A-NO-NE Music schrieb:
The way I do, I get the best one available at the moment, and never
depend on anything that is the 1st generation from Apple!
If I were you, I'd go for either G5 dual 2.7GHz or AlBook(Powerbook)15
1.67GHz. Better machine lasts longer. However, as my Dual 2.5GHz also
On Jul 4, 2005, at 8:21 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
I'd temped by the idea of getting a Mac, because I end up supplying
stuff to people and I'd like to know that they're getting what I've
sent!
If I were to get a Mac with the main purpose being running Finale,
what should I look for in terms
And I like multi-monitor displays. I like to be able to set
everything up however I want. Within reaons ;)
Hi Owain,
If you want to have more than one monitor going, you will have to go
with either the Powerbook (not the iBook) or a G5 Tower. You can
hook a second monitor up to the
Imo, it's been changed, but hasn't been fixed. There are more options
now, but unfortunately not the ones needed.
Johannes
David W. Fenton schrieb:
Do post 2K3 versions of Finale fix the grace note spacing problems
that have plagued Finale forever?
I just can't fathom why two parts with the
Sibelius 4 has been announced, and one aspect which we have clamored for
on this list for years is in their list of added features: Dynamic
linking of parts to the score. Apparently you only have to change
things in the score, and the changes are reflected in the parts. I know
no more about
dhbailey wrote:
Sibelius 4 has been announced, and one aspect which we have clamored
for on this list for years is in their list of added features:
Dynamic linking of parts to the score. Apparently you only have to
change things in the score, and the changes are reflected in the
parts. I
On 5 Jul 2005, at 23:56, dhbailey wrote:
Sibelius 4 has been announced, and one aspect which we have
clamored for on this list for years is in their list of added
features: Dynamic linking of parts to the score.
Some may have clamoured for it, not me.
If Finale doesn't start listening
On 4-Jul-05, at 4:21 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
First of all, how about telling us who you are?
The guy who wrote the keyswitch program for us, Johannes! He said that.
It is a very handy thing. You should thank Richard.
Be nice.
:)
Jerry
Gerald Berg
I don't know how well this Dynamic linking thing will work, but it i
definately a feature to consider if one wants to switch from Finale..
___
I've been able to try out a preview of Sib 4, and so far the dynamic parts
feature works very well.
John Bell wrote:
I know that many users are unconcerned about playback, but others are.
If Finale were to fall far behind Sibelius in its playback capabilities
then it would certainly be in danger of losing much of its share of the
market.
*Which* market? Both products are targeted
At 06:56 PM 7/5/05 -0400, dhbailey wrote:
Sibelius 4 has been announced, and one aspect which we have clamored for
on this list for years is in their list of added features: Dynamic
linking of parts to the score.
Ooh, baby, baby, baby. I'm one of the clamorers. I'm now 90% of the way
to
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
All Sibelius has to do is make it possible to do contemporary
scores easily
Heh...that's all I want from Finale, too.
Hasn't Sibelius had straightforward quarter-tones for some time? And I
presume Finale 06 will still feature the 'nonstandard key signature'
Dennis - '
I think this - graphic notation - is still one of Sib's weaknesses, and is
likely to remain so although I have found a number of work-arounds. It's
one of the reasons I'm trying to find time to learn Finale. My stuff isn't
all *that* wild, but I do use proportional notation,
On 5 Jul 2005 at 18:56, dhbailey wrote:
Sibelius 4 has been announced, and one aspect which we have clamored
for on this list for years is in their list of added features:
Dynamic linking of parts to the score. Apparently you only have to
change things in the score, and the changes are
On 5 Jul 2005 at 19:32, Gerald Berg wrote:
On 4-Jul-05, at 4:21 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
First of all, how about telling us who you are?
The guy who wrote the keyswitch program for us, Johannes! He said
that.
It is a very handy thing. You should thank Richard.
Be nice.
I
At 12:47 AM 7/6/05 +0100, Owain Sutton wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
All Sibelius has to do is make it possible to do contemporary
scores easily
Heh...that's all I want from Finale, too.
Hasn't Sibelius had straightforward quarter-tones for some time? And I
presume Finale 06 will
On 5 Jul 2005 at 19:35, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Actually, I believe the addition of a mixer has been the
most-requested new Finale feature request for many years now. It's
ridiculous for you to claim there isn't a demand for it just because
you don't need it.
A mixer in Finale makes
On Jul 5, 2005, at 4:35 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Also, you'll notice that one of the most accomplished engravers on
this list, Johannes Gebauer, now uses GPO -- and in fact was
recently complaining that GPO-Finale integration in 2k5 leaves a
lot to be desired, and requires far too
Ken Durling wrote:
Dennis - '
I think this - graphic notation - is still one of Sib's weaknesses, and
is likely to remain so although I have found a number of work-arounds.
It's one of the reasons I'm trying to find time to learn Finale. My
stuff isn't all *that* wild, but I do use
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
You button-presser you. Ouch. That hasn't changed since I started with
Finale back in FinWin2.2!
I try to please ;)
Actually, I've used Finale for so long that I can do graphical stuff fairly
quickly -- and that's where the conversion to Sibelius fails. I
At 05:05 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
Feathered beams - do you mean accel/decell angled beams, or something else?
Yes, that's what I mean. You can do them in Sib with a simple line
tool. So they don't play back unless you're willing to build up a complex
set of nested tuplets.
Ken
David,
People have been requesting a mixer for use with the QuickTime
Instruments (and, later sound fonts) since Finale starting supporting
QuickTime instruments and sound fonts. Why is that illogical? The
need for some kind of mixer is the same regardless of whether you're
using Coda's
At 04:55 PM 7/5/05 -0700, Ken Durling wrote:
It has always seemed to me that if one is willing to forego playback, then
a suite of purely graphic tools could be included that would make much of
this possible. Sibelius has the Symbols menu which does do this, but I
think what it needs is more
Ken Durling wrote:
At 05:05 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
Feathered beams - do you mean accel/decell angled beams, or something
else?
Yes, that's what I mean. You can do them in Sib with a simple line
tool. So they don't play back unless you're willing to build up a
complex set of nested
At 08:05 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, doesn't Sibelius have a little copy protection/activation code
problem that ought to prevent you from switching, given that you
won't upgrade past Finale 2003?
Yes, David, you've caught me in a distasteful ethical compromise, and it
On 5 Jul 2005 at 20:14, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 05 Jul 2005, at 8:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 at 19:35, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Actually, I believe the addition of a mixer has been the
most-requested new Finale feature request for many years now. It's
ridiculous
On 5 Jul 2005 at 20:24, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 08:05 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, doesn't Sibelius have a little copy protection/activation code
problem that ought to prevent you from switching, given that you
won't upgrade past Finale 2003?
Yes, David, you've caught
At 01:10 AM 7/6/05 +0100, Owain Sutton wrote:
Another observation - if Finale implemented a score-part link that was
anything like part extraction, I'd simply not use it, because it
wouldn't do what I needed. I always end up making parts by deleting
staves manually from the score. What extra
On 5 Jul 2005 at 20:46, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 08:40 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
That is, by contemplating switching to Sibelius, aren't you
contemplating getting yourself into a much worse situation than you
are with activated Finale?
Yup. And at my age and experience
I'd just like to address a few of the general points
mentioned.
1. It was suggested that MakeMusic should stop putting
time into playback features because their market
doesn't need them. I don't have marketing figures to
look at, but I'd be extremely surprised if composers
and arrangers didn't
On 05 Jul 2005, at 8:54 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 at 20:42, Darcy James Argue wrote:
While I never actually tried to do this myself, my recollection is
that it was possible to convert a Finale-generated QuickTime MIDI file
to audio.
Using Finale? How?
No, using QuickTime.
David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, doesn't Sibelius have a little copy protection/activation code
problem that ought to prevent you from switching, given that you
won't upgrade past Finale 2003?
Yep, they've got the same call-response sort of activation scheme that
Finale has.
Sibelius was
On 5 Jul 2005 at 18:25, Tyler Turner wrote:
[]
2. It was mentioned that Finale's playback has now
caught up to and in some ways perhaps exceeded that of
Sibelius. There's no competition. Finale's playback is
far beyond Sibelius', both in terms of automatic
playback and in customizability.
On 5 Jul 2005 at 21:31, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 05 Jul 2005, at 8:54 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 at 20:42, Darcy James Argue wrote:
While I never actually tried to do this myself, my recollection is
that it was possible to convert a Finale-generated QuickTime MIDI
Tyler Turner wrote:
3. Sibelius is not focusing on one market. Their three
big features are clearly each aimed at a different
part of their market. There is the worksheet creator
for educators, linked parts for engravers, and video
for composers. Both Sibelius and MakeMusic realize
that
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I mentioned that
many of my clients have started to demand a reasonable mockup in addition to a
printed score. These clients are most concerned with a good quality score and a
reasonably representative mockup that they can take to conductors, grantwriters,
On 05 Jul 2005, at 10:27 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, you could *not* do it *before* the Finale sound font existed.
That's entirely my point -- before that point, there was no
justification for having a mixer inside Finale. Once that was
provided for playback along with Finale (and, I'd
On 6 Jul 2005, at 03:24, Darcy James Argue wrote:BTW, did everyone see this dig (from the "Sibelius or Finale" page)? How do we do it?We invest a huge amount of time, care and attention into every new version. Releasing annual versions is inefficient, and makes for thin upgrades; radical new
--- David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er, you could *not* do it *before* the Finale sound
font existed.
That's entirely my point -- before that point, there
was no
justification for having a mixer inside Finale.
.
Discussing the merits of the feature from a
On 5 Jul 2005 at 22:43, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 05 Jul 2005, at 10:27 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, you could *not* do it *before* the Finale sound font existed.
That's entirely my point -- before that point, there was no
justification for having a mixer inside Finale. Once that was
On 05 Jul 2005, at 11:10 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 at 22:43, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I believe you *can* play back a MIDI file with the Finale soundfont
from a separate sequencer. It's a standard soundfont and I think you
can use it in any situation you'd use any other
From: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
Jef, you reading along? You ever try Sibelius for your work?
quite recently (for fairly straight-ahead, beethoven notation),
some things impressed me, notably of course the implementation of
house styles. some things bothered me, like not being able to
adjust
At 11:10 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 at 22:43, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I believe you *can* play back a MIDI file with the Finale soundfont
from a separate sequencer. It's a standard soundfont and I think you
can use it in any situation you'd use any other soundfont.
At 09:43 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
Fewer and fewer people are actually creating music to be performed by
live musicians. Good computer-based playback means you don't need
human beings.
While Dennis may think this is A Good Thing, I think it's very
distressing -- perhaps the
--- David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That this may very well be true suggests to me one
distressing fact:
Fewer and fewer people are actually creating music
to be performed by
live musicians. Good computer-based playback means
you don't need
human beings.
Yes, problems can
On 5 Jul 2005 at 23:29, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 09:43 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
Fewer and fewer people are actually creating music to be performed by
live musicians. Good computer-based playback means you don't need
human beings. While Dennis may think this is A Good
--- Owain Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What market IS MakeMusic focussing on? A lot of the
uncertainty here is
that we don't know whether there's a real commitment
to engravers, or to
serious composers, because most of the 'advances' or
of no relevance to
these groups.
Discussing the merits of the feature from a
functionality standpoint isn't really what's needed
here. The justification for the feature was that
people wanted it.
What is discouraging is that it apparently is the only justification that is
needed. This kind of thinking has seemed to
Engravers, while
a much smaller group, are critical for the success of
Finale because they are key in setting Finale's
reputation.
I have no reason to think that this list is not reasonably representative of
the engravers who you say are key in setting Finale's reputation. Well,
whatever you
At 09:17 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
Going over the promo videos for Sib 4, one other thing I notice is that
Sibelius has finally fixed what was one of the most frustrating and
infuriating aspects of its UI back when I was learning to use it -- it now
has an insertion point.
Darcy -
Could you
Human Playback isn't worth it. I'd disable it if I were you.
GPO is a software Orchestral Sample player. Garritan Personal Orchestra.
It sucks a LOT of CPU power, so, you'll need a fairly beefy CPU to use
it effectly. (IE: 2.6+ AMD/P4 or a 1.2+ G4 or a G5)
keith helgesen wrote:
Hi all.
OK, just looked at the Finale Insert measure dialogue, (as per page 14/6
in the F2K manual) and it's really no different from the Sibelius
CreateBarOther (or Single multiple times) which allows you to insert any
number of measures of the time signature or in a different one. Am I
missing
At 10:31 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
OK, just looked at the Finale Insert measure dialogue, (as per page 14/6
in the F2K manual) and it's really no different from the Sibelius
CreateBarOther (or Single multiple times) which allows you to insert any
number of measures of the time signature or in
On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:54 AM, Tyler Turner wrote:
Are you sure this is in there? I've been playing with
the demo and can't find a way to insert. If you're
talking about that cursor, I think that's for playback
only.
Guys, guys guys,
I'm talking about the INSERTION POINT. During Step-Time
--- Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tyler,
We did.
A while back, many of the people on this list came
up with a
reasonably detailed plan for implementing a feature
that looks very
much like Sibelius's Dynamic Parts. Between us, we
decided exactly how
it ought to
--- Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, just looked at the Finale Insert measure
dialogue, (as per page 14/6
in the F2K manual) and it's really no different from
the Sibelius
CreateBarOther (or Single multiple times) which
allows you to insert any
number of measures of the
56 matches
Mail list logo
