[Finale] Sibelius to Finale?
I do not see any way to move a Sibelius file into Finale via XML. There is no option to export or save as an XML. I have Sibelius 6 but haven't worked in it and someone gave me some files created in Sibelius 3. The file opens in Sibelius but no way to export in a format that Finale can read. The Sibelius user wanted to import into Finale without losing lyrics. It would involve editing if MIDI files are used. I could scan and import through Smart Score X Pro but again, some editing is certainly involved. I looked through the Sibelius manual but there does not appear to be a way to do this. I am using Mac Finale 2010b. Thanks, Bonnie Bonnie Ruth Janofsky composer / songwriter 818-784-4466 www.BonnieRuthJanofsky.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius to Finale?
Your best bet is to use the Dolet 5 plugin for Sibelius. It does co$t but you can download a 10-day demo that is fully functional if you only have a few files to convert. I use the plugin all the time, but the other way: Finale to Sibelius. It's remarkably accurate. J D Thomas ThomaStudios On Apr 30, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Bonnie Janofsky wrote: I do not see any way to move a Sibelius file into Finale via XML. There is no option to export or save as an XML. I have Sibelius 6 but haven't worked in it and someone gave me some files created in Sibelius 3. The file opens in Sibelius but no way to export in a format that Finale can read. The Sibelius user wanted to import into Finale without losing lyrics. It would involve editing if MIDI files are used. I could scan and import through Smart Score X Pro but again, some editing is certainly involved. I looked through the Sibelius manual but there does not appear to be a way to do this. I am using Mac Finale 2010b. Thanks, Bonnie Bonnie Ruth Janofsky composer / songwriter 818-784-4466 www.BonnieRuthJanofsky.com ___ 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] Sibelius to Finale?
Bonnie, You need the Dolet for Sibelius from Recordare (www.recordare.com). You put it in the Sibelius plugin folder and can then create MusicXML files which are readable in Finale. Hope this helps! Eric * Habsburger Verlag Frankfurt (Dr. Fiedler) www.habsburgerverlag.de eric.f.fied...@t-online.de e.fied...@em.uni-frankfurt.de * On 30.04.2010, at 20:48, Bonnie Janofsky wrote: I do not see any way to move a Sibelius file into Finale via XML. There is no option to export or save as an XML. I have Sibelius 6 but haven't worked in it and someone gave me some files created in Sibelius 3. The file opens in Sibelius but no way to export in a format that Finale can read. The Sibelius user wanted to import into Finale without losing lyrics. It would involve editing if MIDI files are used. I could scan and import through Smart Score X Pro but again, some editing is certainly involved. I looked through the Sibelius manual but there does not appear to be a way to do this. I am using Mac Finale 2010b. Thanks, Bonnie Bonnie Ruth Janofsky composer / songwriter 818-784-4466 www.BonnieRuthJanofsky.com ___ 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] Sibelius to Finale 2007
I am working on a project with several composers and one of them has offered me his Sibelius files. As I have no interest in using Sibelius I can not recall the name of the plug-in (?) you can use to open Sibelius file into Finale. All I remember is it starts with an R and has something to do with XML. Help, please! Cortez ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius to Finale 2007
I believe it's a plug-in from Recordare: http://store.recordare.com/software.html Phong --- On Sun, 10/12/08, Jón Kristinn Cortez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jón Kristinn Cortez [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Finale] Sibelius to Finale 2007 To: Finale@shsu.edu Date: Sunday, October 12, 2008, 3:19 PM I am working on a project with several composers and one of them has offered me his Sibelius files. As I have no interest in using Sibelius I can not recall the name of the plug-in (?) you can use to open Sibelius file into Finale. All I remember is it starts with an R and has something to do with XML. Help, please! Cortez ___ 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] Sibelius to Finale 2007
On 12.10.2008, at 15:01, Phong Duong wrote: I believe it's a plug-in from Recordare: http://store.recordare.com/software.html Phong --- On Sun, 10/12/08, Jón Kristinn Cortez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jón Kristinn Cortez [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Finale] Sibelius to Finale 2007 To: Finale@shsu.edu Date: Sunday, October 12, 2008, 3:19 PM I am working on a project with several composers and one of them has offered me his Sibelius files. As I have no interest in using Sibelius I can not recall the name of the plug-in (?) you can use to open Sibelius file into Finale. All I remember is it starts with an R and has something to do with XML. Help, please! Cortez ___ Thank you! Cortez ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius to Finale 2007
Yes, Music XML from Recordare. But Finale (depending on the version, I suppose) already has a 'Lite' version built in to import other files. I'm not sure Sibelius has an export version, although it also has some kind of 'Lite' version. I believe it is not a plugin, but is a separate program, but I couldn't define the difference so don't ask!!! John At 8:01 AM -0700 10/12/08, Phong Duong wrote: I believe it's a plug-in from Recordare: http://store.recordare.com/software.html Phong --- On Sun, 10/12/08, Jón Kristinn Cortez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jón Kristinn Cortez [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Finale] Sibelius to Finale 2007 To: Finale@shsu.edu Date: Sunday, October 12, 2008, 3:19 PM I am working on a project with several composers and one of them has offered me his Sibelius files. As I have no interest in using Sibelius I can not recall the name of the plug-in (?) you can use to open Sibelius file into Finale. All I remember is it starts with an R and has something to do with XML. Help, please! Cortez ___ 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 -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius to Finale 2007
Sibelius does not export MusicXML out-of-the-box. If you want to import Sib files into Finale, you need to purchase the full version of MusicXML. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On Oct 12, 2008, at 11:41 AM, John Howell wrote: Yes, Music XML from Recordare. But Finale (depending on the version, I suppose) already has a 'Lite' version built in to import other files. I'm not sure Sibelius has an export version, although it also has some kind of 'Lite' version. I believe it is not a plugin, but is a separate program, but I couldn't define the difference so don't ask!!! John At 8:01 AM -0700 10/12/08, Phong Duong wrote: I believe it's a plug-in from Recordare: http://store.recordare.com/software.html Phong --- On Sun, 10/12/08, Jón Kristinn Cortez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jón Kristinn Cortez [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Finale] Sibelius to Finale 2007 To: Finale@shsu.edu Date: Sunday, October 12, 2008, 3:19 PM I am working on a project with several composers and one of them has offered me his Sibelius files. As I have no interest in using Sibelius I can not recall the name of the plug-in (?) you can use to open Sibelius file into Finale. All I remember is it starts with an R and has something to do with XML. Help, please! Cortez ___ 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 -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ 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] Sibelius to Finale
I know this has been discussed many times on this list, but ... A client has just sent us a huge Sibelius file to be worked on. What is the best way to get it into Finale with as much detail as possible being saved in the transition? (so a MIDI-solution would only be a solution if all else fails ...) Thanks in advance for any bits of collective wisdom you could send this way. Eric Habsburger Verlag Frankfurt (Dr. Fiedler) www.habsburgerverlag.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius to Finale
If all you have is the file, MIDI may be your best choice, or you might find a Sibelius user who will print the file to PDF and return it to you so you can scan it. If you want, contact me privately and I'll do that for you. If you have Sibelius, you could buy the Music XML plug in from Recordare http://www.recordare.com/default.asp to convert the file to Finale's format. This is your best choice. Otherwise you might find a Sibelius user with the Music XML plug in to convert it for you or you might try printing the file and then scanning. Hope that helps Richard Smith http://www.rgsmithmusic.com Eric Fiedler wrote: I know this has been discussed many times on this list, but ... A client has just sent us a huge Sibelius file to be worked on. What is the best way to get it into Finale with as much detail as possible being saved in the transition? (so a MIDI-solution would only be a solution if all else fails ...) Thanks in advance for any bits of collective wisdom you could send this way. Eric Habsburger Verlag Frankfurt (Dr. Fiedler) www.habsburgerverlag.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Sibelius to Finale
Richard Smith wrote: If all you have is the file, MIDI may be your best choice, or you might find a Sibelius user who will print the file to PDF and return it to you so you can scan it. If you want, contact me privately and I'll do that for you. If you have Sibelius, you could buy the Music XML plug in from Recordare http://www.recordare.com/default.asp to convert the file to Finale's format. This is your best choice. Otherwise you might find a Sibelius user with the Music XML plug in to convert it for you or you might try printing the file and then scanning. Hope that helps Richard Smith http://www.rgsmithmusic.com Just to clarify, you use the MusicXML plug-in from Recordare to save as a MusicXML file from Sibelius and then you open the MusicXML file in Finale. This will transfer most of the data (but not all!). I just wanted to be sure that Eric doesn't think that the MusicXML plug-in will actually convert to Finale's format (.mus), since it won't. That's the most accurate method I know of for transferring between the two programs. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re:[Finale] Sibelius to Finale
Hi Eric, You'll get the best results using the Sibelius dolet from Recordare for export from Sibleius and use the latest Finale Dolet from Recordare (not the Finale built XML import) for import into Finale. Contact me off list if you need help. Best regards, John John Hinchey Hinchey Music Services Inc. Nashville, TN [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jul 8, 2008, at 12:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Message: 2 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:52:21 +0200 From: Eric Fiedler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Finale] Sibelius to Finale To: finale@shsu.edu Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed I know this has been discussed many times on this list, but ... A client has just sent us a huge Sibelius file to be worked on. What is the best way to get it into Finale with as much detail as possible being saved in the transition? (so a MIDI-solution would only be a solution if all else fails ...) Thanks in advance for any bits of collective wisdom you could send this way. Eric Habsburger Verlag Frankfurt (Dr. Fiedler) www.habsburgerverlag.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] End of Finale Digest, Vol 60, Issue 7 * ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Sibelius vs Finale
From what I keep reading on our List, it sounds like Finale has become so bug-ridden that it should be avoided. Instead of asking which is faster, I want to know if Sibelius is more reliable than Finale 2K8x. Happily, I am using an older version of Finale. I have no complaints as Finale has been my faithful servant for years. Can users of later versions of Finale say the same? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius vs Finale
From what I keep reading on our List, it sounds like Finale has become so bug-ridden that it should be avoided. Instead of asking which is faster, I want to know if Sibelius is more reliable than Finale 2K8x. dude, you're on a finale list; obviously people know more about the bugs in finale than in sibelius. ask sibelius users with the same level of knowledge and experience as the people commenting on finale bugs and guess what? you'll find sibelius has bugs too, except they're called features there. i do get the impression -- and this is not scientifically founded at all -- that the sib community is somewhat more ready to accept the shortcomings of the programme and do in fact bitterly complain that it should be better less than finale users **on this forum**. this of course says nothing about the quality of the users, in case anyone tries to interpret this comment that way. Happily, I am using an older version of Finale. I have no complaints as Finale has been my faithful servant for years. Can users of later versions of Finale say the same? the same people who found earlier versions peachy-keen are likely to find newer versions even more peachy-keen the people talking about the bugs aren't necessarily saying finale should be avoided, they could be saying it should be improved; sorry for being optimistic, i know most people don't expect it of me. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius vs Finale
It depends on what your trying to accomplish. Sibelius provides brackets and sub brackets as well as keyboard type braces. The bracket and the brace can be used together but will collide and I have not found a way to move either from the default horizontal position. They are easily adjustable vertically, just grab an end and pull. The sub-bracket works well for isolating staves within a bracketed set but tying to install a second bracket (instead of the sub-bracket) inside the first results in only an extra wing or two being visible. Richard Smith http://www.rgsmithmusic.com dc wrote: I remember Robert saying nested brackets weren't possible in Sibelius. Is this still true? Dennis ___ 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] Sibelius vs Finale
dc wrote: Lawrence David Eden écrit: Happily, I am using an older version of Finale. I have no complaints as Finale has been my faithful servant for years. Can users of later versions of Finale say the same? Well, after complaining loudly myself, I don't think (Win) 2008a is that bad. I waited for the a update to upgrade, and I'm not sorry I did. I certainly wouldn't revert to an older version (though I'm irked by some of the changes in the UI). Sibelius also has it's issues. The main difference, from what I see and read, is the way both companies deal with them. What would be interesting and helpful, rather than ranting against one or the other, would be a list of things that can be done in one and can't be done in the other. There probably aren't that many, but still it would be nice to know. Because if you need any of these, the choice is much easier to make. To start the list, here are two Sibelius features I miss in Finale: - backwards compatibility (and xml export and import is a very bad substitute for this; there is too much loss and messing up; you can't use this to work on a regular basis with someone who has an older version). - unicode support. One feature missing in Sibelius which Finale has had for years: Independent time signatures so a person can easily enter a score with, for example, 6/8 in some staves and 2/4 in others. It's possible in Sibelius but requires a lot of workarounds to accomplish it. But those workarounds are explained in the manual, which is something I haven't seen a lot of in the Finale manuals (although admittedly I haven't looked at them a lot recently.) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius vs Finale
Lawrence David Eden wrote: From what I keep reading on our List, it sounds like Finale has become so bug-ridden that it should be avoided. Instead of asking which is faster, I want to know if Sibelius is more reliable than Finale 2K8x. Happily, I am using an older version of Finale. I have no complaints as Finale has been my faithful servant for years. Can users of later versions of Finale say the same? Later versions of Finale work wonderfully for some people, and a lot of the bugs which people complain about are specialty bugs. On the other hand, if you need the areas of Finale which have those bugs, they are work-stoppers, some of them, and make the program in it's latest version unusable for you. Sibelius hasn't had the major system problems that some people such as Chuck have been having (the freeze-on-quit problem), but there are frustrations with it also. The frustrations are nowhere near as major as those which have manifested themselves in the recent Finale versions, and I would say that reliability is stronger right now with Sibelius. But the only way to know if one or the other will be better will be to install the demo versions of both and see. I've never had any major system freezes with Finale and I've never had any major system freezes with Sibelius. There are aggravations with both programs, but reliability isn't one of them with Sibelius. And except for a few people these days, it isn't an issue with Finale, either. Reliability is one thing to consider, certainly. Company future is another. Why has Finale/Makemusic not been able to find a permanent home with a larger corporation the way that Sibelius has? Can MakeMusic keep on as it has been recently and survive? Can it capture a larger share of the education market, which is where any notation program (in my not-so-humble opinion) should be making as large a presence as possible? The Finale new-users and upgraders of tomorrow are those who are introduced in a positive way to the program today. And in none of the schools around me is Finale being used. Sibelius is the clear winner. In my state's annual 3-day Music Educators' Conference and All-State Festival this Spring, there are 3 workshops aimed at 1) beginners to notation software; 2) people who have used it some but who aren't very advanced with it; and 3) People who want to use it in its advanced capabilities. And they're all put on by a Sibelius software representative. Golly gee, I wonder which product all those educators will walk away feeling positive about and will buy for their schools if they don't already have it and will have their students learn on and most likely buy if those students decide to purchase their own copy. People on these sorts of groups tend to complain about the problems and rarely ooh and aah over all that works well with a product -- Finale, if all the gloom and doom of the past couple of years was a true indicator, is a useless piece of crap which can hardly put two quarter-notes on the same staff without problems. It's a very good program and very reliable for many people. Just not for everybody. I'm sure that there are complainers on the Sibelius forum at their web-site, but for the most part the complaints about Sibelius at the yahoogroups list are more grumblings and worries rather than full-scale work-stopping problems. And Daniel Spreadbury is there on the Sibelius list to field any and all complaints and problems and to point to specific people in the company to contact when he isn't able to provide the answer. While Allen Fischer is a very welcome member of this list, it is unofficial and he can't provide inside contact information. So the public face of Sibelius is more reassuring right now than the public face of Finale. Whether any of the inner workings of either company is stable or in crisis or positive or negative, nobody really knows for sure, so all we have to go on is the public face of the company, and right now it seems that Sibelius has the better, more reassuring public face. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius vs Finale
On 22-Feb-08, at 7:27 AM, shirling neueweise wrote: the same people who found earlier versions peachy-keen are likely to find newer versions even more peachy-keen Heh, heh! I never thought of that! the people talking about the bugs aren't necessarily saying finale should be avoided, they could be saying it should be improved; sorry for being optimistic, i know most people don't expect it of me. Well, I would say avoid the original version of 2008; it's too buggy to work with. The 2008a update fixed a lot. And we LIKE you when you're optimistic! Keep it up! 8-) Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius vs Finale
-- Original message -- From: Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, I would say avoid the original version of 2008; it's too buggy to work with. The 2008a update fixed a lot. Hi Christopher, I agree, but I don't know why this freeze on quit bug has hit my system (with 2008a), and I seem unable to fix it. Darcy's suggestion of force quitting worked once, but does not work with 2008b. Perhaps I can re-install 2008a, and Darcy's procedure might work. After a concerned email from me, MM customer support says they are working on this. Best regards, Chuck ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On Oct 15, 2007, at 1:27 PM, dhbailey wrote: Yes, I had forgotten about the 3-octave keyboard simulation in Speedy, you're correct. This is my primary method of entry, and when I depart from it it's generally to use the up and down arrow keys, which I understand are also missing in Sibelius. Sounds to me like anyone who is in the habit of using non-MIDI Speedy is going to have to learn a completely new entry method if he switches to Sibelius. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Mark D Lew wrote: On Oct 15, 2007, at 4:11 AM, dhbailey wrote: I'm still waiting for Finale to fix it's improved Fin2k8 speedy entry tool so that ctrl-3 (top-row number key) initiates triplets again. Why they would change that escapes my ability to understand. But with the professed aim of doing away with the Speedy Entry tool as a separate tool and incorporating it into other tools (I would guess mostly into the Simple Entry tool) they may not fix it at all as it stands now. Wow, I didn't know about that. I'm curious. How *do* you enter a triplet now, if opt-3 doesn't work? I'm not sure I'd know any other way. Surely you aren't forced to go to the mouse and pick the tuplet tool?? opt-3 should work when you use the 3 on the numpad. It just doesn't work as it used to when you use the 3 on the top-row of number keys. [snip] -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
slurs (was Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users)
On Oct 16, 2007, at 2:56 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: All I want to know is this: Do Sibelius's slurs automatically avoid collisions with noteheads and accidentals? And furthermore, do the tips automatically avoid staff lines? Although Finale Engraver slurs are one of the most unreliable things in the whole program, they are nonetheless a huge time saver when they work. The slur-related question I would ask is: In Sibelius can I adjust the slur by manipulating the Bézier control points, as I can in Finale? I frequently tweak my slurs, and I'd sure miss it if I lost any control. This is an example of a feature I'd appreciate which MakeMusic is unlikely to ever take any interest in. I would like *more* user control of slurs. For one thing, I'd like the ability to insert a straight line segment into the middle of any slur. (The only new input from the user would be the length of the inserted segment, which is zero by default. The curve would be calculated exactly as it would if the segment didn't exist and the two halves were linked. The line segment would have a slope matching the tangent at the curve's midpoint, and the two halves would be displaced accordingly.) This would considerably enhance the ability to create attractive slurs in general, and in particular it would go a long way (albeit not all the way) toward solving the problem of creating decent- looking long slurs. In my opinion, Finale's inability to create a decent-looking long slur is one of its greatest weaknesses. It's the only significant case I can think of where Finale hasn't even caught up to traditional engraving. Are long slurs any better in Sibelius? mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On Oct 17, 2007, at 2:27 AM, dhbailey wrote: opt-3 should work when you use the 3 on the numpad. It just doesn't work as it used to when you use the 3 on the top-row of number keys. Oh, well in that case it wouldn't bother me. I always use the number pad. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Rats are actually quite good swimmers. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 15 Oct 2007, at 3:36 PM, Mariposa Symphony Orchestra wrote: I'd hope a rat with paws inquisitively on both ship and lifeboat might display the best instinctual wisdom for self-survival. After all: I'm merely curious to see if the Roquefort is truly greener on the other side. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 14.10.2007 Richard Smith wrote: Sorry. Try this one. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/message/33713. Thanks. I have a question: Does Sibelius have something similar to Engraver slurs? Johannes I'm not quite sure how to answer this -- Sibelius's slurs look fine to me. I've never really understood the difference between Engraver Slurs and Finale's normal slurs, so I can't really answer whether Sibelius's slurs work the same, worse or better than Engraver Slurs. But you could email Daniel Spreadbury, the Sibelius expert who is a member of the Sibelius expert, who understands much more about the minutiae of Sibelius than I do and check with him. His e-mail is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- he also understands the similarities as well as the differences between the two programs and is also quite honest about what Sibelius can and can't do well compared to Finale. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On 16.10.2007 dhbailey wrote: I'm not quite sure how to answer this -- Sibelius's slurs look fine to me. I've never really understood the difference between Engraver Slurs and Finale's normal slurs, so I can't really answer whether Sibelius's slurs work the same, worse or better than Engraver Slurs. All I want to know is this: Do Sibelius's slurs automatically avoid collisions with noteheads and accidentals? And furthermore, do the tips automatically avoid staff lines? Although Finale Engraver slurs are one of the most unreliable things in the whole program, they are nonetheless a huge time saver when they work. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Totally OT; Was: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Darcy James Argue wrote: Rats are actually quite good swimmers. Yes, but they don't like it. Apparently it makes them depressed. For more information, see: Garcia LSB et al. Acute administration of ketamine induces antidepressant-like effects in the forced swimming test and increases BDNF levels in the rat hippocampus. Prog Neuro-Psychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry (2007), doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2007.07.027 -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On Oct 15, 2007, at 4:11 AM, dhbailey wrote: I'm still waiting for Finale to fix it's improved Fin2k8 speedy entry tool so that ctrl-3 (top-row number key) initiates triplets again. Why they would change that escapes my ability to understand. But with the professed aim of doing away with the Speedy Entry tool as a separate tool and incorporating it into other tools (I would guess mostly into the Simple Entry tool) they may not fix it at all as it stands now. Wow, I didn't know about that. I'm curious. How *do* you enter a triplet now, if opt-3 doesn't work? I'm not sure I'd know any other way. Surely you aren't forced to go to the mouse and pick the tuplet tool?? In spite of my few quibbles, I'm fairly content with the Finale that I'm using right now. I see little reason why I would want to upgrade Finale *or* switch to Sibelius. It makes little difference to me if versions 2007 and 2008 are buggy, since I'm content to stay with the v2004 I've got. I rarely do parts and I rarely use playback, so the linked parts and various audio enhancements mean nothing to me. The few fixes that would make a difference to me are things that even a responsible and responsive Make Music would likely have little interest in. (I tend to want *more* control over arcane spacing details that most users never tweak at all. At the same time, some of the time-saving features that others love are wasted on me if they are for things I like to tweak or specify anyway.) That reminds me of one other Speedy question. Did they ever fix it so that when the cursor is at the end of a frame the Enter key works on the previous entry? This one fix alone might well inspire me to upgrade, even if it means turning off smart hyphens. It always baffled me why it isn't this way in the first place. Every other speedy key works on the prior entry. Why shouldn't Enter work, too? Especially since it would be an enormous time save in entering chords. For me, the disappointment of MM losing interest in Speedy entry is not that they might drop it (which wouldn't affect me if I don't upgrade anyway), but that they make no effort to improve it (which might have inspired me to upgrade). mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On 15.10.2007 Tyler Turner wrote: The revamped Simple Entry of 2004 and 2005 was not intended to mimic Sibelius but rather to blatantly borrow the things Sibelius was doing right and then go way past them in coming up with an efficient tool. Sibelius still maintains an advantage in regional selection that helps greatly when entering music. But looking purely at the entry systems (for both notes and other objects), Simple Entry in Finale is much more efficient. That may well be the case. However, after about five quite extended attempts to master Simple in Finale I still cannot do it well. On the other hand I know many Sibelius users who are not computer experts by any means and they are very efficient with it. Like David Fenton I also think that I would miss Speedy badly in Sibelius. It is, imo, one of the very last trumps Finale still has to make some pro users stay. On the other hand I rather expect Sibelius to include a Speedy entry method like Finale in one of the next updates. It would very much fit their policy of trying to win Finale users over. They have done this with scroll view (that was my very big problem in the past trying to test the Sibelius demo and being completely thrown by the constant jumping around on the screen). Now I am pretty positive they will do the same for Speedy. And then the Finale users will slowly die out, unless MakeMusic doesn't change its fundamental attitude. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
David W. Fenton wrote: On 14 Oct 2007 at 16:28, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 03:42 PM 10/14/2007, David W. Fenton wrote: The point is that Sibelius is not as versatile as Finale in terms of providing options for music entry. Bad-mouthing Finale doesn't change the fact that Sibelius is more limiting, and enforces a single way of working, whereas Finale offers choice. This is also true. Although it's only relevant for those of us who love Speedy. But that's a huge majority of the long-term users, no? It's really a huge stumbling block for me -- when I need to use Finale, I mostly need to do it quickly, so I just don't have the time to learn a new entry method that seems to me to be much less efficient. I used to think that it was a huge majority of the long-term users, but from various posts over the years I have been surprised at how many of people I would have assumed used Speedy were actually using Simple Entry. And quite a few jumped from Speedy to the newly revamped Simple Entry tool a few versions ago. I don't think MakeMusic would dissolve the Speedy Entry tool were it the preferred tool of choice for a huge majority of its users, probably taking its lead from corporate users who purchase large numbers of site licenses, who may not be using Speedy Entry at all. And I can well understand the time constraints concerning learning a new tool. So it seems that moving to Sibelius isn't really an option for you (and quite possibly for many others.) I'm not abandoning Finale, but I am finding working in Sibelius to be much easier than I had formerly thought it was, and the conversion to Sibelius' entry methods happened practically overnight for me, so it might not be as difficult a transition as you think it will be. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
dc wrote: Johannes Gebauer écrit: Like David Fenton I also think that I would miss Speedy badly in Sibelius. It is, imo, one of the very last trumps Finale still has to make some pro users stay. Agreed. The idea I have in the back of my head, when I try out Sibelius, is to continue to enter all the notes in Finale with Speedy, since I'm very fast at that, and then work from there. I must confess that I have no idea how one enters notes in Sibelius. Can it be done as fast as with Speedy? But then, I still have a lot of questions about not only what can be done in Sibelius, but how easily and fast it can be done, compared to Finale. Everybody will find their transition from one program to the other to be unique, because we all use varying aspects of any application we use in a unique way. Sibelius does allow the computer keyboard selection on pitches (in a much easier way than Finale, in my opinion, in that you hit an A and the closest A appears on the staff, B gives the nearest B, etc, rather than having to use A S D F G H J for one octave of A B C D E F G pitch entry) and it is the work of an instant to use ctrl-up or ctrl-down to change octaves for the pitch you just entered and then the next pitch key you press gives you the nearest example of that pitch. As with many aspects of Finale, it's quicker to do than to explain. My advice to everybody who is thinking of trying Sibelius -- don't just leap into it thinking that your first project in Sibelius can be like your last project in Finale. I'd give the same advice (and have, repeatedly on this list) to anybody starting with Finale, no matter where they came from. Follow the tutorials, read the documentation concerning the entry methods, and be patient and practice it as a brand new tool. Those who expect Sibelius to be Finale-East (as in coming from a country to the east of the U.S.) will be greatly disappointed, just as anybody thinking that Finale is merely Sibelius-West will also be disappointed. They're two different programs which can achieve the same results -- elegant printed musical output. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On Oct 15, 2007, at 7:17 AM, dhbailey wrote: I don't think MakeMusic would dissolve the Speedy Entry tool were it the preferred tool of choice for a huge majority of its users, probably taking its lead from corporate users who purchase large numbers of site licenses, who may not be using Speedy Entry at all. I sent a panicked message to MakeMusic when the rumour first started circulating that Speedy was to be eliminated in favour of Simple. According to the response I received, what they are thinking of is COMBINING the two tools, with the functionality of both and no loss of commands whatsoever. Furthermore, it is not certain. I just hope they don't dick with it too much. I have so much investment in Speedy that any little change could slow me right down. There was a minor change in Speedy behaviour somewhere around 2004 that screwed me up completely. I used to tie notes across barlines by entering too large a value, then hitting Move extra notes to next measure. This would be selected by default after the first time, so it would make things fast when dealing with the large number of anticipations that you get in jazz music. However, when I do that in later versions, Speedy stops listening to the MIDI keyboard while moving the extra notes, so if I have a repeated pitch I get a rest instead of a note on the next entry, even though I am still holding the MIDI key down. This caused many problems for six months or so, especially if I rarely looked at the screen while entering music. Another area where I lost an important function in a new version is clearing Staff Styles. The Clear key (on Mac) used to work for that, but in 2008 it doesn't. I have to target each Staff Style one at a time and right-click and select Clear from the drop-down menu, which is considerably slower than the previous single keystroke. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Christopher Smith wrote: On Oct 15, 2007, at 7:17 AM, dhbailey wrote: I don't think MakeMusic would dissolve the Speedy Entry tool were it the preferred tool of choice for a huge majority of its users, probably taking its lead from corporate users who purchase large numbers of site licenses, who may not be using Speedy Entry at all. I sent a panicked message to MakeMusic when the rumour first started circulating that Speedy was to be eliminated in favour of Simple. According to the response I received, what they are thinking of is COMBINING the two tools, with the functionality of both and no loss of commands whatsoever. Furthermore, it is not certain. I just hope they don't dick with it too much. I have so much investment in Speedy that any little change could slow me right down. There was a minor change in Speedy behaviour somewhere around 2004 that screwed me up completely. I used to tie notes across barlines by entering too large a value, then hitting Move extra notes to next measure. This would be selected by default after the first time, so it would make things fast when dealing with the large number of anticipations that you get in jazz music. However, when I do that in later versions, Speedy stops listening to the MIDI keyboard while moving the extra notes, so if I have a repeated pitch I get a rest instead of a note on the next entry, even though I am still holding the MIDI key down. This caused many problems for six months or so, especially if I rarely looked at the screen while entering music. Another area where I lost an important function in a new version is clearing Staff Styles. The Clear key (on Mac) used to work for that, but in 2008 it doesn't. I have to target each Staff Style one at a time and right-click and select Clear from the drop-down menu, which is considerably slower than the previous single keystroke. The recent change in Speedy Entry behavior which now assigns ctrl-3 (top-row) to zoom factor, depriving us of the deeply-ingrained behavior of defining a triplet with ctrl-3 (top-row -- it still works with the numpad 3 key but that was never what I did) made me think that they don't consider speedy-entry users an important group anymore. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On 15.10.2007 dhbailey wrote: The recent change in Speedy Entry behavior which now assigns ctrl-3 (top-row) to zoom factor, depriving us of the deeply-ingrained behavior of defining a triplet with ctrl-3 (top-row -- it still works with the numpad 3 key but that was never what I did) made me think that they don't consider speedy-entry users an important group anymore. Is that so? Another reason not to upgrade. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
At 09:47 AM 10/15/2007, dhbailey wrote: The recent change in Speedy Entry behavior which now assigns ctrl-3 (top-row) to zoom factor, depriving us of the deeply-ingrained behavior of defining a triplet with ctrl-3 (top-row -- it still works with the numpad 3 key but that was never what I did) made me think that they don't consider speedy-entry users an important group anymore. It's not a change -- it's an unintended consequence. Lots of the behavior changes in Fin2008 involved making shortcuts consistent across tools, so that shortcuts that work on measures are the same with the new and improved Selection tool, or with the Measure tool, or with some other tool. So Ctrl-3 is now a zoom factor shortcut in all keys. BUT I believe it was an oversight not to disable the zoom behavior in Speedy, and this has been reported to MM lots of times. Obviously, when you're in the Speedy frame, non-Speedy shortcuts don't have much meaning. It would surprise me greatly if this were not fixed in the maintenance release. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On 15.10.2007 Christopher Smith wrote: I used to tie notes across barlines by entering too large a value, then hitting Move extra notes to next measure. This would be selected by default after the first time, so it would make things fast when dealing with the large number of anticipations that you get in jazz music. However, when I do that in later versions, Speedy stops listening to the MIDI keyboard while moving the extra notes, so if I have a repeated pitch I get a rest instead of a note on the next entry, even though I am still holding the MIDI key down. This caused many problems for six months or so, especially if I rarely looked at the screen while entering music. Wasn't it that very version which also got rid of the cancel button in that very dialog? Man did I curse Coda at the time, and I still do. Whoever made that design decision cannot have been using Finale much. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sibelius does allow the computer keyboard selection on pitches (in a much easier way than Finale, in my opinion, in that you hit an A and the closest A appears on the staff, B gives the nearest B, etc, rather than having to use A S D F G H J for one octave of A B C D E F G pitch entry) and it is the work of an instant to use ctrl-up or ctrl-down to change octaves for the pitch you just entered and then the next pitch key you press gives you the nearest example of that pitch. This is largely how Simple Entry works in Finale versions 2004 and above, except that you aren't forced to change the octave after entering it incorrectly at first. This is actually just one instance of a fairly fundamental difference between the two entry systems. Sibelius locks you in with one way and one order to enter these objects. So for example, with Sibelius you must select the accidental before entering your note. Here's a basic list of commands and the order you must issue them in: Duration: Select before entering note Augmentation Dot: before Tie: after Accidental: before Articulation: before Grace note: before (and then reselect duration if not eighth note grace note) Tuplet: after With Finale, each of these elements gives you the choice of before or after. You either press a key to affect the last entered entry (which is shown as selected after you enter it), or you press a key to lock that element into the input caret so that every note you enter gets that attribute. This means that you can, for example, either convert a note to a tuplet right after entering it, or you can lock on tuplets and have them entered automatically for each new set of tuplet notes you reach. This isn't possible in Sibelius, since tuplets must be entered after the note. Once you become familiar with the tool, this duality in Simple Entry becomes a valuable asset. For example, if you want to enter a string of grace notes in Finale, you can lock on grace notes with ctrl-g and then enter the notes (which will take whatever duration you last selected). If you want to enter only a single grace note, you can enter the note first as a regular note and then press alt-g to convert it. With Sibelius, entering a grace note is done through the keypad layouts. You switch to the second keypad, choose the grace note, switch back to the first keypad, choose the duration, enter the note, return to the second keypad, turn off the grace note, return to the first keypad. In Finale, if you make a mistake and enter the wrong duration for a note, you can use a single keystroke to fix it (alt-number - so alt-4 converts last note into eighth note). You don't have to arrow back to the note first or arrow forwards after. In Sibelius if you enter the wrong rhythm, you go back to it with the arrow key, press the duration number to fix it, and then press forward again to continue. If you forget to add your augmentation dot in Sibelius, you also have to go back to the note and add it. In Finale you just press the period key, because it lets you add them before or after entering the note. If you instead lock the dot in with the caret in Finale (ctrl-period), you can enter consecutive notes with augmentation dots. It's the same thing with accidentals and ties. If you wanted to, you could set up Finale's Simple Entry to work almost exactly like Sibelius' entry system by using only the commands Sibelius allows. Shortcuts in Simple Entry can be set up however you want them. But you can't really set Sibelius up to act like Finale. Simple Entry just has more functionality for handling situation-specific demands with fewer keypresses. Tyler Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
At 08:10 AM 10/15/2007, Christopher Smith wrote: I sent a panicked message to MakeMusic when the rumour first started circulating that Speedy was to be eliminated in favour of Simple. According to the response I received, what they are thinking of is COMBINING the two tools, with the functionality of both and no loss of commands whatsoever. Considering that Simple and Speedy have completely different keymappings, and also differ in whether you choose the pitch or the duration first, I don't understand how this could be accomplished. Perhaps what they meant is that they're looking at keeping the two tools, but adding some of the advanced properties of Simple to Speedy (like being able to add artics from within the tool, easier octave navigation and chord building, etc.). Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
I've been bitching about the lack of a Cancel button in the 'Too Many Beats... dialog box for years, to absolutely no avail. The response I last got from some dim-bulb tech support dweeb was they no longer felt it was consistent or necessary with the GUI. WHAT??? I scream every time I mis-hit a key in Speedy and get this dialog. And since I sometimes type like a hooved animal, this is pretty frequent. J D Thomas ThomaStudios On Oct 15, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: I used to tie notes across barlines by entering too large a value, then hitting Move extra notes to next measure. This would be selected by default after the first time, so it would make things fast when dealing with the large number of anticipations that you get in jazz music. However, when I do that in later versions, Speedy stops listening to the MIDI keyboard while moving the extra notes, so if I have a repeated pitch I get a rest instead of a note on the next entry, even though I am still holding the MIDI key down. This caused many problems for six months or so, especially if I rarely looked at the screen while entering music. Wasn't it that very version which also got rid of the cancel button in that very dialog? Man did I curse Coda at the time, and I still do. Whoever made that design decision cannot have been using Finale much. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Hmmm ... mine still defines a triplet with those key strokes, but I'm still on 2007 ... Dean On Oct 15, 2007, at 7:04 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 15.10.2007 dhbailey wrote: The recent change in Speedy Entry behavior which now assigns ctrl-3 (top-row) to zoom factor, depriving us of the deeply- ingrained behavior of defining a triplet with ctrl-3 (top-row -- it still works with the numpad 3 key but that was never what I did) made me think that they don't consider speedy-entry users an important group anymore. Is that so? Another reason not to upgrade. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home Don't worry about the end of the world, it's already tomorrow in Australia. Charles Shultz ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Hmmm ... mine still defines a triplet with those key strokes, but I'm still on 2007 ... That's right -- it was changed in Fin2008. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Lord, I'm glad I didn't upgrade! Dean On Oct 15, 2007, at 10:06 AM, dhbailey wrote: Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Hmmm ... mine still defines a triplet with those key strokes, but I'm still on 2007 ... That's right -- it was changed in Fin2008. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home Don't worry about the end of the world, it's already tomorrow in Australia. Charles Shultz ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Does Sibelius have a decent group of tutorials via which one may learn said techniques? Dean On Oct 15, 2007, at 4:27 AM, dhbailey wrote: Sibelius does allow the computer keyboard selection on pitches (in a much easier way than Finale, in my opinion, in that you hit an A and the closest A appears on the staff, B gives the nearest B, etc, rather than having to use A S D F G H J for one octave of A B C D E F G pitch entry) and it is the work of an instant to use ctrl-up or ctrl-down to change octaves for the pitch you just entered and then the next pitch key you press gives you the nearest example of that pitch. As with many aspects of Finale, it's quicker to do than to explain. My advice to everybody who is thinking of trying Sibelius -- don't just leap into it thinking that your first project in Sibelius can be like your last project in Finale. I'd give the same advice (and have, repeatedly on this list) to anybody starting with Finale, no matter where they came from. Follow the tutorials, read the documentation concerning the entry methods, and be patient and practice it as a brand new tool. Those who expect Sibelius to be Finale-East (as in coming from a country to the east of the U.S.) will be greatly disappointed, just as anybody thinking that Finale is merely Sibelius-West will also be disappointed. They're two different programs which can achieve the same results -- elegant printed musical output. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home Don't worry about the end of the world, it's already tomorrow in Australia. Charles Shultz ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Do they have a better guitar sound? George Ports - Original Message - From: dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 5:31 AM Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users Richard Smith wrote: Sibelius 5 comes with about 3GB of samples called Sibelius Sounds Essentials. It includes GPO, Garriton JABB, Concert and Maching Band, Virtual Drumline, and World Music. It also has VST/AU support so you can also use other sample libraries. Just to clarify -- it comes with SOME instruments from GPO, JABB, Concert and Marching Bands, etc. It by no means includes all the samples from any of them. But it does come with enough that complete concert band, complete orchestra (including saxophone), complete marching band and jazz band scores can be played back with high quality samples. No bass flute, though. For that you still have to resort to their GM library, which allows samples for any instrument to be played on any of the 128 midi notes. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Sibelius for Finale users
Hi Tyler, If MM implemented this, it would make it possible for me to consider making use of Simple Entry's advantages. Pitch first is a requirement for my way of thinking/working. Adding those advantages to Speedy would be even better for me. Chuck On Oct 15, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Tyler Turner wrote: --- Aaron Sherber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Considering that Simple and Speedy have completely different keymappings, and also differ in whether you choose the pitch or the duration first, I don't understand how this could be accomplished. Perhaps what they meant is that they're looking at keeping the two tools, but adding some of the advanced properties of Simple to Speedy (like being able to add artics from within the tool, easier octave navigation and chord building, etc.). You could add Speedy-style entry to Simple fairly easily. I've done it myself via a scripting language. For MIDI entry I think it makes a lot of sense, especially for composers who want to experiment with pitches before entering them. Tyler __ __ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
George Ports wrote: Do they have a better guitar sound? George Ports I couldn't really say, because what one person's better guitar sound is may well be another person's horrible guitar sound. And I don't write music for guitars so I haven't really compared them. The samples taken from Garritan products would be the same. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Re Speedy vs. Simple and Sibelius: When I started usin Finale (FinWin 97), I had a new computer with a temporary midi conflict from two sound cards. As a result, I couldn't use Speedy for a while and had to use Simple for a few weeks. That did give a benefit of becoming proficient with all the copying and transposing functions, because entering new notes was such a pain, but as soon as I got the sound card conflict resolved, I immediately switched to Speedy and have never left the Simple palette on my screen since. (I know 'it's improved now' but I don't care - speedy works well). One question about improved Simple- can you now enter chords in Simple entry? Also - I'm one of the people over on the Sibelius list, very recently. I asked about Garritan compatibilty, because I still might bite at the $80 Sibelius price. (I am told all the full Garritan products are fully compatible.) But I won't switch permanently unless I see real benefit. So far on the list the welcome to us on that list has been less than tremendous: 'Switch to Sibelius - simple entry is far better because it's the only one we have' (On this I agree 100% with David Fenton.) And we have been called rats leaving a sinking ship. Raymond Horton dhbailey wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: On 14 Oct 2007 at 16:28, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 03:42 PM 10/14/2007, David W. Fenton wrote: The point is that Sibelius is not as versatile as Finale in terms of providing options for music entry. Bad-mouthing Finale doesn't change the fact that Sibelius is more limiting, and enforces a single way of working, whereas Finale offers choice. This is also true. Although it's only relevant for those of us who love Speedy. But that's a huge majority of the long-term users, no? It's really a huge stumbling block for me -- when I need to use Finale, I mostly need to do it quickly, so I just don't have the time to learn a new entry method that seems to me to be much less efficient. I used to think that it was a huge majority of the long-term users, but from various posts over the years I have been surprised at how many of people I would have assumed used Speedy were actually using Simple Entry. And quite a few jumped from Speedy to the newly revamped Simple Entry tool a few versions ago. I don't think MakeMusic would dissolve the Speedy Entry tool were it the preferred tool of choice for a huge majority of its users, probably taking its lead from corporate users who purchase large numbers of site licenses, who may not be using Speedy Entry at all. And I can well understand the time constraints concerning learning a new tool. So it seems that moving to Sibelius isn't really an option for you (and quite possibly for many others.) I'm not abandoning Finale, but I am finding working in Sibelius to be much easier than I had formerly thought it was, and the conversion to Sibelius' entry methods happened practically overnight for me, so it might not be as difficult a transition as you think it will be. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
I get this a lot, also. I just let it do it's dirty work, then hit Ctrl_Z to undo it. (sigh). RBH ThomaStudios wrote: I've been bitching about the lack of a Cancel button in the 'Too Many Beats... dialog box for years, to absolutely no avail. The response I last got from some dim-bulb tech support dweeb was they no longer felt it was consistent or necessary with the GUI. WHAT??? I scream every time I mis-hit a key in Speedy and get this dialog. And since I sometimes type like a hooved animal, this is pretty frequent. J D Thomas ThomaStudios ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Seems to me that a rat leaving a sinking ship is an intelligent rat. Dean On Oct 15, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Ray Horton wrote: Re Speedy vs. Simple and Sibelius: When I started usin Finale (FinWin 97), I had a new computer with a temporary midi conflict from two sound cards. As a result, I couldn't use Speedy for a while and had to use Simple for a few weeks. That did give a benefit of becoming proficient with all the copying and transposing functions, because entering new notes was such a pain, but as soon as I got the sound card conflict resolved, I immediately switched to Speedy and have never left the Simple palette on my screen since. (I know 'it's improved now' but I don't care - speedy works well). One question about improved Simple- can you now enter chords in Simple entry? Also - I'm one of the people over on the Sibelius list, very recently. I asked about Garritan compatibilty, because I still might bite at the $80 Sibelius price. (I am told all the full Garritan products are fully compatible.) But I won't switch permanently unless I see real benefit. So far on the list the welcome to us on that list has been less than tremendous: 'Switch to Sibelius - simple entry is far better because it's the only one we have' (On this I agree 100% with David Fenton.) And we have been called rats leaving a sinking ship. Raymond Horton dhbailey wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: On 14 Oct 2007 at 16:28, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 03:42 PM 10/14/2007, David W. Fenton wrote: The point is that Sibelius is not as versatile as Finale in terms of providing options for music entry. Bad-mouthing Finale doesn't change the fact that Sibelius is more limiting, and enforces a single way of working, whereas Finale offers choice. This is also true. Although it's only relevant for those of us who love Speedy. But that's a huge majority of the long-term users, no? It's really a huge stumbling block for me -- when I need to use Finale, I mostly need to do it quickly, so I just don't have the time to learn a new entry method that seems to me to be much less efficient. I used to think that it was a huge majority of the long-term users, but from various posts over the years I have been surprised at how many of people I would have assumed used Speedy were actually using Simple Entry. And quite a few jumped from Speedy to the newly revamped Simple Entry tool a few versions ago. I don't think MakeMusic would dissolve the Speedy Entry tool were it the preferred tool of choice for a huge majority of its users, probably taking its lead from corporate users who purchase large numbers of site licenses, who may not be using Speedy Entry at all. And I can well understand the time constraints concerning learning a new tool. So it seems that moving to Sibelius isn't really an option for you (and quite possibly for many others.) I'm not abandoning Finale, but I am finding working in Sibelius to be much easier than I had formerly thought it was, and the conversion to Sibelius' entry methods happened practically overnight for me, so it might not be as difficult a transition as you think it will be. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home Don't worry about the end of the world, it's already tomorrow in Australia. Charles Shultz ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Ray Horton wrote: Re Speedy vs. Simple and Sibelius: When I started usin Finale (FinWin 97), I had a new computer with a temporary midi conflict from two sound cards. As a result, I couldn't use Speedy for a while and had to use Simple for a few weeks. That did give a benefit of becoming proficient with all the copying and transposing functions, because entering new notes was such a pain, but as soon as I got the sound card conflict resolved, I immediately switched to Speedy and have never left the Simple palette on my screen since. (I know 'it's improved now' but I don't care - speedy works well). One question about improved Simple- can you now enter chords in Simple entry? Also - I'm one of the people over on the Sibelius list, very recently. I asked about Garritan compatibilty, because I still might bite at the $80 Sibelius price. (I am told all the full Garritan products are fully compatible.) But I won't switch permanently unless I see real benefit. So far on the list the welcome to us on that list has been less than tremendous: 'Switch to Sibelius - simple entry is far better because it's the only one we have' (On this I agree 100% with David Fenton.) And we have been called rats leaving a sinking ship. I'm a member of that list, too, and I don't recall anybody saying that simple entry is the only one we have. The entry methods are different between the two programs and there really isn't a way to compare directly Sibelius's mixture of entry capabilities with a single Finale tool. Yes, Sibelius doesn't split their entry methods between two different tools, but that doesn't mean there is only one entry method for Sibelius. Any combination of computer keyboard, mouse and midi-keyboard is possible in Sibelius, just as in Finale. The one control which Sibelius lacks that Finale has is the ability to use the up/down cursor keys to place the pitch. And if that's a deal-breaker for somebody, that's fine, there's no reason to switch. I certainly won't try to tell anybody they should move to Sibelius. I will say that using a midi keyboard along with the numpad layouts in Sibelius, I was amazed to find that I am as fast at entering music in Sibelius as I am using Speedy Entry in Finale, and far faster than I have ever been able to be using Simple Entry in Finale. When new people join that group there isn't usually a slew of welcoming messages, but when I joined this Finale list there wasn't any welcoming message either. I jumped in to the discussion, just as people do on the Sibelius list. I didn't get any sort of welcome message when I joined that list either. The remark about rats leaving a sinking ship was tongue in cheek (I know the person who posted it). But I will say that I made the transition to being able to work with Sibelius before MakeMusic's corporate floundering forced me to make it when I wasn't ready or able to make the transition. Now I can work comfortably in either program as the mood takes me, sharpening my skills in both and should MakeMusic either go under or decide to stop upgrading Finale and to stop supporting it, I'll be prepared. If that makes me a rat leaving a sinking ship then that's fine with me. I certainly don't feel insulted by it. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On Mon, October 15, 2007 3:21 pm, dhbailey wrote: The one control which Sibelius lacks that Finale has is the ability to use the up/down cursor keys to place the pitch. Ack! That's the only method of entry I use in Finale! Wuncha know... Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tyler Turner wrote: [snip] In Finale, if you make a mistake and enter the wrong duration for a note, you can use a single keystroke to fix it (alt-number - so alt-4 converts last note into eighth note). You don't have to arrow back to the note first or arrow forwards after. In Sibelius if you As long as you haven't yet entered the next note, in Sibelius you can simply hit the proper numpad key to change the duration. No need to cursor back. As long as a note is highlighted (as the one that has just been entered remains until either another note is entered or the ESC key is hit), hitting a duration key (without having to remember to do alt-number) will change the duration. I checked again, and this is incorrect. In Sibelius, when the caret is present, pressing the duration key will always set the duration for the next note to be entered and not affect the currently selected (last entered) note. It will not change the duration of the last note you entered. If you want to change the last entered note, you DO have to arrow back to the note, which removes the caret, press the duration key, then arrow forward to get the caret back. In Finale this is not necessary, as you can use a shortcut to change the duration of the last entered note even though the caret is present and you haven't backtracked. Tyler In either program, if you've entered an intervening note you have to cursor back to the one you want to change. In Sibelius once that's highlighted, simply hitting the proper number changes the duration. [snip] -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
I'd hope a rat with paws inquisitively on both ship and lifeboat might display the best instinctual wisdom for self-survival. After all: I'm merely curious to see if the Roquefort is truly greener on the other side. Best, Les Les Marsden Founding Music Director and Conductor, The Mariposa Symphony Orchestra Music and Mariposa? Ah, Paradise!!! http://arts-mariposa.org/symphony.html http://www.geocities.com/~jbenz/lesbio.html - Original Message - From: Dean M. Estabrook To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users Seems to me that a rat leaving a sinking ship is an intelligent rat. Dean ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
dhbailey wrote: Ray Horton wrote: Re Speedy vs. Simple and Sibelius: ... So far on the list the welcome to us on that list has been less than tremendous: 'Switch to Sibelius - simple entry is far better because it's the only one we have' (On this I agree 100% with David Fenton.) And we have been called rats leaving a sinking ship. I'm a member of that list, too, and I don't recall anybody saying that simple entry is the only one we have. Of course, I was paraphrasing. (I used single quotes - you added double.) The message said, more or less, that _between those two tools_ all former Finale Speedy users would want to switch because 'simple is better', and, BTW, the only one _of those two_ that they have. Finale has many ways of entering notes, also. Most of us use either Speedy or Simple. And if calling a stranger who just walked into a room a rat, then needing a friend to explain that it was a supposed to be a joke is their idea of a welcome, hmm... RBH The entry methods are different between the two programs and there really isn't a way to compare directly Sibelius's mixture of entry capabilities with a single Finale tool. Yes, Sibelius doesn't split their entry methods between two different tools, but that doesn't mean there is only one entry method for Sibelius. ... The remark about rats leaving a sinking ship was tongue in cheek (I know the person who posted it). But I will say that I made the transition to being able to work with Sibelius before MakeMusic's corporate floundering forced me to make it when I wasn't ready or able to make the transition. Now I can work comfortably in either program as the mood takes me, sharpening my skills in both and should MakeMusic either go under or decide to stop upgrading Finale and to stop supporting it, I'll be prepared. If that makes me a rat leaving a sinking ship then that's fine with me. I certainly don't feel insulted by it. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
$On 15 Oct 2007 at 15:21, dhbailey wrote: Any combination of computer keyboard, mouse and midi-keyboard is possible in Sibelius, just as in Finale. The one control which Sibelius lacks that Finale has is the ability to use the up/down cursor keys to place the pitch. And if that's a deal-breaker for somebody, that's fine, there's no reason to switch. I certainly won't try to tell anybody they should move to Sibelius. I will say that using a midi keyboard along with the numpad layouts in Sibelius, I was amazed to find that I am as fast at entering music in Sibelius as I am using Speedy Entry in Finale, and far faster than I have ever been able to be using Simple Entry in Finale. My problem with the Sibelius approach is the assumption behind its design that you will put all attributes of a note on it during the initial entry step. I deduce that this is the assumption because it's much more difficult to apply articulations and expressions and the like in Sibelius after note entry than it is in Finale. I am very fast in Finale with Speedy and the Midi keyboard getting the notes and rhythms in. I then go back and add everything else in one pass. I tried this approach in Sib4 and found it involved a whole helluva lot of mousing and switching keypad layouts, as opposed to Finale where the only switching was between tools, and everything else was with metatools (well, most everything). Am I missing something about Sibelius? Or is this yet another case of the abominable practice of designing a UI on the assumption that your users will use a macro program to create their own shortcuts? -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Aaron Sherber wrote: At 03:21 PM 10/15/2007, dhbailey wrote: possible in Sibelius, just as in Finale. The one control which Sibelius lacks that Finale has is the ability to use the up/down cursor keys to place the pitch. That's not true. Sibelius lacks an equivalent to Finale's Speedy without MIDI, using the computer keyboard as a 3-octave keyboard. This is not a small thing for some of us. Sibelius also appears to lack a system for entering notes in which you select the pitch first and the duration second, as in Speedy. This is also not a small thing for some of us. Yes, I had forgotten about the 3-octave keyboard simulation in Speedy, you're correct. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On 15 Oct 2007 at 16:03, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 15.10.2007 Christopher Smith wrote: I used to tie notes across barlines by entering too large a value, then hitting Move extra notes to next measure. This would be selected by default after the first time, so it would make things fast when dealing with the large number of anticipations that you get in jazz music. However, when I do that in later versions, Speedy stops listening to the MIDI keyboard while moving the extra notes, so if I have a repeated pitch I get a rest instead of a note on the next entry, even though I am still holding the MIDI key down. This caused many problems for six months or so, especially if I rarely looked at the screen while entering music. Wasn't it that very version which also got rid of the cancel button in that very dialog? Man did I curse Coda at the time, and I still do. Whoever made that design decision cannot have been using Finale much. No, the cancel button was removed by at least Finale 2003, because that's the version I have, and it was the first one to have it -- a major annoyance at first, but 4 years later, I don't really notice it any more. I guess I've just become accustomed to the extra steps. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Tyler Turner wrote: --- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tyler Turner wrote: [snip] In Finale, if you make a mistake and enter the wrong duration for a note, you can use a single keystroke to fix it (alt-number - so alt-4 converts last note into eighth note). You don't have to arrow back to the note first or arrow forwards after. In Sibelius if you As long as you haven't yet entered the next note, in Sibelius you can simply hit the proper numpad key to change the duration. No need to cursor back. As long as a note is highlighted (as the one that has just been entered remains until either another note is entered or the ESC key is hit), hitting a duration key (without having to remember to do alt-number) will change the duration. I checked again, and this is incorrect. In Sibelius, when the caret is present, pressing the duration key will always set the duration for the next note to be entered and not affect the currently selected (last entered) note. It will not change the duration of the last note you entered. If you want to change the last entered note, you DO have to arrow back to the note, which removes the caret, press the duration key, then arrow forward to get the caret back. I admit error in my previous statement concerning this -- Tyler is correct, and I was mistaken. As long as the caret is present, representing continuous entry, selecting a different note value affects only the next note to be entered. However, back-arrow, new duration key, forward-arrow is the same procedure for correcting a note value in Speedy Entry in Finale, so in this regard Speedy Entry users are even with Sibelius users. That may be one of the things that got improved in Simple Entry in Finale, but many of us haven't gotten our heads around that tool yet. I do have to say that after many years of doing pitch, then rhythm it really wasn't that hard to change to rhythm first, then pitch, for me. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Mariposa Symphony Orchestra wrote: I'd hope a rat with paws inquisitively on both ship and lifeboat might display the best instinctual wisdom for self-survival. After all: I'm merely curious to see if the Roquefort is truly greener on the other side. It's not necessarily greener, I'd say it's just as green but better tended. After David Fenton raised the possibility that these long-time bugs are not being taken care of because MakeMusic may be (emphasize MAY, and I realize that David was not trying to give the impression that he had any inside information) doing a total rewrite of the code base, I am cautiously hopeful that my recent pessimism will eventually prove to be unfounded. So this rat is firmly keeping his feet firmly planted on both ship and life-boat and hoping against hope that I don't fall into the water as the boats drift apart. But I have my life-preserver on (that's former versions of Finale where I could do all that I needed 99% of the time, even if not with the luxury of linked score/parts). So no matter what happens I don't intend to drown in the mess of notation sofware. :-) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
I think that is where a lot of us are right now, both in the ship and the life boat. dhbailey wrote: So this rat is firmly keeping his feet firmly planted on both ship and life-boat and hoping against hope that I don't fall into the water as the boats drift apart. But I have my life-preserver on (that's former versions of Finale where I could do all that I needed 99% of the time, even if not with the luxury of linked score/parts). So no matter what happens I don't intend to drown in the mess of notation sofware. :-) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Matthew Hindson fastmail account wrote: Aaron Sherber wrote: 2. I find it much more intuitive to select pitch first and then duration (Speedy) rather than duration first and then pitch (Simple). This is how we think when we write music by hand; the pen moves to the appropriate place on the staff, and then we write the value we want. We don't mentally select a half note, say, and then decide the pitch. I agree 100%, and it's one of the big advantages Finale has over Sibelius. I asked on the Sibelius support site about this but it's not possible. I'm investigating using XML to enable note entry in Finale, and then transferring the file over to Sibelius and going from there. Too soon to give any distinct pros/cons yet. But I don't want to have to change my entire method of thinking to suit a computer application. (On a side note, there are some aggro types on the Sibelius chat site! Maybe it's a by-product of the why would you want to do that - you should do it our way mentality that Sibelius used to have in the old days that has somehow filtered to some of their users) Do you mean the chat site which is part of the Sibelius web-site? I don't like that group any more than I like the Finale forum which is part of the Finale web-site. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
David W. Fenton wrote: On 14 Oct 2007 at 7:59, Richard Smith wrote: Sorry. Try this one. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/message/33713. Sorry, but for a thread to begin with this: Sibelius' keyboard entry routines are what Finale has been trying to copy for several years. This just by no stretch of the imagination a true statement. Simple Entry existed before Sibelius existed. Yes, it has been significantly changed, but in ways that are organic to the evolution of GUIs and increased processing power in the computers funning Finale. That the solutions to some of those problems may be nearly identical is due to the fact that the task is pretty much identical. Yes, Simple Entry existed before Sibelius, but it has been curious watching MakeMusic morph Simple Entry to match what Sibelius had already introduced, once it brought out a Windows/Mac version. I wonder what sort of changes would have been implemented in the Simple Entry tool had Sibelius not appeared on the horizon. My bet is that it would be the Speedy Entry tool which would be getting the improvements and Simple Entry would have stagnated rather than the other way around. Remember when MakeMusic used to actually push Speedy Entry as the preferred entry tool? Nowadays they are working to dismantle it. Hardly the organic evolution of GUIs I would think. And the advice to loose [sic] the Speedy Entry habit is going to be very off-putting to those like me who are very fluent in it. I will agree with you on this point, David. And I would also back it up by saying that not all Finale users are going to like Sibelius, so anybody consider changing or investigating Sibelius should do so at their own risk and should download the demo and experiment a lot before taking the plunge. Of course at the currently available $80 cross-grade through audiomidi.com it is a great way to actually test the entire program complete with ability to print and save with a much smaller risk than before. But I will go out on a limb and say that Sibelius' entry methods are not as limited as they might appear and while there is no direct crossover for computer-keyboard-only Speedy users who use the cursor keys for pitch placement (as I do) the transition is far easier than you might think. The point is that Sibelius is not as versatile as Finale in terms of providing options for music entry. Bad-mouthing Finale doesn't change the fact that Sibelius is more limiting, and enforces a single way of working, whereas Finale offers choice. Sibelius offers more than one entry method. Finale has acknowledged that it is getting rid of the Speedy Entry tool, incorporating aspects of it into other tools. This long-time Speedy Entry user, using computer keyboard only, found the transition to Sibelius quite easy to make. and Sibelius has a user-configurable keyboard shortcut setup that makes it quite easy to configure Sibelius to duplicate much of Finale's entry method. Sibelius does allow computer-keyboard-only entry, it allows for computer-keyboard-and-mouse entry, it allows for midi-computer-combined-with-computer-keyboard entry, and it allows for midi-keyboard-only entry. The one aspect of Finale's Speedy entry methods that Sibelius lacks is the ability to use the up/down cursor keys to move to where you want to place the next pitch. Yes, the two programs are different. But trying to say that Sibelius's limited methods are just better than Finale's is not going to win converts to Sibelius. It's going to make Finale users defensive and suspicious of the rest of the advice. Personally, I would never say one program is better than the other in such user-specific tastes and techniques. They're different, but not as different as many people think, nor as different as they have been in the past. I'm still waiting for Finale to fix it's improved Fin2k8 speedy entry tool so that ctrl-3 (top-row number key) initiates triplets again. Why they would change that escapes my ability to understand. But with the professed aim of doing away with the Speedy Entry tool as a separate tool and incorporating it into other tools (I would guess mostly into the Simple Entry tool) they may not fix it at all as it stands now. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On 15-Oct-07, at 6:42 PM, Matthew Hindson fastmail account wrote: (On a side note, there are some aggro types on the Sibelius chat site! I had to look up that word! 8-) I thought at first that it was Aussie slang. Apparently it comes from online game playing, where either all the players gang up on one other player, or when a non-player character targets you because you attacked it. In this context, I guess it means pile on, to use an American football term... Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
At 07:11 AM 10/15/2007, dhbailey wrote: Finale has acknowledged that it is getting rid of the Speedy Entry tool, incorporating aspects of it into other tools. I don't believe this is true. Christopher Smith said that an MM employee told him that they are thinking of combining the two tools, with the functionality of both and no loss of commands whatsoever. Unless you have other information, it's a long leap from this to acknowledging getting rid of Speedy. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Aaron Sherber wrote: At 07:11 AM 10/15/2007, dhbailey wrote: Finale has acknowledged that it is getting rid of the Speedy Entry tool, incorporating aspects of it into other tools. I don't believe this is true. Christopher Smith said that an MM employee told him that they are thinking of combining the two tools, with the functionality of both and no loss of commands whatsoever. Unless you have other information, it's a long leap from this to acknowledging getting rid of Speedy. Here is a message Christopher posted about this issue, back on August 8th: dhbailey wrote: This indeed is very disturbing news -- why a company would take a (until recently) perfectly good working tool in an application, one which many people have grown to depend upon, and which even the company used to tout as the preferred tool for anything other than novice or very casual users, and then intentionally phase it out escapes my ability to understand. Here is a reply I got in response to my question whether they were going to drop Speedy: Dear Christopher, Thanks for your comments. At this point no decisions have been made for what will and what will not be done in any future version, other than there will be future versions. I can say that any changes of functionality like this, where tools are removed like what happened in Finale 2008 with MassEdit, that tool's functionality will be moved as completely as possible to another tool. We are very sensitive to the views and work flows of our users, and we know that Speedy Entry is invaluable to most of our more proficient users (as well as a favorite to many of the Finale users who work here at MakeMusic). I know that this is not a we will never do this answer you were probably hoping for, but I do want you to rest assured that if anything happens with Speedy Entry, it's functionality will remain in the program. Phil H. MakeMusic Customer Support ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale phrases such as where tools are removed and if anything happens with Speedy Entry it's functionality will remain in the program sure indicate to me that the possibility exists that it might be removed. I will admit that it isn't the same as what I said, that they are acknowledging that they will get rid of it, but it sure sounds to me like a backhanded way of saying that it's a strong possibility. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On 14.10.2007 Richard Smith wrote: Sorry. Try this one. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/message/33713. Thanks. I have a question: Does Sibelius have something similar to Engraver slurs? Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
At 07:27 AM 10/15/2007, dhbailey wrote: Sibelius does allow the computer keyboard selection on pitches (in a much easier way than Finale, in my opinion, in that you hit an A and the closest A appears on the staff, B gives the nearest B, etc, Isn't that exactly how the current Simple works? Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On 14.10.2007 Richard Smith wrote: I am a long time Finale user (since v.2) currently using 2005. I am also experienced with Sibelius (since v.1) which is my preferred program. Since so many on this list are investigating Sibelius, may I draw your attention to this thread on the Sibelius list http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/messages Richard, could you post that link again? The one you sent just leads to the general list messages, and since we haven't a clue what the thread is about we don't know where to look. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Well, if this post gets out there, since I had no responses to my query inre what sorts of playback sounds were available in Sib 5, and after finally having found some of the info on the Sibelius product description, I went ahead the coughed up the $80 and ordered one. I'd still like to know from those who have now used both fin and Sib 5, are there more options for library sounds in sib than in fin, and if so, what is the relative quality of said sounds? Looking forward to playing around with it and seeing what it can do. The user friendly tech support will be a welcome change, especially for one not particularly technically gifted, as you have do doubt perceived by this time. While I'm at it, I do want to thank all the folks who have helped me get through the learning curve on mac fin oo7 (Shaken, not stirred, thank you very much). Yes there is more variety in Sibelius. Whereas Finale only includes the GPO subset and then included the DXi version of the SmartMusic soundfont, Sibelius also got some instruments from the JABB set so there are saxophones included. And it also includes wider choices of percussion instruments along with a GM set. It is a larger set, all of the same quality that is included with Finale. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Richard Smith wrote: Sibelius 5 comes with about 3GB of samples called Sibelius Sounds Essentials. It includes GPO, Garriton JABB, Concert and Maching Band, Virtual Drumline, and World Music. It also has VST/AU support so you can also use other sample libraries. Just to clarify -- it comes with SOME instruments from GPO, JABB, Concert and Marching Bands, etc. It by no means includes all the samples from any of them. But it does come with enough that complete concert band, complete orchestra (including saxophone), complete marching band and jazz band scores can be played back with high quality samples. No bass flute, though. For that you still have to resort to their GM library, which allows samples for any instrument to be played on any of the 128 midi notes. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Sorry. Try this one. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/message/33713. RGS Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 14.10.2007 Richard Smith wrote: I am a long time Finale user (since v.2) currently using 2005. I am also experienced with Sibelius (since v.1) which is my preferred program. Since so many on this list are investigating Sibelius, may I draw your attention to this thread on the Sibelius list http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/messages Richard, could you post that link again? The one you sent just leads to the general list messages, and since we haven't a clue what the thread is about we don't know where to look. Johannes ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes there is more variety in Sibelius. Whereas Finale only includes the GPO subset and then included the DXi version of the SmartMusic soundfont, Sibelius also got some instruments from the JABB set so there are saxophones included. And it also includes wider choices of percussion instruments along with a GM set. It is a larger set, all of the same quality that is included with Finale. This isn't the case with Finale 2008. Both programs include sounds from JABB and the Concert/Marching Band set as well as a couple of others. Their sets are somewhat different in the quantity and selection of sounds they've taken from any particular set, but they are fairly comparable on the whole. Tyler Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On 14 Oct 2007 at 7:59, Richard Smith wrote: Sorry. Try this one. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/message/33713. Sorry, but for a thread to begin with this: Sibelius' keyboard entry routines are what Finale has been trying to copy for several years. This just by no stretch of the imagination a true statement. Simple Entry existed before Sibelius existed. Yes, it has been significantly changed, but in ways that are organic to the evolution of GUIs and increased processing power in the computers funning Finale. That the solutions to some of those problems may be nearly identical is due to the fact that the task is pretty much identical. And the advice to loose [sic] the Speedy Entry habit is going to be very off-putting to those like me who are very fluent in it. The point is that Sibelius is not as versatile as Finale in terms of providing options for music entry. Bad-mouthing Finale doesn't change the fact that Sibelius is more limiting, and enforces a single way of working, whereas Finale offers choice. Yes, the two programs are different. But trying to say that Sibelius's limited methods are just better than Finale's is not going to win converts to Sibelius. It's going to make Finale users defensive and suspicious of the rest of the advice. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
At 03:42 PM 10/14/2007, David W. Fenton wrote: Sorry, but for a thread to begin with this: Sibelius' keyboard entry routines are what Finale has been trying to copy for several years. This just by no stretch of the imagination a true statement. Simple Entry existed before Sibelius existed. Yes, it has been significantly changed, but in ways that are organic to the evolution of GUIs and increased processing power in the computers funning Finale. David, I don't believe this is true. Yes, Simple Entry has been around forever, but the revamped Simple introduced a few years ago was very specifically an attempt to mimic the functionality of Sibelius note entry. The point is that Sibelius is not as versatile as Finale in terms of providing options for music entry. Bad-mouthing Finale doesn't change the fact that Sibelius is more limiting, and enforces a single way of working, whereas Finale offers choice. This is also true. Although it's only relevant for those of us who love Speedy. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
On 14 Oct 2007 at 16:28, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 03:42 PM 10/14/2007, David W. Fenton wrote: The point is that Sibelius is not as versatile as Finale in terms of providing options for music entry. Bad-mouthing Finale doesn't change the fact that Sibelius is more limiting, and enforces a single way of working, whereas Finale offers choice. This is also true. Although it's only relevant for those of us who love Speedy. But that's a huge majority of the long-term users, no? It's really a huge stumbling block for me -- when I need to use Finale, I mostly need to do it quickly, so I just don't have the time to learn a new entry method that seems to me to be much less efficient. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
--- Aaron Sherber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David, I don't believe this is true. Yes, Simple Entry has been around forever, but the revamped Simple introduced a few years ago was very specifically an attempt to mimic the functionality of Sibelius note entry. The revamped Simple Entry of 2004 and 2005 was not intended to mimic Sibelius but rather to blatantly borrow the things Sibelius was doing right and then go way past them in coming up with an efficient tool. Sibelius still maintains an advantage in regional selection that helps greatly when entering music. But looking purely at the entry systems (for both notes and other objects), Simple Entry in Finale is much more efficient. Tyler Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545433 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
David, I'm sorry if I offended you. It was not my intent to insult Finale our your working method, merely to say that while Speedy Entry is for many (myself included) the most efficient manner of working with Finale, Sibelius works best with keyboard step time entry methods. I realize that Finale had Simple Entry long before Sibelius hit the US but it was little more than a clumsy point click novice method. It was only when Sibelius developed really useful step time entry that Finale began to modify Simple Entry into the very productive tool it has become today. Even in my Finale 2005, the Simple Entry methods are clumsy compared to Sibelius. I am told it's gotten much better in later versions. This is not to insult Finale; I think we've all become used to seeing good ideas migrate from one software to another. Think how many things have changed in the last 5 years in all software fields. Heck, Sibelius now has Panorama view. We all know where that idea came from. I know you prefer the Finale interface. You have written that in response to me before. I respect that and know you're not the only one. It would be a boring world if we were all the same. My purpose in that thread was simply to try and smooth the way for those trying Sibelius out. I posted it on the Sibelius list because I thought it inappropriate on this one and I hoped to get other Sibelius users to contribute their experiences. Please accept my apology for any misunderstanding. Richard Smith David W. Fenton wrote: On 14 Oct 2007 at 7:59, Richard Smith wrote: Sorry. Try this one. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/message/33713. Sorry, but for a thread to begin with this: Sibelius' keyboard entry routines are what Finale has been trying to copy for several years. This just by no stretch of the imagination a true statement. Simple Entry existed before Sibelius existed. Yes, it has been significantly changed, but in ways that are organic to the evolution of GUIs and increased processing power in the computers funning Finale. That the solutions to some of those problems may be nearly identical is due to the fact that the task is pretty much identical. And the advice to loose [sic] the Speedy Entry habit is going to be very off-putting to those like me who are very fluent in it. The point is that Sibelius is not as versatile as Finale in terms of providing options for music entry. Bad-mouthing Finale doesn't change the fact that Sibelius is more limiting, and enforces a single way of working, whereas Finale offers choice. Yes, the two programs are different. But trying to say that Sibelius's limited methods are just better than Finale's is not going to win converts to Sibelius. It's going to make Finale users defensive and suspicious of the rest of the advice. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
I am a long time Finale user (since v.2) currently using 2005. I am also experienced with Sibelius (since v.1) which is my preferred program. Since so many on this list are investigating Sibelius, may I draw your attention to this thread on the Sibelius list http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/messages Richard Smith ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Well, if this post gets out there, since I had no responses to my query inre what sorts of playback sounds were available in Sib 5, and after finally having found some of the info on the Sibelius product description, I went ahead the coughed up the $80 and ordered one. I'd still like to know from those who have now used both fin and Sib 5, are there more options for library sounds in sib than in fin, and if so, what is the relative quality of said sounds? Looking forward to playing around with it and seeing what it can do. The user friendly tech support will be a welcome change, especially for one not particularly technically gifted, as you have do doubt perceived by this time. While I'm at it, I do want to thank all the folks who have helped me get through the learning curve on mac fin oo7 (Shaken, not stirred, thank you very much). With Gratitude, Dean On Oct 13, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Richard Smith wrote: I am a long time Finale user (since v.2) currently using 2005. I am also experienced with Sibelius (since v.1) which is my preferred program. Since so many on this list are investigating Sibelius, may I draw your attention to this thread on the Sibelius list http:// tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/messages Richard Smith ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home Don't worry about the end of the world, it's already tomorrow in Australia. Charles Shultz ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius for Finale users
Sibelius 5 comes with about 3GB of samples called Sibelius Sounds Essentials. It includes GPO, Garriton JABB, Concert and Maching Band, Virtual Drumline, and World Music. It also has VST/AU support so you can also use other sample libraries. Richard Smith http://www.rgsmithmusic.com Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Well, if this post gets out there, since I had no responses to my query inre what sorts of playback sounds were available in Sib 5, and after finally having found some of the info on the Sibelius product description, I went ahead the coughed up the $80 and ordered one. I'd still like to know from those who have now used both fin and Sib 5, are there more options for library sounds in sib than in fin, and if so, what is the relative quality of said sounds? Looking forward to playing around with it and seeing what it can do. The user friendly tech support will be a welcome change, especially for one not particularly technically gifted, as you have do doubt perceived by this time. While I'm at it, I do want to thank all the folks who have helped me get through the learning curve on mac fin oo7 (Shaken, not stirred, thank you very much). With Gratitude, Dean On Oct 13, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Richard Smith wrote: I am a long time Finale user (since v.2) currently using 2005. I am also experienced with Sibelius (since v.1) which is my preferred program. Since so many on this list are investigating Sibelius, may I draw your attention to this thread on the Sibelius list http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/messages Richard Smith ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Dean M. Estabrook http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home Don't worry about the end of the world, it's already tomorrow in Australia. Charles Shultz ___ 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] 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
[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] 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] 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
[Finale] Sibelius to Finale
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 ___ 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)? Not for free. The Recordare sells a Dolet plug in for Sibelius, that converts a Sibelius file to music XML, from which it can be imported from Music XML into Finale. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
David W. Fenton wrote: My point is that simple optimization (i.e., removing blank staves from a systen) should happen automatically if you have optimization turned on for the passage of music represented on a system (while I understand that Johannes has a use for optimization being stored in absolute systems, I think that's a different kind of issue that comes about because of the way one is forced to create parts in Finale -- if they were all stored in the same file instead of in separate files, his issue would likely go away, since you'd have a score layout and a part layout, all stored in a single file; but that's another issue where I think Finale is confusing and less than ideal). In my case this has nothing to do with parts at all. The reason I need to optimize out parts which have got music in them has to do with doubling parts. For instance, in some situations the first and second violins play identical parts, and for space reasons I just want to show one of them, but the other one needs to have the music in it both for later part extraction but also because the decision to optimize out the second violin part is made at a later stage and needs to be reversible. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
David, Optimization in Finale allows to remove blank staves _and_ makes the vertical spacing of each system independent from the global setting. It has *all* to do with the vertical spacing. You can optimize without removing empty staves. Unless I am missing something here it is you who hasn't understood the concept of optimization in Finale. The meaning of the word in this particular context is pretty much besides the point. But if anything to optimize means to make individual staves more optimal, and that could well mean increasing the space between staves. Johannes David W. Fenton wrote: On 3 Mar 2005 at 17:28, Mark D Lew wrote: It's just that I would have worded it to say that removal of empty staves is what needs to be separated from optimization. The meaning of the word optimization would then be associated with something that is not remotely related to the concept the word represents. You optimize in Finale in order to optimize the usage of space on the page, by eliminating blank staves, so you can fit more systems in fewer pages. This has *zilch* to do with vertical positioning of staves within systems. So, I think you have a completely backwards conception of what optimization actually is -- optimization *is* removing blank staves, and the part that you use of it is something else entirely that has nothing to do with optimizing space on the page (though you might reduce spacing between staves in order to fit more systems on one page; but you could also *increase* spacing in order to avoid overlap of extreme elements, and that is the opposite of optimizing). -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
I appreciate all the feedback and ideas, everyone, thank you. I've worked with 2005 for the last day now, and already see many dramatic improvements, and appreciated the returned control over the end product. So it is back to Finale for me. I've also written a blog entry on this topic (Finale vs. Sibelius) on my website, would be interested in your feedback: http://www.jefferycotton.net/info.asp?pgs=blogentryblbe=10 (The entry is entitled Sex in the Concert Hall -- which has nothing to do with Finale, alas.) Jeffery - Jeffery Cotton President Wired Musician, Inc. http://www.wiredmusician.net see my own website at http://www.jefferycotton.net - -Original Message- ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've also written a blog entry on this topic (Finale vs. Sibelius) on my website, would be interested in your feedback: Very nicely put, but for my money (all 0$ of it!) I would have liked more detail than just hairpin openings, particularly any details that might pertain to the accurate and readable, and not much else crowd. These are the ones I have to convince when talking about notation programs. BTW, in your second-last line in the blog, about getting out of Cassis, did you mean to write Maybe I can find that hansom cab driver again or did you really find him handsome? I wouldn't have been confused at all except for a previous line about Sibelius being the knockout bombshell in the tight dress talk about your mixed messages! No complaints from my end either way I am only interested in the idea that you want to express being clearly put across. 8-) Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
Thanks, Christopher -- I didn't want to go into too much detail about Sibelius' inadequacies in the blog, but as I do have to complete one piece I'm working on now in Sibelius (I'm too far along to start over now) it might be worth keeping a list of these things and posting them later. No, a hansom cab from Cassis to Marseille for 10 ten miles of southern French mountains would NOT be a good solution. I'm afraid I meant handsome (you can read the relevant blog entry here, and all will become clear: http://www.jefferycotton.net/info.asp?pgs=blogentryblbe=8). I didn't mean to cause confusion, but I doubt that the hot stud in leather chaps who can't spell 'hairpin' would have been quite as clear in its meaning -- to the majority anyway. Jeffery - Jeffery Cotton President Wired Musician, Inc. http://www.wiredmusician.net http://www.wiredmusician.net see my own website at http://www.jefferycotton.net http://www.jefferycotton.net - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Christopher Smith Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:45 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've also written a blog entry on this topic (Finale vs. Sibelius) on my website, would be interested in your feedback: Very nicely put, but for my money (all 0$ of it!) I would have liked more detail than just hairpin openings, particularly any details that might pertain to the accurate and readable, and not much else crowd. These are the ones I have to convince when talking about notation programs. BTW, in your second-last line in the blog, about getting out of Cassis, did you mean to write Maybe I can find that hansom cab driver again or did you really find him handsome? I wouldn't have been confused at all except for a previous line about Sibelius being the knockout bombshell in the tight dress talk about your mixed messages! No complaints from my end either way I am only interested in the idea that you want to express being clearly put across. 8-) Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've also written a blog entry on this topic (Finale vs. Sibelius) on my website, would be interested in your feedback: http://www.jefferycotton.net/info.asp?pgs=blogentryblbe=10 I hope you've also found the Interviews on the Finale Tips site. Those should give you many other aspects of what Finale is today. http://www.finaletips.nu/ Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
On 3 Mar 2005 at 19:37, Mark D Lew wrote: On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:40 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Do you currently have to define default vertical spacing for systems on a per-system basis? No, of course not -- there are default settings already. The default setting for the system I describe would be that the default vertical spacing for a measure would be equal to the system margins. If you reduced the vertical spacing for all the measures in a system, the system margins could then automatically contract. If you increased the vertical spacing for a selected block of measures, it would cause the system margins to expand to accommodate it. I don't understand this paragraph. The default vertical spacing for any system is the global positions set up in scroll view (ie, what I think of as the unoptimized' spacing). I have no idea what you mean by system margins. Maybe I do things differently, or maybe this is another semantic thing. We're talking past each other. I'm talking about system spacing and you're talking about spacing between staves within a system. Both are pre-defined when you go into page view, so, there's no reason that measure margins would not also be pre-defined by the same mechanism as system margins. Say you had only one measure in a system that needed expanded vertical space. In the current situation, you adjust the vertical spacing for the system to accommodate the measure that is the extreme case. If that measure gets moved to another system, you have to start over, changing two systems. If, on the other hand, you set the vertical spacing for that one measure, if it got moved to another system, the target system would then expand accordingly, and the original system would contract back to the defaults (or to the next smallest setting in the measures in that system). OK, that makes sense. I'm in the habit of doing all my layout adjustments only after layout is set, so the change wouldn't really benefit me much, but I can see how it would be a great help to people who make large changes to a piece after layout has already been set. You never change your mind? I usually lay out a piece onscreen, then print it and then make adjustments to the layout because of problems I couldn't perceive onscreen. I doubt that Finale would want to have that AND the ability to adjust by system. If so, and the change is made, then whenever I have page-specific adjustments I'd have to do them indirectly by simply selecting all the measures in that system and adjusting accordingly. But that would be all right. At that point, I won't be changing the layout anyway, so it all comes out the same. I don't see why you couldn't have both. You have a very strange definition of the word. Optimization means REMOVING BLANK SYSTEMS. Read the optimization dialog box -- it says nothing about vertical spacing of staves within systems. I'm using Fin Mac 2k2. My optimization dialog box says this: Optimizing can remove empty staves from Page View AND/OR make staves in specified systems independently adjustable. In other words, Finale thinks that both functions are part of optimization. In fact, the AND/OR is not quite accurate. While it is possible to optimize without removing empty staves, it is not possible to optimize without making staves independently adjustable. I've quoted verbatim from the dialog box. If your version of Finale says something different, that could explain our disagreement about the meaning of the term. The Windows dialog is the same, but there are no settings in the dialog that have anything whatsoever to do with vertical staff spacing -- all the settings have to do with showing/hiding systems. The way I see it is that this is the tail wagging the dog, because without having grafted the vertical spacing feature onto optimization, there'd be no logical reason to have the ability to optimize without hiding systems. That is, if as I suggest, all systems in page view had two handles (as happens currently after optimization), then there would no longer be any relationship between vertical staff spacing and the process of optimization, and the ability to uncheck Remove Empty Staves would then serve no function whatsoever, since right now, all it does is turn on the ability to space staves vertically (if it's unchecked). I understand your point of view that changing inter-system spacing is part of optimizing your layout for the pages, but I think it's a mistake in the design of Finale, as it means that, in cases where you *don't* want staves hidden if empty, you have to turn on optimization before you can adjust vertical spacing. I think that's a ridiculous requirement. I believe this would satisfy both us, yes? Pretty much. But I still like the idea of vertical spacing travelling with the measure, not being permanently anchored to an absolute system position. I'd be OK with
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
On 4 Mar 2005 at 9:50, Johannes Gebauer wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: My point is that simple optimization (i.e., removing blank staves from a systen) should happen automatically if you have optimization turned on for the passage of music represented on a system (while I understand that Johannes has a use for optimization being stored in absolute systems, I think that's a different kind of issue that comes about because of the way one is forced to create parts in Finale -- if they were all stored in the same file instead of in separate files, his issue would likely go away, since you'd have a score layout and a part layout, all stored in a single file; but that's another issue where I think Finale is confusing and less than ideal). In my case this has nothing to do with parts at all. The reason I need to optimize out parts which have got music in them has to do with doubling parts. For instance, in some situations the first and second violins play identical parts, and for space reasons I just want to show one of them, but the other one needs to have the music in it both for later part extraction but also because the decision to optimize out the second violin part is made at a later stage and needs to be reversible. Well, again, if layout of score and parts all happened in a single score, both having settings that could be controlled independently (instead of parts inheriting all the settings from the score, with a few exceptions), then it wouldn't be a problem. Again, I'm not advocating the removal of present functionality, just a rationalization of default behavior. As I just said in another message, in many aspects Finale seems to me to be designed more to handle the exceptions well than to do normal tasks easily. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: OK, that makes sense. I'm in the habit of doing all my layout adjustments only after layout is set, so the change wouldn't really benefit me much, but I can see how it would be a great help to people who make large changes to a piece after layout has already been set. You never change your mind? I usually lay out a piece onscreen, then print it and then make adjustments to the layout because of problems I couldn't perceive onscreen. When I print a rough draft to visualize layout, it's generally before I've adjusted the spacing of staves within systems. That is, I'm looking at a printout that has unoptimized systems (um, my definition of unoptimized, I mean) and I'm just visualizing what the spacing needs will be. Later I'll make further adjustments, but it's rare that it includes changing any system breaks. That is, if as I suggest, all systems in page view had two handles (as happens currently after optimization), then there would no longer be any relationship between vertical staff spacing and the process of optimization, and the ability to uncheck Remove Empty Staves would then serve no function whatsoever, since right now, all it does is turn on the ability to space staves vertically (if it's unchecked). As I mentioned before, I agree with you about separating the functions. Our only difference is that I'm accustomed to using the word optimizing for the other half of the conjoined function. I understand your point of view that changing inter-system spacing is part of optimizing your layout for the pages, but I think it's a mistake in the design of Finale, as it means that, in cases where you *don't* want staves hidden if empty, you have to turn on optimization before you can adjust vertical spacing. I think that's a ridiculous requirement. I personally have no use for a system with only one handle. If there were a function that acted to restore any system to its scroll view defaults, that should pretty much take care of anyone who ever has use for the my-definition half of remove optimization. There very well might be better conceptual ways to implement this than what I've described, but I think my point is clear: the way Finale works requires more work than it need have, as it requires you to think of systems as empty slots that the music pours into, and that the slots have their own characteristics (vertical spacing, hidden staves) that are independent of what music is displayed in them. Now, yes, we can all think of unusual situations where this can actually be turned to advantage, but it is still antithetical to the most obvious way of thinking about how it should happen (in my opinion). Spacing of systems and hidden blank staves should be determined by the content of the music, not by which system slot the measures end up in. Well, this is a larger matter than just splitting the two optimization functions or having vertical-spacing requirements attached to measures. I think you can see how the numbered system as an item to which qualities are attached is pretty fundamental to its data structure, in terms of drawing the page and so forth. I'm not saying that couldn't be changed, mind you, I'm just saying that it's a rather large reworking of Finale's definition that's going to be a lot more programming work with a lot more cans of worms opened along the way. I agree that pouring into system slots sometimes makes things awkward, and I can see how those problems would be compounded for someone who makes system-based adjustments and then later makes a large addition or deletion which bumps a lot of music into different systems. But at the same time, I don't think you can let go of systems as fundamental units, because many things really do depend on the system context and not just the music within its measures. Changing divisis from one staff to two really does happen at a system break. I really do decide whether to leave a blank vocal staff showing or remove it depending on the vertical density of the page as a whole. There are certain decisions that can only be made within the context of the completely laid out page. I still don't understand what you mean by system margins. In Page View, click on the handle in the upper left of the system and from the context menu choose EDIT MARGINS. That's what I'm talking about -- the margins of the system. Ah! How funny. I use that dialog all the time but somehow I never paid any attention to the name of it. I leave that window open at all times, so that it automatically shows whenever I go to the Page Layout tool. As I said above, you were talking about spacing between staves within a system, I was talking about spacing between whole systems, and the solution I described only solved that problem. I see no reason (other than increasing complexity of UI and onscreen representation of the margins) that my ideas couldn't be applied within between staves within a
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
David W. Fenton wrote: In my case this has nothing to do with parts at all. The reason I need to optimize out parts which have got music in them has to do with doubling parts. For instance, in some situations the first and second violins play identical parts, and for space reasons I just want to show one of them, but the other one needs to have the music in it both for later part extraction but also because the decision to optimize out the second violin part is made at a later stage and needs to be reversible. Well, again, if layout of score and parts all happened in a single score, both having settings that could be controlled independently (instead of parts inheriting all the settings from the score, with a few exceptions), then it wouldn't be a problem. I still don't see how parts-within-the-score would solve this problem. But whatever the case I actually like the current idea of optimization. Yes, there could be more automatic updating, but I would like any development time here going into automatic vertical spacing. Whether this has to be invoked or is updated automatically is actually a pretty minor point in terms of time savings - at least for the way I do my work. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
On Mar 4, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Whether this has to be invoked or is updated automatically is actually a pretty minor point in terms of time savings - at least for the way I do my work. Yep. Especially if all the systems are pre-optimized in the template. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
Hi Johannes, There's no reason why Finale couldn't have automatically updating optimization with the option to do a manual override. You had to do a manual override anyway to hide staves containing notes. It would be easy for Finale to keep track of which staves have been manually hidden/shown and leave those untouched when doing an automatic optimization update. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 03 Mar 2005, at 2:44 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: I also think that staff optimization should not be something that you have to remove and then re-apply. If you insert new measures, or insert data in previously empty measures (or you clear/hide previously populated measures), if you've got optimization turned on, it should automatically cause the system to re-optimize. I think it's crazy that the optimization information is stored with the absolute system rather than as a global setting that automatically updates the optimization when conditions change to warrant it. Just for the record, I just had to optimize many parts out of the score, which weren't empty at all. This was possible because the optimization information is stored with the absolute system, and is in fact manually accessable. I do not wish this to be changed, simply because the way it works is ideal for the work I do. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
I was merely commenting to what David said: I think it's crazy that the optimization information is stored with the absolute system rather than as a global setting that automatically updates the optimization when conditions change to warrant it. It is precisely the fact that the optimization information is is stored with the absolute system rather than globally which makes it so flexible. I am not against an automatic function with manual override, although I don't think I'd need or use it (because undoubtedly it will again slow down Finale, as most of these automatic update routines do). Johannes Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi Johannes, There's no reason why Finale couldn't have automatically updating optimization with the option to do a manual override. You had to do a manual override anyway to hide staves containing notes. It would be easy for Finale to keep track of which staves have been manually hidden/shown and leave those untouched when doing an automatic optimization update. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 03 Mar 2005, at 2:44 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: I also think that staff optimization should not be something that you have to remove and then re-apply. If you insert new measures, or insert data in previously empty measures (or you clear/hide previously populated measures), if you've got optimization turned on, it should automatically cause the system to re-optimize. I think it's crazy that the optimization information is stored with the absolute system rather than as a global setting that automatically updates the optimization when conditions change to warrant it. Just for the record, I just had to optimize many parts out of the score, which weren't empty at all. This was possible because the optimization information is stored with the absolute system, and is in fact manually accessable. I do not wish this to be changed, simply because the way it works is ideal for the work I do. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x comparison
On Mar 2, 2005, at 10:35 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 2 Mar 2005 at 20:18, Christopher Smith wrote: disappearing measures, I've never seen that. What is that? I have occasionally seen measures APPEAR to vanish, but that is usually because I had a multi-measure rest where I later entered notes, and forgot to turn off the rest. Well, that does strike me as the kind of problem that no intelligent application should allow to happen. Notes in measures should automatically break multi-measure rests, without the user being required to do anything. I'm not sure I want ANOTHER automatic sweep through a subroutine slowing down the performance of the program, like Auto Update Layout, Auto Update Hyphens and Smart Word Extensions and the like. Especially given how often this problem (if it is one) would show up. I've only seen it myself a couple of times, and I am a heavy user who revises works constantly. I also think that staff optimization should not be something that you have to remove and then re-apply. If you insert new measures, or insert data in previously empty measures (or you clear/hide previously populated measures), if you've got optimization turned on, it should automatically cause the system to re-optimize. I Re-optimize to what parameters? There's a whole window of options there for that process. I don't want to be asked every time, and I don't want Finale choosing the parameters for me. I would rather do it myself. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
