Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
On 9/17/2013 9:50 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: But I am but surprised at the dismissive implications of calling Fin and Sib 20-year-old products. Finale 2012 is 2 years old. It would be laughable to compare it with version from 20 years ago, which I believe was still (Mac) 2.6.x. For a laugh, see if you can fire up a 20-yr-old version of Finale. (On Win it might even work.) Then you may have a better appreciation for just how much innovation has happened in the past 20 years. I take your point. I should have said codebase and development framework that is 20 years old, locking programmers into productivity levels that might have been state-of-the-art in 1993. Ostensibly MakeMusic has dealt with this issue -- at least somewhat -- during this 2.5 year hiatus. I hope so, but I don't think you can completely rewrite an application of this scope in a couple of years. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
On 9/17/2013 8:09 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: The version of MuseScore that I tried out 2 years ago was nowhere near Fin/Sib, but it has been and continues to be moving faster than any of them. And I disagree that it is not innovative. It's just that the innovations that are added seem to be the pet projects of those who are willing to put in the time to implement them and may not be the innovations you or I want. FWIW, you can find the MuseScore road map here: http://musescore.org/en/developers-handbook/references/musescore-2.0-roadmap Most of the development items are things that have been in Finale and Sibelius, of course. I don't see anything innovative there. It looks like they are doing nothing but reverse engineering the 20-year-old products. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
Very interesting. I like the way this sounds. Any videos of seeing part of this in action? Thanks, Steve On 9/17/13 12:02 PM, Jari Williamsson jari.williams...@mailbox.swipnet.se wrote: On 2013-09-17 14:34, Robert Patterson wrote: Could you explain the process? During the projects I've done this year, I've used a system where I've pasted code from my other my different plug-in sources into an automate plug-in. That plug-in used a number of control files (in text format) to set the distances in the cases where there needs to be a correction compared to the default positioning (taking stem direction, other artics, slur tips, ledger lines, etc into account). After all positioning comes spacing (including changing certain types of measures to specific widths), then alignment and then I make a approximate calculation of the vertical span of a system, and respace. The whole process goes outwards in the layout in one step (starting with articulation placement, ending with system positioning placement). Although the process is automatic, the thing that doesn't work good enough yet is the pre- and post-spacing, and the system isn't that flexible (I've more or less just added the editing cases I've needed). I'm now moving towards a totally script-based solution instead, which is almost a totally opposite approach, but it's also a much better way to handle complex tasks such as spacing. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
On 9/17/2013 2:33 PM, Chuck Israels wrote: Translation of audio files into notation is a more sophisticated problem, one that requires the kind of jumping of levels that computers are less good at. I can think of a number of conditions in which notation decisions reside in areas where choices are sufficiently complex that I'd be reluctant to trust a computer. I quite agree with you. When you have an advanced process like this, if it is only 90% accurate, then it probably is more trouble than it is worth. This was the case of the various attempts to turn scanned sheet music into notation. Occasionally I would get something that would come through about 98% clean. That is about the break-even point I think. Anything less than that and you spend more time double-checking and fixing than you would have spent just doing it by hand in the first place. Automatic transcribers and harmonizers might have a little more of a margin for error because I am just looking for something to get me close and I expect to do the last 5-10% myself anyway. For example, I might do drop-2 as a staring point, but then go back and move some notes around to make the voice leading smoother or make the harmonies more interesting or more characteristic for the instrument or style. It can be effective to stretch the voicing mid-phrase or to alternate between unison and ensemble, for example. If I could avoid the first 90% of the tedium, I'd be ahead of the game. That's is a weak example because I can already do some of that with the BIAB harmonization plug-in, but it really could be a whole lot smarter. Quite often I will use the BIAB harmonizer to get a first draft out for the band's first rehearsal, and then go back and do a more in-depth harmonization pass once the band has played the whole chart in context. That is the general theme of what I envision for the tools of the future: short cuts that can give us quicker results and free us to concentrate on other parts of the artistry. Having said all that, my experience with Melodyne is that it hears better than I do and is extremely accurate in its decisions. It is limited to polyphonic analysis of a single instrument track at the moment. The problem is clearly more complex in a full mix, and indeed voices that are buried have no chance of being transcribed by any program, no matter how sophisticated it gets. But fundamentally, there is no reason why a computer cannot listen to an audio file and discern the flute notes from the harp notes. If humans can hear it and easily understand the music, the computer should be able to transcribe it. This is something that would be ideal as an add-on rather an as a built-in feature because most users might not value it, but a few users would pay big bucks for it. I guess that is the point I'm getting to. There are add-on interfaces that Finale should obviously support today (e.g. Rewire, VST effects, and VST instruments). But maybe we need another industry standard for doing add-ons that are more specific to the notation process. Whereas VSTs are wave (i.e. audio file) oriented, this proposed class of add-on would be notation object-oriented -- call it VSTn or something. I don't see anybody with an appetite for this at the moment, but it wouldn't really surprise me to see that class of add-on emerge from the work that Spreadbury is doing, and I would not be surprised at all to see a very early incarnation of such an interface by 2016. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
On Sep 17, 2013, at 12:43 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: I don't think it's fair to call the Steinberg product vaporware. Steinberg is an established software company that has hired an established development team (almost the entire Sibelius staff) headed by one of the most respected people in the industry, Daniel Spreadbury. [...] I don't think the development team is headed by Spreadbury. My understanding is that he's an active member of the development team, but not the leader of it. According to his bio on Steinberg's blog, his title is product marketing manager. He's certainly the public face of the project, and he's the one who is in active communication with the engraving community at large. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] changing one part size
OK, my friends, I can't figure this one out. Finale 2011, Mac Piece for flute and marimba. Scores for both instruments. I want to print the marimba part smaller for the flute, and vice versa. I've done this many times with piano and solo instrument but I can't get this to work. I have the two parts linked on the score which may prevent this... Thanks for your help. Katherine Hoover ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] changing one part size
I can't imagine what would prevent this. If I have understood correctly, you have the score where both staves are the same size, a marimba part that has BOTH staves but the flute staff is smaller, and a flute part that also has both staves but the marimba staff is smaller? In the part in question, use the Zoom Tool (looks like a percentage sign). Where you click determines how it will act. You probably want to click the staff, but NOT where notes are, to invoke Staff Resizing. If you click where notes are, it will invoke Note Resizing, whereas clicking between the two staves after the key signature will invoke System Resizing, and clicking in the margin will invoke Page Resizing. This should work. Christopher On Sat Sep 21, at SaturdaySep 21 12:31 PM, Katherine Hoover wrote: OK, my friends, I can't figure this one out. Finale 2011, Mac Piece for flute and marimba. Scores for both instruments. I want to print the marimba part smaller for the flute, and vice versa. I've done this many times with piano and solo instrument but I can't get this to work. I have the two parts linked on the score which may prevent this... Thanks for your help. Katherine Hoover ___ 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] changing one part size
On 2013-09-22 13:10, Christopher Smith wrote: In the part in question, use the Zoom Tool (looks like a percentage sign). It's called the Resize Tool. The Zoom Tool icon is a magnifying glass. Where you click determines how it will act. Or, you can bring up the context menu and choose how it should act. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] changing one part size
Of course! Sorry for the misinformation. It's early over here (that's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it!) Christopher On Sun Sep 22, at SundaySep 22 8:20 AM, Jari Williamsson wrote: On 2013-09-22 13:10, Christopher Smith wrote: In the part in question, use the Zoom Tool (looks like a percentage sign). It's called the Resize Tool. The Zoom Tool icon is a magnifying glass. Where you click determines how it will act. Or, you can bring up the context menu and choose how it should act. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Custom Key Signature
Hello, everyone. I'm fairly new to this list, lurking for two or three months now. I have an advanced question about custom key signatures for Finale 2012, Win 7. I'd like to write a substantial chunk in the middle of a piece music in a Dorian key, four flats, but with a raised Ab to A-nat. I have decided that the key signature should appear with fours flats in customary order, followed by a natural sign on A in parentheses. I've tried using the nonstandard key signature dialog box, but it and the instructions in the online manual make my head spin a bit. This does not actually need to change the default pitches in the score since I would include a natural sign in front of every A anyway, thus raising each Ab by a half-step works just fine for me. The key signature's purpose is to give performers a reminder at a glance that it's in four flats but with an A-nat. Is this doable? (And before someone tries to convince me to change my mind about this alternative signature, I've given this serious, considerable thought. This is how I want the key sig to look.) Thanks in advance for any help. Douglas Brown Adjunct Professor, School of Music Wayland Baptist University ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
