Rocky Road wrote:
Do they allow two locations like Finale do from the one purchase? I
have Finale on my laptop for mobile work and on a desktop computer for
office work.
Yes, they do. And unlike Finale, you can also use an unregister
function to automatically unregister one copy with their
Rocky Road wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, doesn't Sibelius have a little copy protection/activation code
problem that ought to prevent you from switching, given that you
won't upgrade past Finale 2003?
Yep, they've got the same call-response sort of activation scheme that
Finale
Will Roberts wrote:
[snip]
To be honest I think Sibelius's reputation for having a draconian copy
protection scheme is unjustified, particularly since Finale 2004
introduced almost exactly the same system, except that with Finale you
still can't de-authorize one of your computers without
David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, doesn't Sibelius have a little copy protection/activation code
problem that ought to prevent you from switching, given that you
won't upgrade past Finale 2003?
Yep, they've got the same call-response sort of activation scheme
that Finale has.
Sibelius was
David W. Fenton schrieb:
Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
Of course Macs support add on cards (at least those that have PCI).
The System doesn't support old
On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
Yes, I believe Chris's Mac has only USB 1.1.
And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
I think you misunderstood
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip] Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
USB2 midi interfaces are just external devices which connect to the
computer via the USB port.
On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 at 17:13, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Do you have a non-USB keyboard port? If so, I'd try getting the
keyboard off the USB bus so that MIDI is on USB and the rhythmic
values
At 11:18 PM +0200 7/7/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
And much more basic: as Robert remarked it is absolutely essential
to have separate spacing for each part. The way that Finale's
spacing works I fear that this might indeed make the one file,
different views approach incredibly complicated, as
On Jul 7, 2005, at 6:56 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Tacet movements and other omitted or added measures for one part
(e.g., optional cadenza not written out in score)?
Cue notes--not in score, and different in different parts?
Cadenza and cue notes sounds like the same thing to me, and I
On 8 Jul 2005 at 6:35, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip] Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
USB2 midi interfaces are just external devices which
On 08 Jul 2005, at 5:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, if your computer supports only USB 1.x, attaching a USB 2 MIDI
interface won't get you USB 2 performance.
My suggestion was predicated on getting a USB 2.0 PCI card.
Another option I forgot to mention earlier: if you have built-in
John Howell wrote:
At 11:18 PM +0200 7/7/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
And much more basic: as Robert remarked it is absolutely essential to
have separate spacing for each part. The way that Finale's spacing
works I fear that this might indeed make the one file, different
views approach
David W. Fenton schrieb:
The cadenza example was about having more measures in the part than
there are in the score.
Hmm. Easily handled by optimizing out the cadenza systems in the
printed score, no?
Why make it harder than that?
Actually I don't think this is sufficient. What if the
On 9 Jul 2005 at 0:08, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
David W. Fenton schrieb:
The cadenza example was about having more measures in the part than
there are in the score.
Hmm. Easily handled by optimizing out the cadenza systems in the
printed score, no?
Why make it harder than that?
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Snip
We've already been told that Finale almost had linked
score/parts a
while ago and it was nearing completion when it was
yanked in favor of
other programming directions.
I should have kept my mouth shut for the last couple
of days! I apologize for the
Christopher Smith wrote:
Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself getting ahead of Speedy
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale remembers the
numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as
you
Owain Sutton wrote:
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
David W. Fenton opined:
part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't
preparing any performance materials at all.
Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
part extraction: 1) hymn tunes
On 7/6/05, Aaron Sherber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score.
From a software engineering standpoint, this is the way it should be.
Word processors and many other applications have been doing this for
years: Store the
On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:00 AM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Christopher Smith wrote:
Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself getting ahead of Speedy
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale remembers the
numeric keypad keys I
On 7 Jul 2005 at 0:22, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 11:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
[]
Is your MIDI interface USB? If so, you may have something else
contending for the bandwidth of the USB interface, and that could be
the reason you're having the problem.
I have a USB
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are reflected
immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the notes are only
stored in one place. On the other
On 7 Jul 2005 at 1:00, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Christopher Smith wrote:
Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself getting ahead of Speedy
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale remembers the
numeric keypad keys I
On 7 Jul 2005 at 10:15, Technoid wrote:
On 7/6/05, Aaron Sherber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score.
From a software engineering standpoint, this is the way it should be.
Word processors and many other
On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Do you have a non-USB keyboard port? If so, I'd try getting the
keyboard off the USB bus so that MIDI is on USB and the rhythmic
values you're typing is *not* on USB.
Umm, AFAIK USB is the only option for Mac keyboard plugging in.
That
Andrew Stiller schrieb:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are reflected
immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the notes are only
stored
On 07 Jul 2005, at 4:36 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are
reflected immediately in the parts and vice versa is because
Hi Chris,
You have two possible solutions:
1) Get a FireWire MIDI interface.
2) Get a USB 2.0 card and a Belkin Tetrahub:
http://tinyurl.com/6s9mf
I have a FW MIDI interface and I never have a problem with Speedy not
keeping up with MIDI input.
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
And you can add to these: music examples for books.
BF
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
David W. Fenton opined:
part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't
preparing any performance materials at all.
Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
On 7 Jul 2005 at 16:36, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are
reflected immediately in the parts and vice versa is because
On 7 Jul 2005 at 16:43, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Link/Unlink to score would be great.
- Darcy
Indeed it would--provided that turning on this feature did not
immediately change anything in either linked file.
I don't think that's a very good idea. It seems to me that creating
an unlinked
On 7 Jul 2005 at 17:13, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Do you have a non-USB keyboard port? If so, I'd try getting the
keyboard off the USB bus so that MIDI is on USB and the rhythmic
values you're typing is *not* on USB.
Umm, AFAIK USB is
David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, it can't be done by event count, since you can have a different
number of events. If you get 16 from the MIDI interface and 15 from
the keyboard, you want the extra from the MIDI interface ignored,
because it didn't have a corresponding rhythmic value.
Likewise,
On 7 Jul 2005 at 23:18, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Andrew Stiller schrieb:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are
reflected immediately in the
David W. Fenton schrieb:
Well, what about a non-USB MIDI interface? Did they also take away
the printer port (isn't that what used to be used for MIDI, given how
I remember all the complaints about contention for the port?)?
Without wanting to fuel a completely unnecessary platform war
On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
High-end machines that are used for music ought to have options.
All Macs -- high-end or not -- now have USB 2 and FireWire, both of
which have more than enough bandwidth to spare for MIDI.
I agree, USB 1.1 is inadequate for MIDI +
On 7 Jul 2005 at 19:14, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
High-end machines that are used for music ought to have options.
All Macs -- high-end or not -- now have USB 2 and FireWire, both of
which have more than enough bandwidth to spare for
On 8 Jul 2005 at 1:13, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
David W. Fenton schrieb:
Well, what about a non-USB MIDI interface? Did they also take away
the printer port (isn't that what used to be used for MIDI, given
how I remember all the complaints about contention for the port?)?
Without wanting
Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
Most current macs ship with USB 2, Firewire 400 and Firewire 800.
And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
Of course they do. Mac supports USB and Firewire PCI cards for
David W. Fenton wrote:
That is, by contemplating switching to Sibelius, aren't you
contemplating getting yourself into a much worse situation than you
are with activated Finale?
I would say so. The Sibelius data file structure is proprietary, and it
is illegal in the U.S. under the DMCA,
Jim wrote:
[snip]
*For me, it's all about doing the best job with the least amount of
nuisance.
[snip]
So you're saying that having a mixer will reduce nuisance far more than
linked score/parts?
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale
AM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
Jim wrote:
[snip]
*For me, it's all about doing the best job with the least amount of
nuisance.
[snip]
So you're saying that having a mixer will reduce nuisance far more than
linked score/parts?
--
David H
Jim wrote:
David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i see
here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you enlighten me
as to their benefit?
I'm not sure I see the benefit of having an ex-post change made to a
PART be reflected in the SCORE. Some changes in
On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I have always felt that the easiest way for Finale to get linked
parts (I hesitate to use that expression, since it seems tied into
the in my opinion erroneous idea that the parts should be in separate
files, linked back to a score file) was
On Jul 5, 2005, at 8:10 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
Another observation - if Finale implemented a score-part link that was
anything like part extraction, I'd simply not use it, because it
wouldn't do what I needed. I always end up making parts by deleting
staves manually from the score. What
I haven't read much of this thread, but I would advise anyone to read marketing
hype with liberal doses of salt. If Sib's new feature works as well as
marketed, it will be a first for the computer industry.
That said, I know enough about Enigma data structures to speculate that MM
could
On the matter of whether features are just plugins, it would be relatively
simple for MM (and Finale's users) to have cake and eat it too. Two extensions
of the plugin interface would integrate them in ways that would erase much of
the distinction.
1. Plugins should be able to add themselves
dhbailey wrote:
And the new data format for Finale2K5 has been released publicly?
Finale2K4?
I won't speak to publicly, as I'm uncertain of this; I would submit,
though, that it is instructive to compare the apparently outside the
Coda / Net4Music / MakeMusic organization who have written
Thinking about the issue of linked parts, I realize that what I would
like is considerably less than that. Dynamic linking is useful only if
you make musically significant changes in the score that need to be
reflected in the parts. I won't say I never do that, but it only
happens once or
On 5 Jul 2005 at 22:43, Tyler Turner wrote:
--- Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We did.
A while back, many of the people on this list came
up with a
reasonably detailed plan for implementing a feature
that looks very
much like Sibelius's Dynamic Parts. Between
At 11:34 AM 7/6/05 -0400, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Dynamic linking is useful only if
you make musically significant changes in the score that need to be
reflected in the parts. I won't say I never do that, but it only
happens once or twice a year, and almost never impacts more than one or
two
Generally many of you haven't been happy with the
mass-market features introduced in Finale. Come up
with one or two of your own that MakeMusic has the
ability to implement and can be marketed to a wide
audience.
Tyler
Sigh. This argument is depressingly familiar. Generally many of you
On 6 Jul 2005 at 5:22, Jim wrote:
David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i see
here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you enlighten
me as to their benefit? I'm not sure I see the benefit of having an
ex-post change made to a PART be reflected in the
Indeed. I think Dynamic parts is something that needs to be added to
Finale ASAP. But it needs to go BOTH WAYS, as other readers of pointed
out. When I do changes, it's usually after someone PROOFED it on a part.
Makemusic hasn't announced any major updates (yet) to Smartmusic. I'd
think they
On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I have always felt that the easiest way for Finale to get linked
parts (I hesitate to use that expression, since it seems tied into
the in my opinion erroneous idea that the parts should be
On 6 Jul 2005 at 14:14, Robert Patterson wrote:
The last two annual releases reveal that MM is concerned with other
matters than notation. Unfortunately for those of us who care about
notation, MM's actions suggest that they believe there is more money
in other aspects of the music business,
On 6 Jul 2005 at 11:34, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Thinking about the issue of linked parts, I realize that what I would
like is considerably less than that. Dynamic linking is useful only if
you make musically significant changes in the score that need to be
reflected in the parts. I won't say
On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:24, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Indeed. I think Dynamic parts is something that needs to be added to
Finale ASAP. But it needs to go BOTH WAYS, as other readers of pointed
out. When I do changes, it's usually after someone PROOFED it on a
part.
Other than Andrew, who has
On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:53 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
If part view is just a view of the underlying data, you automatically
get two-way linking. That is, changes to the score appear in the
parts, and changes to the parts appear in the score. The exception to
this is, of course, spacing, which is
At 01:05 PM 07/06/2005, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Part view is something you (not me, I never use it) use before the
actual parts are extracted. Any dynamic linkage feature that I can ever
conceive using would be applicable to parts that have *already been
extracted and edited* and are therefore in
David W. Fenton wrote:
Other than Andrew, who has suggested anything else?
Didn't we start from the Sibelius demo, which gives examples of
editing in both the score and the part, and how in each case, the
changes appear in the other? And how layout issues are independent
for the two views?
At 5:22 AM -0500 7/6/05, Jim wrote:
David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i
see here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you
enlighten me as to their benefit?
I'm not sure I see the benefit of having an ex-post change made to a
PART be reflected in the
On Jul 6, 2005, at 7:30 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:On the matter of whether features are "just" plugins, it would be relatively simple for MM (and Finale's users) to have cake and eat it too. Two extensions of the plugin interface would integrate them in ways that would erase much of the
At 08:34 AM 7/6/2005, you wrote:
More useful to me would be *reverse* linking, because part extraction
provides the final proofreading check of the score, particularly for
things like arco/pizz. and con/senza sord. It would indeed be very nice,
therefore, to be able to make a change to a
On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:21 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
And it would also be nice, if, for instance, you could format your
linked parts, then save a single part out to a separate file, which
would no longer be connected to the score, so you could then make
changes to that part (like Darcy's change
Andrew,
Two-way dynamic linking is implicit in the notion of Dynamic Parts.
Everything we've been talking about assumes two-way dynamic linking as
a starting point.
If the Auto Page Turns plugin can be fixed and integrated into the
Extract Parts/Extract Dynamic Parts dialog, that seems
David W. Fenton opined:
part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't preparing
any performance materials at all.
Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
part extraction: 1) hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and
printed in
On 6 Jul 2005 at 13:05, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:53 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
If part view is just a view of the underlying data, you
automatically get two-way linking. That is, changes to the score
appear in the parts, and changes to the parts appear in the score.
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
David W. Fenton opined:
part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't
preparing any performance materials at all.
Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
part extraction: 1) hymn tunes and song books, which
On 6 Jul 2005 at 13:46, John Howell wrote:
At 5:22 AM -0500 7/6/05, Jim wrote:
David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i
see here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you
enlighten me as to their benefit? I'm not sure I see the benefit of
having an
Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
part extraction: 1) hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and
printed in close score, and 2) songs, including pop vocal music, and 3)
choral music, where the voice parts are printed in full score, or in the
On Jul 6, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
That's a very good idea. I was wondering myself how to solve that
particular problem, but if Finale just integrates Patterson Beams
into the Beam Options, well, there's your solution right there.
-
Agreed, so please write MM (as I
On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
It'll be
interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeats business works
and whether or not it will adjust the measure numbers
On 6 Jul 2005 at 21:17, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
It'll be
interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeats business works
On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:47 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Jul 2005 at 21:17, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
It'll be
interesting to see how
On 6 Jul 2005 at 23:10, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:47 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Jul 2005 at 21:17, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM,
On Jul 6, 2005, at 11:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
A plugin for repeats is certainly more appropriate, in my opinion,
than a plugin for beaming, but I still think the basic functionality
of repeats is obtuse and ridiculous. In my database application
programming I have a rule: never require a
Sibelius 4 has been announced, and one aspect which we have clamored for
on this list for years is in their list of added features: Dynamic
linking of parts to the score. Apparently you only have to change
things in the score, and the changes are reflected in the parts. I know
no more about
dhbailey wrote:
Sibelius 4 has been announced, and one aspect which we have clamored
for on this list for years is in their list of added features:
Dynamic linking of parts to the score. Apparently you only have to
change things in the score, and the changes are reflected in the
parts. I
On 5 Jul 2005, at 23:56, dhbailey wrote:
Sibelius 4 has been announced, and one aspect which we have
clamored for on this list for years is in their list of added
features: Dynamic linking of parts to the score.
Some may have clamoured for it, not me.
If Finale doesn't start listening
I don't know how well this Dynamic linking thing will work, but it i
definately a feature to consider if one wants to switch from Finale..
___
I've been able to try out a preview of Sib 4, and so far the dynamic parts
feature works very well.
John Bell wrote:
I know that many users are unconcerned about playback, but others are.
If Finale were to fall far behind Sibelius in its playback capabilities
then it would certainly be in danger of losing much of its share of the
market.
*Which* market? Both products are targeted
At 06:56 PM 7/5/05 -0400, dhbailey wrote:
Sibelius 4 has been announced, and one aspect which we have clamored for
on this list for years is in their list of added features: Dynamic
linking of parts to the score.
Ooh, baby, baby, baby. I'm one of the clamorers. I'm now 90% of the way
to
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
All Sibelius has to do is make it possible to do contemporary
scores easily
Heh...that's all I want from Finale, too.
Hasn't Sibelius had straightforward quarter-tones for some time? And I
presume Finale 06 will still feature the 'nonstandard key signature'
Dennis - '
I think this - graphic notation - is still one of Sib's weaknesses, and is
likely to remain so although I have found a number of work-arounds. It's
one of the reasons I'm trying to find time to learn Finale. My stuff isn't
all *that* wild, but I do use proportional notation,
On 5 Jul 2005 at 18:56, dhbailey wrote:
Sibelius 4 has been announced, and one aspect which we have clamored
for on this list for years is in their list of added features:
Dynamic linking of parts to the score. Apparently you only have to
change things in the score, and the changes are
At 12:47 AM 7/6/05 +0100, Owain Sutton wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
All Sibelius has to do is make it possible to do contemporary
scores easily
Heh...that's all I want from Finale, too.
Hasn't Sibelius had straightforward quarter-tones for some time? And I
presume Finale 06 will
Ken Durling wrote:
Dennis - '
I think this - graphic notation - is still one of Sib's weaknesses, and
is likely to remain so although I have found a number of work-arounds.
It's one of the reasons I'm trying to find time to learn Finale. My
stuff isn't all *that* wild, but I do use
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
You button-presser you. Ouch. That hasn't changed since I started with
Finale back in FinWin2.2!
I try to please ;)
Actually, I've used Finale for so long that I can do graphical stuff fairly
quickly -- and that's where the conversion to Sibelius fails. I
At 05:05 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
Feathered beams - do you mean accel/decell angled beams, or something else?
Yes, that's what I mean. You can do them in Sib with a simple line
tool. So they don't play back unless you're willing to build up a complex
set of nested tuplets.
Ken
At 04:55 PM 7/5/05 -0700, Ken Durling wrote:
It has always seemed to me that if one is willing to forego playback, then
a suite of purely graphic tools could be included that would make much of
this possible. Sibelius has the Symbols menu which does do this, but I
think what it needs is more
Ken Durling wrote:
At 05:05 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
Feathered beams - do you mean accel/decell angled beams, or something
else?
Yes, that's what I mean. You can do them in Sib with a simple line
tool. So they don't play back unless you're willing to build up a
complex set of nested
At 08:05 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, doesn't Sibelius have a little copy protection/activation code
problem that ought to prevent you from switching, given that you
won't upgrade past Finale 2003?
Yes, David, you've caught me in a distasteful ethical compromise, and it
On 5 Jul 2005 at 20:24, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 08:05 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, doesn't Sibelius have a little copy protection/activation code
problem that ought to prevent you from switching, given that you
won't upgrade past Finale 2003?
Yes, David, you've caught
At 01:10 AM 7/6/05 +0100, Owain Sutton wrote:
Another observation - if Finale implemented a score-part link that was
anything like part extraction, I'd simply not use it, because it
wouldn't do what I needed. I always end up making parts by deleting
staves manually from the score. What extra
On 5 Jul 2005 at 20:46, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 08:40 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
That is, by contemplating switching to Sibelius, aren't you
contemplating getting yourself into a much worse situation than you
are with activated Finale?
Yup. And at my age and experience
I'd just like to address a few of the general points
mentioned.
1. It was suggested that MakeMusic should stop putting
time into playback features because their market
doesn't need them. I don't have marketing figures to
look at, but I'd be extremely surprised if composers
and arrangers didn't
David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, doesn't Sibelius have a little copy protection/activation code
problem that ought to prevent you from switching, given that you
won't upgrade past Finale 2003?
Yep, they've got the same call-response sort of activation scheme that
Finale has.
Sibelius was
On 5 Jul 2005 at 18:25, Tyler Turner wrote:
[]
2. It was mentioned that Finale's playback has now
caught up to and in some ways perhaps exceeded that of
Sibelius. There's no competition. Finale's playback is
far beyond Sibelius', both in terms of automatic
playback and in customizability.
Tyler Turner wrote:
3. Sibelius is not focusing on one market. Their three
big features are clearly each aimed at a different
part of their market. There is the worksheet creator
for educators, linked parts for engravers, and video
for composers. Both Sibelius and MakeMusic realize
that
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
