course the most important thing in measure numbering is that is all be the same and predictable for all players, rather than sticking to the basic form. Yet, as Hiro said, if one is not composing in symmetrical phrases, it won't matter. Again, I think it is an absolutely terrible idea to have one numbering system for pieces with symmetrical 8-bar phrases all the way through, and a different numbering system for pieces without. Why? The notation of a piece should reflect the clearest communication to the players, and having set measure numbers starting at the beginning of symmetrical phrases is the clearest way to communicate that in certain works. I'm stuck here defending a principle that I only apply myself rarely, as most of my music is NOT written in 32-bar lead sheets, and only one has ever had a measure or more pickup. But I think the principle is sound, nevertheless, when applied to that kind of music. Another aside: I was cranky yesterday when I answered you and David Fenton on this subject. I'm sorry for the tone I took (especially in David's case, as it was my fault for not being clear in the first place) and I apologise. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: Justifying Text in Expression Designer
Dear Rob, I don't think justification is allowed in text expressions. However, you might be able to use a measure-attached text block instead. In Scroll View double-click and drag a box large enough for the expression. Text will wrap. The bounding box can be adjusted either horizontally or vertically to fit your block of text. Then you can apply justification. Hal Thanks Noel, I'm not sure that's it...Finale obviously has given us the ability to create multi-line text expressions within the expression designer. The Text menu for the Expression Designer has some, but not all, of the capabilities of the Text Tool and Justification is one of them. I'm just trying to figure out what toggles that feature from greyed to activated. I'm on a Mac, btw... --- Noel Stoutenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob Deemer wrote: Hello all, I'm finishing up orchestrating a ballet (aka my dissertation) and I'm running into an odd problem. When I'm working in the Text Expression Designer and have an expression that has more than one line, the Justification tools are greyed out. Any ideas on why this is and how I can get it working again? Thanks! My best answer: the designers of Finale consider that an expression is going to be so short that it can fit into a single line, and that therefore, justification is unnecessary, and didn't provide for justification in expressions. Best workaround: hide the expressions, and create a duplicate expression as a measure attached text-block if you need the justification. I haven't had the need to use this feature yet, so I've not tried this second choice: use hard [non-breaking] spaces to put the justification in manually. In windows, the nonbreaking space is created by pressing down the Alt- key, while entering the digits 0173 on the numeric keypad. ns -Rob Rob Deemer Doctoral Candidate in Music Composition, Assistant Director, UT New Music Ensemble The University of Texas at Austin ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- 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] pick-up measure
On Mar 19, 2005, at 6:31 AM, dhbailey wrote: I've also played from published music where only half of the parts had measure numbers (actual counting numbers) and the other half didn't have anything. I am currently rehearsing for a performance of the _Missa Solemnis_. The chorus and orchestra have totally different sets of rehearsal letters, and the orchestra members have had to go thru their parts and pencil in all the choral letters, which are in different places than the orchestra's letters. Andrew Stiller We had the same problem with the choral scores and the instrumental parts for the Fouré Requiem. 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] Sibelius into Finale
At 12:21 PM 03/19/2005, Christopher Smith wrote: OK, I have to ask. What's a Scotch Snap? Sixteenth - dotted eighth. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
At 12:45 PM 3/19/05 -0500, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 19 Mar 2005, at 12:19 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: Why? Because consistency is good, and a lack of consistency invites confusion. Or happy creative accidents. :) Happy today, Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Tweaking Exported Parts
Whenever I write an arrangement and then create parts via export, I spend (unnecessary?) time tweaking the individual parts. Specifically, how do I-- --have the name of the instrument appear on all pages following p. 1. --keep spacing of systems consistent after p. 1 --make page breaks appear where they are beneficial to players (such as at multi-measure rests) Basically, I guess I am asking where is a tutorial on creating exported parts? Gerry Kirk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Tweaking Exported Parts
At 01:46 PM 03/19/2005, Gerry Kirk wrote: Whenever I write an arrangement and then create parts via export, I spend (unnecessary?) time tweaking the individual parts. Specifically, how do I-- --have the name of the instrument appear on all pages following p. 1. I don't believe there's a good automatic way of doing this. What I do is create a header in my score (attach to page range 2 through end) before extracting parts that says Instrument. In the extracted parts, I then change Instrument to whatever the instrument name is. Another way of doing this is to create the header in the score using a text insert (Text | Inserts) like Description, or some other File Info field you're not using. Then in the parts do File | File Info, change Description to be the instrument name, and you're done. --keep spacing of systems consistent after p. 1 Not sure what you mean here. Spacing between systems should be consistent throughout the document, based on your settings in Options | Page Format for Parts in the score you're extracting from. I usually turn *off* the Space Systems Evenly option in the Extract Parts dialog, because if your last page only has 2 or 3 systems on it, you will wind up with lots of space in between them. --make page breaks appear where they are beneficial to players (such as at multi-measure rests) In Finale 2004 and later, there is a Smart Page Turns plugin that is supposed to help you identify these places, but I don't like it much. Either way, you wind up doing a certain amount of work by hand. Let's say there's an MM rest in the middle of the last system, and you want that to be a page break. You have to push the measures after the rest to the next system, and then you're probably going to want to move some measures around at the bottom of the current page in order to even up the measure spacing. (TGTools has a great plugin to help with this.) Then you insert the page break, unlock the top system on the next page, and reflow measures. All in all, there will always be a fair amount of manual work to pretty up extracted parts. What I've just described here is my usual method, which I think is fairly representative of what many people do. But I'm sure other listers will chime in with methods that vary greatly from what I've described. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
On 19 Mar 2005 at 0:31, Christopher Smith wrote: On Mar 18, 2005, at 5:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 18 Mar 2005 at 14:08, Christopher Smith wrote: For that matter, in the example I cited above (BEFORE the revision) I had a pickup measure with 7 eighths in it. I didn't bother making it a 7/8 bar, as that seemed needlessly fussy and would most likely interfere with reading, rather than helping it. . . . Well, it would also be played differently from a partial 4/4 measure by any musician who has any sensitivity whatsoever to meter. I'm surprised a composer would even consider the two options equivalent. I'm sure you understood me correctly; why are you giving me such a hard time about my nomenclature? Of course I have to tell Finale that it is a 7/8 bar, displayed as an incomplete 4/4 bar. Finale doesn't space it correctly if I don't do it that way. But I chose NOT to use an incomplete 4/4 bar (happy now?) for a pickup of 7 eighth notes, for reasons of clarity. Well, I didn't actually understand. I thought you meant a *notated* measure of 7/8. -- 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] Libraries not backwards compatible?
I was hoping to make a small library of articulations (simple guitar fingerings) to send to a friend still using Finale 97. A quick experiment seems to indicate that to do even this little thing I would need to create the library in Fin 97 or earlier. Is this indeed the case or is there a way to get around it? (I'm on Mac, using 2001 and 2003 until they fix 2005 - ha ha). Thanks, John Roberts ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Justifying Text in Expression Designer
In the Windows version, those options aren't even present at all in the expression designer. They may just be relicts of the section of code that the text expression editor shares with the text-tool editor, but not be applicable. I don't see how they could be if the data files are identical (or at least shareable) between the two platforms. On the other hand they may work -- try highlighting all of the expression text and see if they become useable. David H. Bailey Rob Deemer wrote: Thanks Noel, I'm not sure that's it...Finale obviously has given us the ability to create multi-line text expressions within the expression designer. The Text menu for the Expression Designer has some, but not all, of the capabilities of the Text Tool and Justification is one of them. I'm just trying to figure out what toggles that feature from greyed to activated. I'm on a Mac, btw... --- Noel Stoutenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob Deemer wrote: Hello all, I'm finishing up orchestrating a ballet (aka my dissertation) and I'm running into an odd problem. When I'm working in the Text Expression Designer and have an expression that has more than one line, the Justification tools are greyed out. Any ideas on why this is and how I can get it working again? Thanks! My best answer: the designers of Finale consider that an expression is going to be so short that it can fit into a single line, and that therefore, justification is unnecessary, and didn't provide for justification in expressions. Best workaround: hide the expressions, and create a duplicate expression as a measure attached text-block if you need the justification. I haven't had the need to use this feature yet, so I've not tried this second choice: use hard [non-breaking] spaces to put the justification in manually. In windows, the nonbreaking space is created by pressing down the Alt- key, while entering the digits 0173 on the numeric keypad. ns -Rob Rob Deemer Doctoral Candidate in Music Composition, Assistant Director, UT New Music Ensemble The University of Texas at Austin ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
A-NO-NE Music wrote: dhbailey / 05.3.19 / 06:31 AM wrote: We definitely travel in different circles -- if I called out Start at measure 7 everybody I've ever worked with would start counting from the first printed measure and count until they got to the 7th printed measure. I would have to say Start at the 7th measure after the introduction to get to where it seems your musicians would naturally start when you ask them to start at measure 7. Ah, you don't number every measure then. I do. Bar 7 is where it says bar 7 :-) No, I don't number every measure. But I place enough measure numbers in the parts so people can all find the same measures. What do you do with music you haven't written, or arranged, or engraved? How do you handle those situations, say with a 6-bar intro, and 2 written-out choruses of a 32 bar song form? If you ask for bar 7, which do you mean: the first bar of the first time through the song-form, or the 7th bar of the first time through the song form or the 7th bar of the second time through the song form? Especially if you get to the middle of the second time through the song form and things fall apart. Actually this is a very interesting discussion because I had no idea people ever started numbering from someplace other than the first full measure of a song. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Pick-up measures
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] David W. Fenton writes: On the other hand, notating it as a full measure with a rest would tend to obscure the upbeatness of the entire measure. Do you have a view on Elgar's Cockaigne overture, the first bar of which starts with three quarter rests? -- 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] editing score and parts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm fairly sure that this is a daft question and that I know the answer already, anyway, here goes. I engraved the score and parts for a work which was recorded for CD today. During the recording session, the composer had second thoughts about a number of things, mainly articulations in the string parts. Now the daft question - is there any way of linking the score and extracted parts so that the changes I make in the score are reflected in the parts so that I don't have to re-extract them (I don't want to have to re-tweak them) There is a way to do what you want, it's just that Finale programmers haven't figured out how to do it. :-( David Fenton has waged a long battle for dynamically linking parts and scores, but so far it has fallen on deaf ears at MakeMusic. To be fair, there may not actually be a way to do it, but everything David has suggested has made sense, and it can be done with documents as diverse as spreadsheets, word-processors and graphics programs where you can change a single number on a spreadsheet and all the values are recalculated, any references in a word processor or a graphics program (or both) to any numbers on that spreadsheet are updated to reflect any such changes, the next time those documents are opened. I am confident there is a way to do what you want, but as I said, the Finale programmers haven't figured out how to do it yet. My bet is the first notation software which does that (Sibelius, Finale or the newly developping Notion software from http://www.notionmusic.com which may give these two giants a run for their money) first will eventually be the last engraving software standing. It will be such a huge time-saver that everybody using anything else will jump ship and begin using that program. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Tweaking Exported Parts
Gerry Kirk wrote: Whenever I write an arrangement and then create parts via export, I spend (unnecessary?) time tweaking the individual parts. Specifically, how do I-- --have the name of the instrument appear on all pages following p. 1. --keep spacing of systems consistent after p. 1 --make page breaks appear where they are beneficial to players (such as at multi-measure rests) Basically, I guess I am asking where is a tutorial on creating exported parts? Page breaks must be tweaked by hand, which means that your other request to keep system spacing consistent may not work automatically. I find that I need to tweak the spacing of systems as well as the number of measures on each system quite frequently to get decent page turns. As for the name of the instrument appearing on all pages following p. 1, there is no automated way for doing that, since there is no such text block in the original score to export to the parts. It would be a nice function, since the program is able to take the staff name and make it a text block on page 1. You should make a feature request for that! As for the page breaks, Sibelius has such an automated feature, but from what I have read on the Sibelius list (I haven't used it enough to know if the complaints are justified) it makes for some very interesting pages which contain only a few staves but place a multi-bar rest at the end of the final system, while other pages contain too many systems to be easily read. I'm not sure this is something I want the program figuring out for me. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Justifying Text in Expression Designer
Harold Owen wrote: Dear Rob, I don't think justification is allowed in text expressions. However, you might be able to use a measure-attached text block instead. In Scroll View double-click and drag a box large enough for the expression. Text will wrap. The bounding box can be adjusted either horizontally or vertically to fit your block of text. Then you can apply justification. Hal The only problem with this is that it necessitates the creation of a new text block each time the same text is to be used, whereas with the expression tool, creating it once allows one to reuse it many times. On the Windows platform, expression blocks can be centered (or right justified) easily enough simply by inserting spaces where needed. They don't even have to be hard spaces -- just hitting the space bar works fine. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] editing score and parts
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:48:02 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any way of linking the score and extracted parts so that the changes I make in the score are reflected in the parts so that I don't have to re-extract them (I don't want to have to re-tweak them) The link isn't going to happen. However, rather than re-extract parts from the score it would probably be easier (depending on the breadth of the edits) to edit the score and the relevant parts independently rather than go through the whole extraction rigamarole again. -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Life would be so much easier if only (3/2)^12=(2/1)^7. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] editing score and parts
On 19 Mar 2005 at 16:04, dhbailey wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm fairly sure that this is a daft question and that I know the answer already, anyway, here goes. I engraved the score and parts for a work which was recorded for CD today. During the recording session, the composer had second thoughts about a number of things, mainly articulations in the string parts. Now the daft question - is there any way of linking the score and extracted parts so that the changes I make in the score are reflected in the parts so that I don't have to re-extract them (I don't want to have to re-tweak them) There is a way to do what you want, it's just that Finale programmers haven't figured out how to do it. :-( David Fenton has waged a long battle for dynamically linking parts and scores, but so far it has fallen on deaf ears at MakeMusic. To be fair, there may not actually be a way to do it, . . . Sure there is! Finale already keeps track of certain kinds of things that apply only to certain layouts (such as staff groups defined in scroll view vs. groups defined in page view), so it's really only the application of a concept common to any application that presents data drawn from a database: the presentation should be separate from the data insofar as that is possible. Now, Finale's file format is unquestionably a database, and a hierarchical one. It's only a matter (only, he said) of making sure that content and presentation are stored separately. Now, how mixed up content and layout happen to be in an Enigma database, I can't say. But there's no question that it's possible. It could probably even be done without changing the current file format by simply implementing sub-classing at the database level (or sub-/super-types, in DB terminology). . . . but everything David has suggested has made sense, and it can be done with documents as diverse as spreadsheets, word-processors and graphics programs where you can change a single number on a spreadsheet and all the values are recalculated, any references in a word processor or a graphics program (or both) to any numbers on that spreadsheet are updated to reflect any such changes, the next time those documents are opened. I am confident there is a way to do what you want, but as I said, the Finale programmers haven't figured out how to do it yet. Or they aren't even trying. I think Finale, with its unlinked templates and unlinked libaries, is terribly flawed at a basic conceptual level, and to get linked parts would probably require a rethinking of the whole application in its many parts. My bet is the first notation software which does that (Sibelius, Finale or the newly developping Notion software from http://www.notionmusic.com which may give these two giants a run for their money) first will eventually be the last engraving software standing. It will be such a huge time-saver that everybody using anything else will jump ship and begin using that program. Finale already offers something Special Part Extraction, but doesn't save layout settings for it separately from standard score layout. If it did that, we'd already be home free in regard to most of the benefits of linked parts (keep in mind that I don't advising linking independent part files back to a score file, but simply to make parts a different view of the same score). -- 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] pick-up measure
Carl Dershem wrote: dhbailey wrote: How do you handle those situations, say with a 6-bar intro, and 2 written-out choruses of a 32 bar song form? If you ask for bar 7, which do you mean: the first bar of the first time through the song-form, or the 7th bar of the first time through the song form or the 7th bar of the second time through the song form? Especially if you get to the middle of the second time through the song form and things fall apart. That's why I like rehearsal letters. Even when the form is irregular OK - start 2 after 'C' will (if the parts and score are copied properly, and match) lead everyone to the same place. Numbers, as we've shown here, can be confusing, but letters are arbitrary enough (not always a bad thing) that argument is less common. cd I agree, and best of all is when there are measure numbers AND rehearsal letters. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
dhbailey wrote: How do you handle those situations, say with a 6-bar intro, and 2 written-out choruses of a 32 bar song form? If you ask for bar 7, which do you mean: the first bar of the first time through the song-form, or the 7th bar of the first time through the song form or the 7th bar of the second time through the song form? Especially if you get to the middle of the second time through the song form and things fall apart. That's why I like rehearsal letters. Even when the form is irregular OK - start 2 after 'C' will (if the parts and score are copied properly, and match) lead everyone to the same place. Numbers, as we've shown here, can be confusing, but letters are arbitrary enough (not always a bad thing) that argument is less common. cd ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
dhbailey wrote: Carl Dershem wrote: dhbailey wrote: How do you handle those situations, say with a 6-bar intro, and 2 written-out choruses of a 32 bar song form? If you ask for bar 7, which do you mean: the first bar of the first time through the song-form, or the 7th bar of the first time through the song form or the 7th bar of the second time through the song form? Especially if you get to the middle of the second time through the song form and things fall apart. That's why I like rehearsal letters. Even when the form is irregular OK - start 2 after 'C' will (if the parts and score are copied properly, and match) lead everyone to the same place. Numbers, as we've shown here, can be confusing, but letters are arbitrary enough (not always a bad thing) that argument is less common. I agree, and best of all is when there are measure numbers AND rehearsal letters. If done well, yes. I'm currently in a band that's doing a piece that has both randomly strewn about without apparent pattern or design (and the parts don't match each other, much less the score), and it's MADDENING! Method and pattern are USEFUL! cd ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Pick-up measures
On 19 Mar 2005 at 20:19, Ken Moore wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] David W. Fenton writes: On the other hand, notating it as a full measure with a rest would tend to obscure the upbeatness of the entire measure. Do you have a view on Elgar's Cockaigne overture, the first bar of which starts with three quarter rests? Don't know it. But it sounds like something designed for the performers (to get them to perform in a certain way) than for the listeners. It would all depend on how the beginning relates to what's done with the same material later on (assuming it returns). These kinds of things always seem to me to be the types of subjects over which self-style musical connoisseurs go orgasmic over, but which have little practical effect on the listener. Sometimes this kind of thing is put into a composition to fix some formal structure (e.g., the measure of rest in the fugue of Bartok's Music for Strings, Percussion Celeste, put there in order to make sure everything comes out in the correct number of measures to conform to the Golden Section), things which often are not perceptible to a listener (consciously or unconsciously). Also, I think that sometimes these arguments about upbeat feeling bleed over into conversations about phrasing in general. We often use the word upbeat metaphorically (or at a meta level) to refer to measures or phrases within larger structures, and I think this tends to obscure what's a pretty basic and straightforward concept when applied at the beat level. -- 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] Libraries not backwards compatible?
On Mar 19, 2005, at 3:30 PM, John Roberts wrote: I was hoping to make a small library of articulations (simple guitar fingerings) to send to a friend still using Finale 97. A quick experiment seems to indicate that to do even this little thing I would need to create the library in Fin 97 or earlier. Is this indeed the case or is there a way to get around it? (I'm on Mac, using 2001 and 2003 until they fix 2005 - ha ha). Thanks, John Roberts No, I'm afraid that libraries are not compatible between versions, even between platforms (much to my surprise!). It would be better to send him a Finale document (created with Fin 97) and let him extract the libraries himself, as I have had very poor success with sending libraries even to others on the same platform as myself. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] editing score and parts
Thanks Christopher (and everyone else who has offered help with this), That sounds like an easier way than doing everything twice. I'll experiment with it and see if any problems appear. There are lots of articulations/bowings added but the notes themselves are unchanged, but the parts have been carefully tweaked to avoidpage turns/awkward rehearsal marksetc. Thanks again, Lawrence "þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
On Mar 19, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 19 Mar 2005, at 12:19 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: Your point about the New Real Book not having measure numbers illustrates my point even better than it does yours. How, exactly? My point is that proper layout and use of rehearsal letters and double bars is *wy* more important to musicians keeping their place in the form than measure numbers. So much so that even when there are no measure numbers, it's perfectly easy to keep your place. I wasn't arguing against that at all. But calling bars out on a lead sheet, that's another story. in a rehearsal. Say to the musicians, I would like the rhythm section to break in bar 3. Which bar are they going to break on, the 3rd bar of the form, or the 3rd full bar (which is the 2nd bar of the form)? If the chart had been properly copied (according to the standards of the New Real Book), there would be no eighth rest in the pickup measure, and there would be a boxed rehearsal letter [A] in the first full measure. So you could say, There's a break in the 3rd bar of [A] -- or, even, There's a break in bar 3 -- without any confusion at all. You would have to say There's a break in bar FOUR if the measure HAD the eighth rest, which is what I was arguing against. Or if it had an 8-eighth note pickup instead of a 7 note pickup, which is not all that different from what is there already. I'm not sure musicians are aware enough of the rule about only numbering complete measures to make the distinction between the bar numbers with a 7 note pickup and an 8 note pickup. It's all the same to them (and to me too, pretty much, anyway.) Remember, most jazz musicians don't know that repeats are not supposed to occur on DSs, or that accidentals only apply in the same octave as they first appear in the measure, and they even have trouble keeping track of accidentals that have already appeared in the measure at times! A detail about the pickup bar being numbered if it is complete escapes them completely, I'm sure. Speaking of which, let's go back to the New Real Book. Open it up to Airegin. Are you going to tell the band The bass breaks on beat 4 of bar 2 or The bass breaks on beat 4 of the second bar of [A]? That lead sheet has a full written intro, in which case we seem to be in agreement. Let's keep the discussion to pickups, especially those of 1 measure more or less. In fact, Finale-copied lead sheets that HAVE bar numbers sometimes serve to confuse the issue. In the case of Daahoud, if I referred to bar 3, they might ask back, Bar NUMBER 3, or the 3rd bar of the form? That's an argument for *more* consistency, then, not less. I AM arguing for consistency. I expect NO pickup measures to be numbered, no matter whether they are complete or not. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Pick-up measures
Ken Moore wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] David W. Fenton writes: On the other hand, notating it as a full measure with a rest would tend to obscure the upbeatness of the entire measure. Do you have a view on Elgar's Cockaigne overture, the first bar of which starts with three quarter rests? Before making any firm comment, I'd want to establish if this is Elgar's intention, or a later 'acquisition'. In any case, where's the first downbeat of Beethoven 5? If it's impossible to determine, then what should be notated? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] editing score and parts
David W. Fenton wrote: Or they aren't even trying. I think Finale, with its unlinked templates and unlinked libaries, is terribly flawed at a basic conceptual level My bet is the first notation software which does that (Sibelius, Finale or the newly developping Notion software ... will eventually be the last engraving software standing. It will be such a huge time-saver that everybody using anything else will jump ship and begin using that program. Fully agreed - although I assume the emphatic suggestion of complete conversion refers to a select groups of 'engravers', rather than the wider field of users of notation software? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
Harold Owen wrote: On Mar 19, 2005, at 6:31 AM, dhbailey wrote: I've also played from published music where only half of the parts had measure numbers (actual counting numbers) and the other half didn't have anything. I am currently rehearsing for a performance of the _Missa Solemnis_. The chorus and orchestra have totally different sets of rehearsal letters, and the orchestra members have had to go thru their parts and pencil in all the choral letters, which are in different places than the orchestra's letters. Andrew Stiller We had the same problem with the choral scores and the instrumental parts for the Fouré Requiem. Hal Slight hijack: Why is it that choirs never seem to be able to use bar numbers, even when provided in their edition? Why do conductors always seem to need to say Orchestra, from bar 68, choir, from 'Qui tollis'...? (Sorry, just got back from a choral-society gig...) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Pick-up measures
In a message dated 19/03/2005 23:43:10 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In any case, where's the first downbeat of Beethoven 5? If it's impossible to determine, then what should be notated? It's on the first beat of the bar - the very loud quaver rest. All the best, Lawrence "þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
In a message dated 19/03/2005 23:45:10 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slight hijack: Why is it that choirs never seem to be able to use bar numbers, even when provided in their edition? Why do conductors always seem to need to say "Orchestra, from bar 68, choir, from 'Qui tollis'"...? It's in the nature of a choir, that's all. I sat in the orchestra in front of the ladies of the choir in a gig a while back. One of the many highlights of the rehearsal was when the lady directly behind me turned to her neighbour and referring to the conductor said, "Look, he's doing it again - he keeps going faster than us!" All the best, Lawrence "þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Pick-up measures
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 19/03/2005 23:43:10 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In any case, where's the first downbeat of Beethoven 5? If it's impossible to determine, then what should be notated? It's on the first beat of the bar - the very loud quaver rest. Ahh, you mean the second-violin entry, then? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
I think you guys should realize that you are arguing a pop vs. serious thing and leave it at that. This discussion rang a bell at rehearsal today. We were rehearsing for a pop concert tonight with The Fifth Dimension (pop group from the 60's - still going strong[?] after all these years, with two original members out of the original, uhh, five). Their charts are a mess, with cuts, tacets, new endings, etc., and every chart seemed to have a different length of intro from what was printed. After one false start, the leader/pianist stops, and shouts out, No, start at the very top - bar 9! Gave me a serious chuckle. Raymond Horton Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra Jim Williamson wrote: It may not define form and I don't care. However, I've seen it that way a million times and I like it. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sat in the orchestra in front of the ladies of the choir in a gig a while back. One of the many highlights of the rehearsal was when the lady directly behind me turned to her neighbour and referring to the conductor said, Look, he's doing it again - he keeps going faster than us! Do you now how bad it is for a keyboard to have hot tea spit into it forcefully? I do now! (And I have a strong feeling she's related to a sax player I work with occasionally.) cd ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
On 19 Mar 2005, at 5:45 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: in a rehearsal. Say to the musicians, I would like the rhythm section to break in bar 3. Which bar are they going to break on, the 3rd bar of the form, or the 3rd full bar (which is the 2nd bar of the form)? If the chart had been properly copied (according to the standards of the New Real Book), there would be no eighth rest in the pickup measure, and there would be a boxed rehearsal letter [A] in the first full measure. So you could say, There's a break in the 3rd bar of [A] -- or, even, There's a break in bar 3 -- without any confusion at all. You would have to say There's a break in bar FOUR if the measure HAD the eighth rest, which is what I was arguing against. No, not at all. You would say There's a break in the third bar of A. If the chart had been properly copied, there would actually be a rehearsal mark A at the beginning of the A section, but people know what you mean even on a sloppily copied chart with no rehearsal letters. Written measure numbers are not usually found on lead sheets anyway. We started this discussion talking about arrangements, and somehow we segued into lead sheets -- two very different situations. I'm not sure musicians are aware enough of the rule about only numbering complete measures to make the distinction between the bar numbers with a 7 note pickup and an 8 note pickup. It's all the same to them (and to me too, pretty much, anyway.) Remember, most jazz musicians don't know that repeats are not supposed to occur on DSs, or that accidentals only apply in the same octave as they first appear in the measure, and they even have trouble keeping track of accidentals that have already appeared in the measure at times! A detail about the pickup bar being numbered if it is complete escapes them completely, I'm sure. Okay, again, this is a completely different situation from a arrangement, where every complete measure is numbered (and labeled). Lead sheets usually don't have any measure numbers at all. When people are rehearsing from lead sheets, they usually use *relative* terms like Let's take it from the bar before the bridge or Let's take it from the second bar of the last A. (When working from a 32-bar AABA lead sheet, I have never in my life heard anyone say Let's take it from bar 26 instead of the second bar of the last A.) I AM arguing for consistency. I expect NO pickup measures to be numbered, no matter whether they are complete or not. What's the difference between a complete pickup measure and a one-bar intro? And do you really want to spend rehearsal time splitting that particular hair? In an arrangement, the rule is you number from the first complete measure -- intro or not -- and show measure numbers on every bar. I'm still having trouble understanding why you are apparently so dead-set against following this convention, which works extremely well and does not rely on subjective judgment calls as to what's intro material and what's not. In a lead sheet, you don't need measure numbers at all, and even if you include them, people are vastly more likely to use relative terms like third bar of the second A. So if you don't feel good about assigning a number to a complete pickup measure on a lead sheet, why not just omit the measure numbers entirely? There's no need to include measure numbers on a 32-bar AABA lead sheet. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
Carl Dershem wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sat in the orchestra in front of the ladies of the choir in a gig a while back. One of the many highlights of the rehearsal was when the lady directly behind me turned to her neighbour and referring to the conductor said, Look, he's doing it again - he keeps going faster than us! Do you now how bad it is for a keyboard to have hot tea spit into it forcefully? I do now! (And I have a strong feeling she's related to a sax player I work with occasionally.) Nope, she was definitely singing in the sopranos with us today. Especially in the fugue. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
On Mar 19, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Written measure numbers are not usually found on lead sheets anyway. We started this discussion talking about arrangements, and somehow we segued into lead sheets -- two very different situations. OK, I thought we WERE talking about lead sheets. But I think the idea applies to all pickups. I'm not sure musicians are aware enough of the rule about only numbering complete measures to make the distinction between the bar numbers with a 7 note pickup and an 8 note pickup. Okay, again, this is a completely different situation from a arrangement, where every complete measure is numbered (and labeled). Right. Except I know that the NY and LA show and film standards are used in all local situations, where ALL measure numbers are labelled, but often that gets too cluttered for general use, especially with a rehearsed band that doesn't necessarily need ALL measures numbered. At the beginnings of systems and at double bars is generally enough for me in those situations. Lead sheets usually don't have any measure numbers at all. Mine do. But not usually EVERY measure, just starts of systems, as I said. When people are rehearsing from lead sheets, they usually use *relative* terms like Let's take it from the bar before the bridge or Let's take it from the second bar of the last A. (When working from a 32-bar AABA lead sheet, I have never in my life heard anyone say Let's take it from bar 26 instead of the second bar of the last A.) I put the measure numbers so that it will be easier to say, What are you playing on bar 26? than What are you playing on the second bar of the last A. It's for ease of rehearsing and playing, and for clarity. I AM arguing for consistency. I expect NO pickup measures to be numbered, no matter whether they are complete or not. What's the difference between a complete pickup measure and a one-bar intro? For any of the tunes I cited, is there any question? They are all clearly pickups. And do you really want to spend rehearsal time splitting that particular hair? The hair I want to avoid splitting is the one where a 7-eighth-note pickup is NOT numbered (or maybe it is, if it is notated as a full measure?), whereas an 8-eighth-note pickup IS. But, as I said, it has only shown up once in twenty-odd years, in my case. In an arrangement, the rule is you number from the first complete measure -- intro or not -- and show measure numbers on every bar. I'm still having trouble understanding why you are apparently so dead-set against following this convention, which works extremely well and does not rely on subjective judgment calls as to what's intro material and what's not. I'm only set against it when it is clearly a pickup. In all other case, I always have and probably always will follow the number the first full measure rule. Do you put a double bar on the left side of measure 2 in that case, to keep the form clear? Say in the case of a 7-eighth-note pickup to an intro, where a rehearsal letter might not be warranted? I would. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
dhbailey / 05.3.19 / 03:50 PM wrote: What do you do with music you haven't written, or arranged, or engraved? Say, when we play standard song, which my band usually use for closing the set, we don't rehears. I mean, it's standard! We know it by heart, and how we begin and end a standard song is up to the mood of the night. That's jazz to me. :-) Otherwise, all the selections are either my composition or my arrangement of standard, therefore every measures are numbered as I like the way it is. I really don't care what is the convention. I do what it works for me and what it works for musicians I gig with. One of the biggest reasons I chose Finale back when I bought version 1.0 was that I can create my own rit. sign, which is a slanted downward arrow with rit word above it, and is placed above measure(s). Where the arrow starts is where the rit starts, and where the arrow ends is where the rit ends. This might make people who doesn't approve unconventional notation uncomfortable on this list, but it works very well with the musicians I work with :-) -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Tweaking Exported Parts
On 19 Mar 2005, at 3:59 PM, dhbailey wrote: As for the name of the instrument appearing on all pages following p. 1, there is no automated way for doing that, Actually, there is: Robert Patterson's Copyists Helper plugin. It will even keep track of the *current* instrument name for doubling parts, so you automatically get, e.g., Reed 1 (Flute) pg. 2 and Reed 1 (Sop. Sax) pg. 3 as required. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
I AM arguing for consistency. I expect NO pickup measures to be numbered, no matter whether they are complete or not. What's the difference between a complete pickup measure and a one-bar intro? For any of the tunes I cited, is there any question? They are all clearly pickups. None of the tunes you mentioned have full 4-beat pickups -- they are all 3.5 beats or less, so they should be notated as incomplete -- i.e. pickup -- measures. That way, the first complete measure is also the first measure of the tune. See how easy that is? [In other words, Daahoud in the original Real Book is notated incorrectly. That initial eighth rest shouldn't be there.] I can't think of a tune that has a full 4-beat pickup starting with a note on beat one of the pickup measure. You mentioned that you wrote (or arranged?) a tune that had a 4.5 beat pickup. Like I said, it doesn't *really* matter to me what you call the first complete measure (which happens to be part of the extended pickup) -- 1 would be standard practice, and I wouldn't recommend anything else, but I suppose if you really wanted to be different, A would be all right, 0 would be idiosyncratic but acceptable, etc. Or, if it's just a lead sheet, you can dispense with measure numbers entirely, so long as you have rehearsal letters. But I really think you need to call it *something*, and indicate that on the part in some way. Every measure needs a unique ID, even if it's just the bar before A (or, in this case, you could also have the pickup to the bar before A). The hair I want to avoid splitting is the one where a 7-eighth-note pickup is NOT numbered (or maybe it is, if it is notated as a full measure?)' Pickups should not be notated as full measures. Do you put a double bar on the left side of measure 2 in that case, to keep the form clear? Of course. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: Sibelius to Finale
Hi Richard, As Noel and David have mentioned, you can use MusicXML format to go between Sibelius and Finale. As with MIDI files, you write a MusicXML file from Sibelius, then read the MusicXML into Finale. But you'll get a lot more of the notation details with MusicXML than with MIDI, even with the restrictions imposed by the limits of the Sibelius plug-in development tools. Our Dolet for Sibelius plug-in runs on Sibelius 2.1 and 3.1 on both Windows and Mac. The Finale situation is different on Windows and Mac. On Windows, Dolet Light for Finale has been included since Finale 2003. However, the full version does a better job with Sibelius tablature than the light version. You can also use the full version with any Finale for Windows from 2000 on. On Macintosh OS X, V2 of Dolet for Finale is available for Finale 2004 and 2005. If you're on OS 9, there's no plug-in available, but we can do the translation for you with our file translations services. All the plug-ins and file translation services are available at our site: http://store.recordare.com/software.html Best regards, Michael Good Recordare LLC www.recordare.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO Studio
On 15 Mar 2005, at 14:23, Gerald Berg wrote: John You're in the game now -- the hunt begins in earnest. At this point you have your strings on channels 33-36 Midi channels 1-16 are set for playback in slot 1 (Midi set-up pop down menu) -- channels 17-32 slot 2 etc. -- you can load two players to 1 slot (by holding down shift in midi set-up) -- 2 players = 16 'instances' -- for the second instance however you must MANUALLY change the midi channels in the 2nd player from 1-8 to 9-16. IOW instances 1/2 - channel 1-16 instance 3/4 - 17-32 inst. 4/5 - 33-48 inst. 6/7 - 49-64 Thanks Jerry But I'm afraid I don't follow you. I've now got GPO working fine (FinMac 2005b) and it sounds great. But I can't see how I can load more than 32 patches -- 8 each in Players 1,2,3 4. Holding down shift in midi set-up, err, do you mean while selecting the midi channel? I can't find how this works. I still can't see how I can load more than one instrument into one slot. Sorry to be so dim, I'm clearly misunderstanding you. Unless you're in Windows and there is a platform difference here. John ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
