Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
1) If you do not see a difference you probably don't know much about proper beam placement. Finale's default beam placement (not beaming as such) is dreadful. 2) The immense flexibility of what Patterson beams can do is unlikely to ever be included in Finale's beam options. 3) Most importantly: Patterson beams can be applied with different settings to different regions. This could not be done with built-in beaming options unless the whole concept of how Finale's options work would have to be changed. The only way I could see this be done with default options would be if beaming options became part of staff styles. Unlikely to say the least. Personally I think the plugin approach has advantages which I would not like to give up. Johannes David W. Fenton wrote: On 4 Mar 2005 at 0:24, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Patterson beams is actually much more flexible than any beam option in Finale could ever be. How so? Why would that be? The data the plugin uses to make its calculations is obviously there in the file and accessible to Finale. Why couldn't Finale do the same things? I also don't see what all the excitement is. I know that Finale's default beaming is not very good in many cases (though it's now substantially better than it was even 5 years ago), but whenever I attempt to apply Patterson Beams, I see virtually no difference in the results. Perhaps I don't understand the plugin or am not applying good values (I believe I'm pretty much using just the defaults, which maybe don't do anything at all?). But I still see absolutely no reason why Finale could not do what the plugin does. -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Johannes, Surely you wouldn't mind if Finale's default beam placement were better? For instance, if Finale did Henle-style beams by default? No one is talking about taking away the plugin -- you could still run the Patterson Beams plugins on selected measures as required. But I really think Finale's default beam placement ought to be improved. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 04 Mar 2005, at 3:54 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: 1) If you do not see a difference you probably don't know much about proper beam placement. Finale's default beam placement (not beaming as such) is dreadful. 2) The immense flexibility of what Patterson beams can do is unlikely to ever be included in Finale's beam options. 3) Most importantly: Patterson beams can be applied with different settings to different regions. This could not be done with built-in beaming options unless the whole concept of how Finale's options work would have to be changed. The only way I could see this be done with default options would be if beaming options became part of staff styles. Unlikely to say the least. Personally I think the plugin approach has advantages which I would not like to give up. Johannes David W. Fenton wrote: On 4 Mar 2005 at 0:24, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Patterson beams is actually much more flexible than any beam option in Finale could ever be. How so? Why would that be? The data the plugin uses to make its calculations is obviously there in the file and accessible to Finale. Why couldn't Finale do the same things? I also don't see what all the excitement is. I know that Finale's default beaming is not very good in many cases (though it's now substantially better than it was even 5 years ago), but whenever I attempt to apply Patterson Beams, I see virtually no difference in the results. Perhaps I don't understand the plugin or am not applying good values (I believe I'm pretty much using just the defaults, which maybe don't do anything at all?). But I still see absolutely no reason why Finale could not do what the plugin does. -- 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
No I wouldn't object to better beam placement in Finale. However, I think there are other areas in Finale which need the improvements more than the beam placement, because it is already possible to get near perfect beams in Finale through a plugin. The discussion these days seems to center very much wouldn't it be nice if Finale did it this way for many things which I doubt will actually make things better, at least for me. In the past we have seen such half-hearted improvements make it into Finale too often, while those areas which would probably be easy to fix never got the development time. Just one example: It is still not possible to have clefs after the barline appear after the key sig if they appear at the beginning of a system. The amount of time I waste to work around this problem to create properly formatted cue notes (which typically appear at the beginning of a system) is almost unbelievable. Beams? Why? They work fine. Need I mention EPS files? Johannes Darcy James Argue wrote: Johannes, Surely you wouldn't mind if Finale's default beam placement were better? For instance, if Finale did Henle-style beams by default? No one is talking about taking away the plugin -- you could still run the Patterson Beams plugins on selected measures as required. But I really think Finale's default beam placement ought to be improved. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 04 Mar 2005, at 3:54 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: 1) If you do not see a difference you probably don't know much about proper beam placement. Finale's default beam placement (not beaming as such) is dreadful. 2) The immense flexibility of what Patterson beams can do is unlikely to ever be included in Finale's beam options. 3) Most importantly: Patterson beams can be applied with different settings to different regions. This could not be done with built-in beaming options unless the whole concept of how Finale's options work would have to be changed. The only way I could see this be done with default options would be if beaming options became part of staff styles. Unlikely to say the least. Personally I think the plugin approach has advantages which I would not like to give up. Johannes David W. Fenton wrote: On 4 Mar 2005 at 0:24, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Patterson beams is actually much more flexible than any beam option in Finale could ever be. How so? Why would that be? The data the plugin uses to make its calculations is obviously there in the file and accessible to Finale. Why couldn't Finale do the same things? I also don't see what all the excitement is. I know that Finale's default beaming is not very good in many cases (though it's now substantially better than it was even 5 years ago), but whenever I attempt to apply Patterson Beams, I see virtually no difference in the results. Perhaps I don't understand the plugin or am not applying good values (I believe I'm pretty much using just the defaults, which maybe don't do anything at all?). But I still see absolutely no reason why Finale could not do what the plugin does. -- 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
d. collins wrote Speaking of beaming, of Sibelius, etc., I was looking at the sample files of a new French publisher: http://www.lasinfoniedorphee.com/catalogue/PDF/067.pdf This seems worse, beam-wise, than anything Finale would do, even without plug-ins and with the default settings. Especially the violin parts on the first bar of the first page! The stems even stick out (visible at 300%) below the slantedest beams I've ever seen. This seems to be done with the Berlioz software, which has many enthusiastic supporters here in France and which is supposed to be so elegant according to them. So much for elegance... But then, of course, there's no way of knowing if these shortcomings are the software's or the engraver's. Dennis Before opening that file, I guessed that it'd have those horrid 45-degree beams on pairs of quavers, and cramped semis demis, that are all too familiar from Debussy Ravel. Whaddya know, there they are! ;) This strikes me as a particular French preference that goes beyond software implications, but would explain the view of Berlioz as 'elegant'. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On 4 Mar 2005 at 10:43, Johannes Gebauer wrote: The discussion these days seems to center very much wouldn't it be nice if Finale did it this way for many things which I doubt will actually make things better, at least for me. You're missing the point of this discussion, which had its origins in a post by a Sibelius user who has problems with Finale. I'm trying to point out things that we long-time Finale users know as second nature (and can work just fine with) that I think fail to function in a natural or common sense fashion. So, the kinds of improvements I'm proposing probably wouldn't make the lives of long-time Finale users easier to any significant degree (and would probably require a certain amount of adjustment), but that's not the audience my suggested improvements are aimed at. Of course, automatic (or semi-automatic) optimization and automatic/semi-automatic multi-measure rests would make *my* life substantially easier, because I've often been annoyed at the way Finale does these things already. And I also think that making independent vertical adjustment of staves within systems a subsidiary feature of optimization is a mistake (why shouldn't they just all be vertically adjustable in the first place, as with lyrics?), as to get an obvious feature (dragging staves vertically within a system) is something you can't get except by applying a feature that is not obviously related to what you want to do (though I agree that in terms of the bigger picture, vertical staff spacing obviously *is* akin to removal of blank staves). So, for me, these kinds of changes would make things easier because they've been stumbling blocks for me in the past. And I also think it would make things substantially easier for new users. I shudder to think how I'd justify the current situation with staff optimization and vertical staff spacing to a new user -- it only makes sense if you already are accustomed to using it that way. -- 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
At 8:30 PM +0100 3/4/05, d. collins wrote: Speaking of beaming, of Sibelius, etc., I was looking at the sample files of a new French publisher: http://www.lasinfoniedorphee.com/catalogue/PDF/067.pdf This seems worse, beam-wise, than anything Finale would do, even without plug-ins and with the default settings. Especially the violin parts on the first bar of the first page! Yeah, that's unnecessarily ugly. But even worse, and for no obvious reason, is the failure of stems for 16th notes and faster to extend to the bottom beam. Very amateurish, but apparently done on purpose, and I would guess this is built into the software. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music 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 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
I wonder if that is the french s/w, Berlioz? If so, I'm disappointed. Its output looked better on its own site. The two sites appear similar upon one quick look. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Howell Sent: Fri 04-Mar-05 17:17 To: finale@shsu.edu Cc: Subject: Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004 At 8:30 PM +0100 3/4/05, d. collins wrote: Speaking of beaming, of Sibelius, etc., I was looking at the sample files of a new French publisher: http://www.lasinfoniedorphee.com/catalogue/PDF/067.pdf This seems worse, beam-wise, than anything Finale would do, even without plug-ins and with the default settings. Especially the violin parts on the first bar of the first page! Yeah, that's unnecessarily ugly. But even worse, and for no obvious reason, is the failure of stems for 16th notes and faster to extend to the bottom beam. Very amateurish, but apparently done on purpose, and I would guess this is built into the software. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music 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 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale winmail.dat___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
At 06:07 PM 3/4/05 -0500, you wrote: I wonder if that is the french s/w, Berlioz? If so, I'm disappointed. Its output looked better on its own site. The two sites appear similar upon one quick look. Probably. Same font (Hector), and also the stems don't go through the beams. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
John Howell wrote: Yeah, that's unnecessarily ugly. But even worse, and for no obvious reason, is the failure of stems for 16th notes and faster to extend to the bottom beam. Very amateurish, but apparently done on purpose, and I would guess this is built into the software. It's actually what some refer to as French Beaming, others as Schott beaming, and it's a standard of its own. Not amateurish as such, or would you say that 1970s Schott Editions are amateurish? BTW, Patterson Beams can do that. 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
David W. Fenton wrote: Now, a translator layer would only have to take the memory version and write it back in the older file version. This means that certain features would be dropped, since they weren't supported by the old file format. and giving this matter some further thought, it occured to me that the problem may, at least in some cases, not be as simple as merely dropping some features, but rather, it may have to drop a feature, and know how and where to add in a previous feature. The dropping is trivial; the adding in is more problematic Further, since they never promised backwards write compatibility anyway, I can understand why, as a business decision, the elected not to try to add it later. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Dennis, WRT your response to my latest post about backwards compatibility As far as I know, they never promise any new features. They won't even promise to fix the broken ones. I must say I don't follow your logic here. I must admit this is faulty perception on my part; I wasn't thinking of the proposal for backwards compatability as a new feature. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Apart from people starting work in the wrong version of Finale for customers who neglect or refuse to upgrade, what are the reasons for wanting backwards compatibility? Surely if things were commissioned correctly in the first place there wouldn't be the need to save backwards. Reading back that sounds quite provocative, it's not meant to be, I'm just curious because in ten years professional work I've never needed such a feature. We had Quark 4 ages before any of our clients, we'd never have started a job in it unless we knew the client had upgraded. Isn't this analagous? There are probably some other scenrarios thats I'm overlooking. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
At 12:30 PM 3/3/05 +, Simon Troup wrote: Apart from people starting work in the wrong version of Finale for customers who neglect or refuse to upgrade Neglect? There seems to be an unpleasant subtext is some of these messages... I just want to make sure it's understood that for some of us backwards compatibility is not merely an issue of convenience or neglect. Some customers will not upgrade for these incremental upgrades that Finale sells as full upgrades, and some customers will not upgrade to victimware until it is absolutely unavoidable. There is very little beyond user convenience that can't still be done in Finale 2.2. Until Finale revokes their victimware scheme and until they provide a full, functioning upgrade with the major broken areas fixed (among them the Postscript issues), I will be one of Brian Williams's despised @#$%*! composers who remains with Finale 2003 -- and continue shopping for alternatives. By creating victimware, they destroyed in one stroke my ten years of customer loyalty. If they want my money this time, they'll have to give me good reason to hand it over. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Apart from people starting work in the wrong version of Finale for customers who neglect or refuse to upgrade Neglect? There seems to be an unpleasant subtext is some of these messages... Yes neglect! Why do they want to open the files? If they won't buy the latest version, they should be paying you to do the work. We probably have very different working practices - no-one gets my Finale files, they only get PS or EPS. If they want things changed they pay me to do it. This probably explains most of our difference in opinion. If I had your clients and their needs I would probably share your opinions. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
At 01:42 PM 3/3/05 +, Simon Troup wrote: Apart from people starting work in the wrong version of Finale for customers who neglect or refuse to upgrade Neglect? There seems to be an unpleasant subtext is some of these messages... Yes neglect! I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. My and my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a corporation's ill will -- and I'm sure it plays into why the company has no backwards-compatibility to untethered versions on the table. If it is introduced, I'll bet it will only back-convert to F2K4 or later. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. My and my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a corporation's ill will I think you're arguing along your own agenda regardless of what I write. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
I long ago gave up making quixotic principled stands in the computer business. The business changes too quickly, and there is too much else more important to concern myself with. But I am very sympathetic to Dennis's point of view. For this reason, I always assume that some day in the future I will no longer be able to edit my Finale files, or at least not without great expense and difficulty. (Indeed, this is already effectively true for my oldest Finale files. And then there are those files from Professional Composer and Deluxe Music Construction Set!) For me the final product is the PDF and/or the hard copy. The hard copy is certainly isolated from abusive copy protection or corporate bankruptcy, but it is vulnerable to fire and flood and the like, as well as toner breakdown and paper rot. At this point I am counting on the ubiquity of PDF to isolate it from anything its parent, Adobe, may throw at it. While this hope may be misplaced, I think it has good odds, and it is the most reliable practical digital archiving format I can see at the moment. From: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz My and my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a corporation's ill will ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Why do they want to open the files? If they won't buy the latest version, they should be paying you to do the work. There are many different kinds of engraver-client relationships, most of which are not helped by rigid ultimatums. We probably have very different working practices Undoubtedly. - no-one gets my Finale files, they only get PS or EPS. Wouldn't that be nice. Richard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
At 02:29 PM 3/3/05 +, Simon Troup wrote: I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. My and my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a corporation's ill will I think you're arguing along your own agenda regardless of what I write. You used the pejorative neglect to promote your agenda, so I'm making clear that refusal to buy victimware or accept incremental upgrades is not neglect but an ethical point of view undeserving of an epithet. Attention must be paid before we all start implanting RFID chips in our kids because it happens to be convenient. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. My and my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a corporation's ill will I think you're arguing along your own agenda regardless of what I write. You used the pejorative neglect to promote your agenda I don't really have an agenda on this issue, although I don't subscribe to your victimware POV. I was interested to hear that many clients are wanting access to the Finale files. It brings lots of questions to mind such as unskilled editors tinkering with files that go out with your name on - Libraries that you may have spent many months developing being released for other to simply copy and benefit from. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
At 03:02 PM 3/3/05 +, Simon Troup wrote: I was interested to hear that many clients are wanting access to the Finale files. It brings lots of questions to mind such as unskilled editors tinkering with files that go out with your name on - Libraries that you may have spent many months developing being released for other to simply copy and benefit from. I very much appreciate this. Fortunately, my clients tend not to want to do it themselves (and I don't put my name anywhere on the scores). My clients' desire is merely to protect their investment, so I happily provide the Finale files. Protection of investment I can also understand. I had to re-do an entire cycle of songs from scratch recently because the original Finale files had not been provided to the composer, and the different people who did the work were no longer in the business. It was an expensive problem for my client, who merely wanted his set of songs made to look consistent. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Protection of investment I can also understand. I had to re-do an entire cycle of songs from scratch recently because the original Finale files had not been provided to the composer, and the different people who did the work were no longer in the business. It was an expensive problem for my client, who merely wanted his set of songs made to look consistent. Interesting situation. I can appreciate the argument in such a case. Still, considering the work that goes into templates and libraries, I'm suprised that submission of finale files isn't a hot topic. I'd be very concerned that composers wouldn't gut the files and use them as templates, then just call me in for the difficult stuff! My apologies if this is going somewhat tangential, it's all loosely related, after all my very next customer may try to insist on such a thing. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:27 AM, Simon Troup wrote: Still, considering the work that goes into templates and libraries, I'm suprised that submission of finale files isn't a hot topic. I'd be very concerned that composers wouldn't gut the files and use them as templates, then just call me in for the difficult stuff! It IS a hot topic. The sentiment among the pros on the list is generally that the Finale files are work product, (while the paper or PDF copy is the deliverable) and a copyist shouldn't give them away unless adequately compensated. Actually, I don't care enough about the secrecy of my libraries even if I have spent a lot of time on them, and I DO give them away to anyone who asks, particularly colleagues and students. If they like my settings and copy them, then the world just may be a cleaner, neater, more understandable place for musicians around that person, and I am comfortable with that. I have benefitted from more experienced fellow Finale users sharing their settings, techniques and libraries, and I will freely pass them on for the benefit of the world at large (yes my ego really is that big!) What I WON'T do, though, is give a client the work product files so that he or she can make an end run around me to another contractor, or change my content without my permission (actually the latter is more my concern.) This is the same as a photographer not giving away the negatives to a client. You have to go back to him for more prints, or compensate him for the work he will undoubtedly lose from giving them to you. In reality, I use so many custom fonts that my Finale files would be unusable on another computer anyway. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Actually, I don't care enough about the secrecy of my libraries even if I have spent a lot of time on them, and I DO give them away to anyone who asks, particularly colleagues and students. If they like my settings and copy them, then the world just may be a cleaner, neater, more understandable place for musicians around that person, and I am comfortable with that. I have benefitted from more experienced fellow Finale users sharing their settings, techniques and libraries, and I will freely pass them on for the benefit of the world at large (yes my ego really is that big!) That's great, and I applaud the intent, but I'd be worried that the files would be passed to a spotty teenager paid a little over 12 grand for doing the job in house half as well for people who frankly aren't very good at seeing the value added elegance that I provide in the first place. (Breethe). -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On Mar 3, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Simon Troup wrote: Actually, I don't care enough about the secrecy of my libraries even if I have spent a lot of time on them, and I DO give them away to anyone who asks, particularly colleagues and students. If they like my settings and copy them, then the world just may be a cleaner, neater, more understandable place for musicians around that person, and I am comfortable with that. I have benefitted from more experienced fellow Finale users sharing their settings, techniques and libraries, and I will freely pass them on for the benefit of the world at large (yes my ego really is that big!) That's great, and I applaud the intent, but I'd be worried that the files would be passed to a spotty teenager paid a little over 12 grand for doing the job in house half as well for people who frankly aren't very good at seeing the value added elegance that I provide in the first place. (Breethe). But if the spotty teenager can't provide the elegance you can, then your settings aren't doing him any good, are they? I'm speaking of using settings in ANOTHER work, not editing work you have already done. Keep those for yourself, by all means! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Some of the people with whom I work use older versions of Finale for a variety of reasons. I keep copies of the most important older versions on my drive and use them occasionally when there are to be major edits. However, I've suggested to these people to get Finale NotePad 2005, which is free so that I can send them files I have made in 2005. This seems to solve the problem nicely. Hal -- Harold Owen 2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at: http://uoregon.edu/~hjowen FAX: (509) 461-3608 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
RSimon Troup écrit: Still, considering the work that goes into templates and libraries, I'm suprised that submission of finale files isn't a hot topic. I'd be very concerned that composers wouldn't gut the files and use them as templates, then just call me in for the difficult stuff!e: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004 In my situation, lack of backwards compatibility causes an endless series of headaches. The Choral Public Domain Library (http://www.cpdl.org) has ~2,500 Finale files available for download, in formats stretching from Filae 98 to 2005 (with XML and .ETF formats thrown in). I constantly field emails from conductors asking for older versions compatible with their software. As a result, I do what Noel suggested, i.e. keep 5 versions of Finale on my computer, and never save to an updated format, to allow the maximum compatibility. Of course, my situation is very different from yours, but it is becoming an increasingly common issue. Best, Rafael Ornes Choral Public Domain Library [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On 3 Mar 2005 at 8:21, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: By creating victimware, they destroyed in one stroke my ten years of customer loyalty. Er, hadn't they already done that with Finale 98's CD-based copy protection? -- 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On 3 Mar 2005 at 14:29, Simon Troup wrote: I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. My and my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a corporation's ill will I think you're arguing along your own agenda regardless of what I write. I resent your clear implication that there's something wrong with people who don't upgrade to the latest version. That attitude probably represents the annoyance it causes you when your clients don't keep up with you, but it certainly doesn't represent reality. There are good reasons to not upgrade, the most important being: The program does EVERYTHING I want to do exactly the way I want to do it, and exactly the way I expect and know how to accomplish things. In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Yes, there are often advantages to upgrading, but they often are not proportional to the cost of the upgrades. And upgrades often have downsides, too. Choosing to avoid the risk of the downside and saving the money and sticking with a familiar version of the program are all completely rational reasons for not upgrading. I just don't see the value of upgrading to every new version of Finale (I upgrade about every 3 versions). But that's not to say that other people who use Finale differently than I do will *not* see the value. I also don't collaborate with other people, so backwards conversion simply isn't an issue for me (and I suspect I'm in the majority on that one). Indeed, I am prejudiced to believe that it's more irrational to quickly jump to new versions of application software than it is to stay with older versions, because of 15 years of observing software upgrades in any number of classes of application. The conservative user who skips upgrade almost always ends up with better value and productivity in the long run than the one who is constantly upgrading and encountering all the problems of change (not even mentioning bugs). -- 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On 3 Mar 2005 at 14:34, Robert Patterson wrote: For me the final product is the PDF and/or the hard copy. The hard copy is certainly isolated from abusive copy protection or corporate bankruptcy, but it is vulnerable to fire and flood and the like, as well as toner breakdown and paper rot. At this point I am counting on the ubiquity of PDF to isolate it from anything its parent, Adobe, may throw at it. While this hope may be misplaced, I think it has good odds, and it is the most reliable practical digital archiving format I can see at the moment. Bitmaps ought to be an even better digital archiving format, as they are so simple in the way they encode data that it is very easy (relatively speaking, especially compared to something like Acrobat Reader) to write a program to display and print them. I would think of them as digital photocopies. However, as long as Acrobat Reader *is* widely available, PDFs are certainly easier to deal with, as they can hold multiple pages in a single file (something that wouldn't be very convenient in a bitmap format). But if you're truly looking for a viable long-term digital storage format, I'd recommend the bitmaps over PDFs (and then keep both). -- 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On 3 Mar 2005 at 15:02, Simon Troup wrote: I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. My and my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a corporation's ill will I think you're arguing along your own agenda regardless of what I write. You used the pejorative neglect to promote your agenda I don't really have an agenda on this issue, although I don't subscribe to your victimware POV. The point is that Dennis's reasons for not upgrading are rational, not, as you said, due to some form of neglect. -- 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Confessions of an upgrade whore: There have been times that it's been more trouble than I'd like, but expression placement and tuplets, while not perfect, have made 2005 well worth it for me. Chuck 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On 3 Mar 2005 at 16:05, Simon Troup wrote: Actually, I don't care enough about the secrecy of my libraries even if I have spent a lot of time on them, and I DO give them away to anyone who asks, particularly colleagues and students. If they like my settings and copy them, then the world just may be a cleaner, neater, more understandable place for musicians around that person, and I am comfortable with that. I have benefitted from more experienced fellow Finale users sharing their settings, techniques and libraries, and I will freely pass them on for the benefit of the world at large (yes my ego really is that big!) That's great, and I applaud the intent, but I'd be worried that the files would be passed to a spotty teenager paid a little over 12 grand for doing the job in house half as well for people who frankly aren't very good at seeing the value added elegance that I provide in the first place. (Breethe). Nicely-tweaked libraries to not make a good engraver. Good engraving goes well beyond such minor issues. Yes, good libraries make a good engraver better, but by themselves they certainly do nothing to create a well-engraved piece of music. I definitely believe that the soft skills that make a good engraver cannot be stolen by someone who simply has access to the file produced by the good engraver. There's simply much more to the process than a few well-chosen settings. -- 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. My and my clients' scores are too important to me to entrust to a corporation's ill will I think you're arguing along your own agenda regardless of what I write. You used the pejorative neglect to promote your agenda I don't really have an agenda on this issue, although I don't subscribe to your victimware POV. The point is that Dennis's reasons for not upgrading are rational, not, as you said, due to some form of neglect. Don't get hung up on neglect, it was used loosely, you probably didn't read to the end of that particular email - it was just stream of counciousness typing :) I don't care which version people use as it doesn't affect me in the least (yet). I was however _fascinated_ in the topic as some peoples relationships with their clients were very far removed from my own experience - Dennis and others have been talking about issues which simply haven't arisen for me in ten years in the business. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On Mar 3, 2005, at 4:29 PM, Simon Troup wrote: I was however _fascinated_ in the topic as some peoples relationships with their clients were very far removed from my own experience - Dennis and others have been talking about issues which simply haven't arisen for me in ten years in the business. Umm, like what? Just wondering. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
At 03:19 PM 3/3/05 -0500, David W. Fenton wrote: On 3 Mar 2005 at 8:21, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: By creating victimware, they destroyed in one stroke my ten years of customer loyalty. Er, hadn't they already done that with Finale 98's CD-based copy protection? Almost. I skipped it, even thought its protection only required the original CD, and hence was not actually tethered to the company. But when they came back with the clear version the next year, I bought it immediately as a sign of good faith. This is now two years of tethered software. They don't need my upgrades, I guess. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Dennis wrote, responding to Simon's suggestion that the need for backwards write compatibility stems from neglece I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. and I would suggest that it seems to me that Simon is characterizing overlooking the failure to determine what version of Finale a client is using before starting a project in which finale files might are to be provided to the customer, as neglect. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On Mar 3, 2005, at 5:42 AM, Simon Troup wrote: We probably have very different working practices - no-one gets my Finale files, they only get PS or EPS. If they want things changed they pay me to do it. This probably explains most of our difference in opinion. Indeed it does. It also explains the question from your earlier message... I'm just curious because in ten years professional work I've never needed such a feature. If you never share files then of course you wouldn't. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On Mar 3, 2005, at 7:50 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Actually, I don't care enough about the secrecy of my libraries even if I have spent a lot of time on them, and I DO give them away to anyone who asks, particularly colleagues and students. If they like my settings and copy them, then the world just may be a cleaner, neater, more understandable place for musicians around that person, and I am comfortable with that. I have benefitted from more experienced fellow Finale users sharing their settings, techniques and libraries, and I will freely pass them on for the benefit of the world at large I concur in this sentiment. I did a lot of work for a client who sells the Finale files outright, so anyone who wants it can get my basic piano-vocal template for five bucks. Whatever benefit anyone can get by stealing my templates, they are welcome to it. I hate that there is so much ugly music out there, and to whatever extent the world is improved by my settings going forth and multiplying, I'm all for it. Like many on this thread, I doubt that anyone gains much from just copying my template. Things like line thicknesses and tie settings, maybe, but you can probably copy those from someone's Finale help site anyway. I think a lot more of my quality comes from my routine practices, but I'd be just as happy if someone found a way to copy those. To name just one example, I hate it that a short slur on a second where the further note is on the space but still within the staff -- eg, treble staff A-B beamed together so that both are upstem -- the default slur draws so that the center of its curve lands right over the staff line. Any time this comes up, I have a standard nudge that I do to push the slur up into the space. I think it looks better that way, but hardly anyone else seems to care enough to bother. Maybe I'm just weird and this really isn't worth fixing, but if other engravers were to copy my tweak and start doing it in their scores, too, I would consider that a good thing, not a theft of my work. And likewise for a dozen other standard tweaks I regularly do. (And wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone ran Patterson Beams on everything?) mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Mark D Lew wrote: (And wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone ran Patterson Beams on everything?) I'd like to be able to have it included as a choice in Document Options - Beams. Chuck 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
I was however _fascinated_ in the topic as some peoples relationships with their clients were very far removed from my own experience - Dennis and others have been talking about issues which simply haven't arisen for me in ten years in the business. Umm, like what? Just wondering. Just the whole thing of why clients want access to the Finale files, what clients do with them, are engravers happy about giving them away, shouldn't engravers be doing any corrections and being paid for it, don't editors just mess things up if they play with the files ... I don't think ethical refusal to accept victimware is neglect. and I would suggest that it seems to me that Simon is characterizing overlooking the failure to determine what version of Finale a client is using before starting a project in which finale files might are to be provided to the customer, as neglect. That was what I was suggesting when I was blathering on about my experience of owning Quark 4 when all the publishers were still on 3.3, I was presumed there had to be other reasons, a couple of good ones were quickly pointed out. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
True, but... Patterson beams is actually much more flexible than any beam option in Finale could ever be. Johannes Chuck Israels wrote: On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Mark D Lew wrote: (And wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone ran Patterson Beams on everything?) I'd like to be able to have it included as a choice in Document Options - Beams. Chuck 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 -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On the other hand, I think I am not wrong in assuming that a good proportion of those conductors with older versions of Finale actually do not own the program at all, and just have illegal copies on their computers. Johannes Rafael Ornes wrote: RSimon Troup écrit: Still, considering the work that goes into templates and libraries, I'm suprised that submission of finale files isn't a hot topic. I'd be very concerned that composers wouldn't gut the files and use them as templates, then just call me in for the difficult stuff!e: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004 In my situation, lack of backwards compatibility causes an endless series of headaches. The Choral Public Domain Library (http://www.cpdl.org) has ~2,500 Finale files available for download, in formats stretching from Filae 98 to 2005 (with XML and .ETF formats thrown in). I constantly field emails from conductors asking for older versions compatible with their software. As a result, I do what Noel suggested, i.e. keep 5 versions of Finale on my computer, and never save to an updated format, to allow the maximum compatibility. Of course, my situation is very different from yours, but it is becoming an increasingly common issue. Best, Rafael Ornes Choral Public Domain Library [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
I originally didn't like to give away my Finale files, but have changed my policy completely, and any client who wants it can have the originaly Finale file. A lot of the time it's no use to them anyway, because I use a number of fonts which I simply cannot give away for copyright reasons. Apart from this, I recently gave away a Finale file which I had done for a client, and later some in-house engravers changed some of it. Much to my satisfaction I did actually notice in the final publication that they did not get anywhere close to my beam placements (the beams just use Finale's very own and very ugly beam placement). So now someone with a good eye for these things can look up the edition and easily find the place where they tampered with it. Fortunately my name is not published with it. Tells you that libraries and settings are by far not all of it. Johannes Mark D Lew wrote: On Mar 3, 2005, at 7:50 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Actually, I don't care enough about the secrecy of my libraries even if I have spent a lot of time on them, and I DO give them away to anyone who asks, particularly colleagues and students. If they like my settings and copy them, then the world just may be a cleaner, neater, more understandable place for musicians around that person, and I am comfortable with that. I have benefitted from more experienced fellow Finale users sharing their settings, techniques and libraries, and I will freely pass them on for the benefit of the world at large I concur in this sentiment. I did a lot of work for a client who sells the Finale files outright, so anyone who wants it can get my basic piano-vocal template for five bucks. Whatever benefit anyone can get by stealing my templates, they are welcome to it. I hate that there is so much ugly music out there, and to whatever extent the world is improved by my settings going forth and multiplying, I'm all for it. Like many on this thread, I doubt that anyone gains much from just copying my template. Things like line thicknesses and tie settings, maybe, but you can probably copy those from someone's Finale help site anyway. I think a lot more of my quality comes from my routine practices, but I'd be just as happy if someone found a way to copy those. To name just one example, I hate it that a short slur on a second where the further note is on the space but still within the staff -- eg, treble staff A-B beamed together so that both are upstem -- the default slur draws so that the center of its curve lands right over the staff line. Any time this comes up, I have a standard nudge that I do to push the slur up into the space. I think it looks better that way, but hardly anyone else seems to care enough to bother. Maybe I'm just weird and this really isn't worth fixing, but if other engravers were to copy my tweak and start doing it in their scores, too, I would consider that a good thing, not a theft of my work. And likewise for a dozen other standard tweaks I regularly do. (And wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone ran Patterson Beams on everything?) mdl ___ 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Johannes Gebauer wrote: I originally didn't like to give away my Finale files, but have changed my policy completely, and any client who wants it can have the originaly Finale file. A lot of the time it's no use to them anyway, because I use a number of fonts which I simply cannot give away for copyright reasons. Apart from this, I recently gave away a Finale file which I had done for a client, and later some in-house engravers changed some of it. Much to my satisfaction I did actually notice in the final publication that they did not get anywhere close to my beam placements (the beams just use Finale's very own and very ugly beam placement). So now someone with a good eye for these things can look up the edition and easily find the place where they tampered with it. Fortunately my name is not published with it. I've never provided a Finale file, and never will, for such reasons. I get plenty of requests for a score that I can print my parts from, etc. Sometimes I've had to give an explanation of how unsatisfactory any one-click process to create parts can be, and that it's not much of a problem for me to prepare parts as well. There's no way I'm going to provide a product that constitutes files that can be screwed up by anybody with access to the software. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On 4 Mar 2005 at 0:24, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Patterson beams is actually much more flexible than any beam option in Finale could ever be. How so? Why would that be? The data the plugin uses to make its calculations is obviously there in the file and accessible to Finale. Why couldn't Finale do the same things? I also don't see what all the excitement is. I know that Finale's default beaming is not very good in many cases (though it's now substantially better than it was even 5 years ago), but whenever I attempt to apply Patterson Beams, I see virtually no difference in the results. Perhaps I don't understand the plugin or am not applying good values (I believe I'm pretty much using just the defaults, which maybe don't do anything at all?). But I still see absolutely no reason why Finale could not do what the plugin does. -- 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Simon Troup wrote: That's great, and I applaud the intent, but I'd be worried that the files would be passed to a spotty teenager paid a little over 12 grand for doing the job in house half as well for people who frankly aren't very good at seeing the value added elegance that I provide in the first place. (Breethe). David Fenton wrote: Nicely-tweaked libraries to not make a good engraver. Good engraving goes well beyond such minor issues. Yes, good libraries make a good engraver better, but by themselves they certainly do nothing to create a well-engraved piece of music. I definitely believe that the soft skills that make a good engraver cannot be stolen by someone who simply has access to the file produced by the good engraver. There's simply much more to the process than a few well-chosen settings. I'm not sure if you're criticising me here for thinking that getting hold of my files would mean someone could do the job as well as me? If so you missed the phrases ... for doing the job in house half as well for people who frankly aren't very good at seeing the value added elegance that I provide in the first place. ... *of course* I know that libraries and templates don't make the engraver, the trouble is that it may be all the fuel needed to make someone think they can do it instead of you - and hence you don't get the gig. I bet you know as well as I that our editors can see how good we are, but can our editors boss! -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Simon Troup wrote: Just the whole thing of why clients want access to the Finale files, what clients do with them, are engravers happy about giving them away, shouldn't engravers be doing any corrections and being paid for it, don't editors just mess things up if they play with the files ... I can easily imagine that certain users would make a hash of Finale files, but that's their problem, not mine. If I hand over a Finale file, it's when I'm done with the job. If they screw it up, they can hire me again to fix it, or they can live with their mess. But in reality, I've never had that problem. I've got only two clients to whom I regularly give Finale files. One is a publisher who knows Finale well. Although he doesn't do regular work as an engraver, he certainly understands the business. He does occasionally make some tweaks on the files, and I'm fine with that because he knows what he's doing. We never have any issues with version compatibility, because any contract is always clear about what version we're working in for any piece. The other is a computer-phobic composer who wants nothing to do with engraving. That's why she hires me. The only reason she asks for the Finale files is because if I ever disappear she wants to be able to have something to offer to the next engraver if she wants to make revisions to a piece. She's a little paranoid about this, because she lost contact with the engraver before me, and she had to have some pieces re-engraved. (Truth is, they probably would have been re-engraved anyway. It looked to me like they were done in Score) I have no worries about her messing up the Finale files. I know that she'll never touch them willingly. If she hires someone else to edit them, that's the next guy's problem. She and I have an excellent working relationship, and I know I'm always her first choice. One time she needed a song in a hurry while I was incommunicado on a long trip. She found someone else to do the song, and he did a sloppy job of it. Later she paid me to fix it up. She offered me a Finale file, but it was such a mess it was easier for me to just retype it from scratch. It was only about five pages, so reimposing all my regular layout and settings over would have been nearly as much work, and much more frustrating. If the piece were longer, I probably still would have started with my own template, but done some sort of cut and paste. I really don't want to mess with someone else's Finale file unless I know it's tidy. Too many possible surprises. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Hi Johannes, Sure, I understand that. I just think it might save steps to be able to select a document option which would always set the beams to come out with the Patterson settings you choose. I also realize that there may be a need for tweaks along the way, but it would be good for my needs to have this possibility. Chuck On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:24 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: True, but... Patterson beams is actually much more flexible than any beam option in Finale could ever be. Johannes Chuck Israels wrote: On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Mark D Lew wrote: (And wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone ran Patterson Beams on everything?) I'd like to be able to have it included as a choice in Document Options - Beams. Chuck 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 -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
d. collins wrote: Not only [has Coda not] made this promise [of backwards write compatibility], but they have always implied the contrary, as confirmed by the interviews I read. That's precisely my point. Of course, such a feature adds to the complexity of the program, but I recall Tobias saying this would even be doable with a plug-in, so it can't be that much of problem. I don't know how much of a problem it would be, either, and I don't remember Tobias writing this, but if he did, I know just enough about programming and software design that it is simpler to write a plug-in to strip out later features, than to build software to have the capability to do it or not to do it. As for the size of the software, I find this a rather amusing argument considering the rest of your post on the size of hard disks and on the necessity of keeping several versions of Finale... Or were you joking? This is partly a matter of comparing apples and oranges. The standard size of hard drives has increased ten fold in about three years and about ten fold in the three years before that. In 1999, a 1 GB hard drive was immense. Furthermore, six years ago, the size of memory available for operating systems and softare use was probably 100 times smaller than is commonplace today. Second, it is my experience that doubling the size of a software program squares the complexity of programming (and more importantly, debugging it), so that I submit that adding backwards write compatibility would be adding orders of magnitude more difficulty in debugging and maintaining it. Comparing the new, bigger capacity hard drives, with the increase program size, is a bit like comparing the addition of a new filing cabinet, with writing a longer essay, in that both adding the larger hard drive, and the new filing cabinet are trivial compared with developing a larger computer program, or writing a longer essay. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On 2 Mar 2005 at 5:05, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: d. collins wrote: Not only [has Coda not] made this promise [of backwards write compatibility], but they have always implied the contrary, as confirmed by the interviews I read. That's precisely my point. Of course, such a feature adds to the complexity of the program, but I recall Tobias saying this would even be doable with a plug-in, so it can't be that much of problem. I don't know how much of a problem it would be, either, and I don't remember Tobias writing this, but if he did, I know just enough about programming and software design that it is simpler to write a plug-in to strip out later features, than to build software to have the capability to do it or not to do it. This is simply not true. Look at how word processing software (which I will agree is much simpler than Finale's file format) implements backward (and sideways, to other file formats) write compatibility: by adding file filters. These are little programs that translate from one format to another. The main application only has to be re-engineered to talk to these translation programs. Keep in mind that when you open a Finale file in any version of Finale, you're not actually editing the original file, but a copy in memory. When you open a file from an earlier version, the memory copy is translated from the old to the new format, without a name. Now, a translator layer would only have to take the memory version and write it back in the older file version. This means that certain features would be dropped, since they weren't supported by the old file format. Word and Excel warn you about this, but the losses are much less significant than what you'd have in Finale. So, there'd have to be some thought go into how to inform the user of what is lost, and also of situations where the conversion is probably going to mess things up. My guess is that the vast majority of situations where backward write compatibility would be useful is with near versions, such as 2K4 and 2K2. It's not like there are too many people out there exchanging files with other Finale users who are using Finale 97 or earlier. So, you're not talking about the *huge* changes that go all the way back to the beginning of time, Finale-wise, but just the changes in file format for a few versions back. Now, to do this *really* well, it would probably be a good idea to re- engineer the Finale file format. One solution would be to keep multiple versions of a file in the same file (Excel implemented this in the 97 version), and then the program would need to keep track of changes in the one version that affect structures in the other version. This works well in Excel precisely because its file format is already structured with content and structure stored separately, as well as with redundancy (formulas are stored, but the results of those formulas are also stored). Those kinds of things apply less well to a database format. But what *can* be done with databases is to restructure your data storage structures to make them easier to be backward compatible. One method for doing this is that when you add a feature that requires a file format change, instead of altering the existing data structure, instead add a *new* data structure linked to the old data structure, and have that new structure store the data for the new feature. A messier way to accomplish this would be to have the old file format in one file and the things unstorable in the old format stored in a second file, and then have the translator be smart enough to recombine (with the caveat that you're going to lose things if you do things like, for instance, deleting frames in the old version). This is all complicated, but it's all *separate* from the main application *if* Finale has been properly designed in the first place. As for the size of the software, I find this a rather amusing argument considering the rest of your post on the size of hard disks and on the necessity of keeping several versions of Finale... Or were you joking? This is partly a matter of comparing apples and oranges. The standard size of hard drives has increased ten fold in about three years and about ten fold in the three years before that. In 1999, a 1 GB hard drive was immense. . . . Malarkey. Dell was supplying 20GB hard drives as standard in 1999. I own just such a machine, bought in Fall of that year. Indeed, even in beginning of 1996, Dell was shipping standard workstations with 2GB hard drives, as I went cheap and downgraded to 1GB (my machine was ordered at the end of 1995, shipped in the first week of 1996). And I had a client who bought a number of Dell workstations between 1997 and 1998 and they all had 4-6GB hard drives -- and those were cheap, low-end workstations. . . . Furthermore, six years ago, the size of memory available for operating systems and softare use was probably 100 times
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
David W. Fenton wrote: Keep in mind that when you open a Finale file in any version of Finale, you're not actually editing the original file, but a copy in memory. When you open a file from an earlier version, the memory copy is translated from the old to the new format, without a name. The existence in Options Program options other options of a checkbox, open older documents as untitled, which seems to be checked by default, but which, since this behavior has never been a problem for me, I have never explored, caused me to suspect that your assertion as written above, may not be true. I would have better served, instead of writing six years to write a short period of time. I don't think you really understand modern software architecture. You're right. I probably don't. In fact, I know just enough to make myself appear foolish in messages such as the preceding ones in my thread. I also don't know how much time it takes how many programmers to design an application like Finale from the ground up, but I do suspect that the time involved in person years is significant, and that therefore, if we are to continue to have Finale available at the modest prices we pay (and I know some may not feel that the greater part of $100.00 we pay for the upgrade each year qualifies as modest, but I do) each year, some of the initial decisions that were made when FIN 1.0 and 128, or 256 K were the total amount of memory, and hard drives were measured in MB instead of GB are going to continue to plague us. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On 2 Mar 2005 at 15:00, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: Keep in mind that when you open a Finale file in any version of Finale, you're not actually editing the original file, but a copy in memory. When you open a file from an earlier version, the memory copy is translated from the old to the new format, without a name. The existence in Options Program options other options of a checkbox, open older documents as untitled, which seems to be checked by default, but which, since this behavior has never been a problem for me, I have never explored, caused me to suspect that your assertion as written above, may not be true. I see no reason why that would control anything other than whether the copy in memory is unnamed or retains the name. Again, that's not at a level that is entwined within the actual process of conversion. It's entirely external to the actual conversion process. I would have better served, instead of writing six years to write a short period of time. I don't think you really understand modern software architecture. You're right. I probably don't. In fact, I know just enough to make myself appear foolish in messages such as the preceding ones in my thread. I also don't know how much time it takes how many programmers to design an application like Finale from the ground up, but I do suspect that the time involved in person years is significant, and that therefore, if we are to continue to have Finale available at the modest prices we pay (and I know some may not feel that the greater part of $100.00 we pay for the upgrade each year qualifies as modest, but I do) each year, some of the initial decisions that were made when FIN 1.0 and 128, or 256 K were the total amount of memory, and hard drives were measured in MB instead of GB are going to continue to plague us. They've bitten the bullet over the years and re-engineered many problematic components of Finale. They just can't do it all at once. Also, they have to choose things that make Finale more marketable, and I'm afraid people who need multiple versions of Finale (under the current setup) are vastly outnumbered by those who get by just fine with only one (i.e., who don't have to exchange data with people using different versions). -- 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
Tuplets do work with this technique. How can you verify that? I used the technique on a file with a tuplet. It came through unharmed. What you basically do is to store more data for tuplets than Fin2004 is supposed to store, and you import flags that are supposed to be off. As I see it, it's always a possibility that your converted file will crash or corrupt something else or behave strangely on future Finale versions. That may very well be. I am only reporting what happened. I was responding to a poster who was in a bind by suggesting something that might help him. Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
And I only bring up the caveat to warn that it might not work. ;-) It's always risky (whether it works or not at first glance is immaterial) to reverse-engineer an ETF. You never know what might happen when you open that file down the line, or run a plug-in on it, so handle at your own risk! On 3/1/05 6:52 AM, Richard Yates [EMAIL PROTECTED] saith: Tuplets do work with this technique. How can you verify that? I used the technique on a file with a tuplet. It came through unharmed. What you basically do is to store more data for tuplets than Fin2004 is supposed to store, and you import flags that are supposed to be off. As I see it, it's always a possibility that your converted file will crash or corrupt something else or behave strangely on future Finale versions. That may very well be. I am only reporting what happened. I was responding to a poster who was in a bind by suggesting something that might help him. Richard Yates ___ 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] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
On Mar 1, 2005, at 12:39 PM, d. collins wrote: If MakeMusic would consider giving us backwards compatibility (at least one version), no one would one have to run that kind of risk. But, after reading the interviews on Jari's site, I realize the chances of seeing this are more than slim. Too bad. Finale is one of the very rare programs to change its format every year and to offer no backwards compatibility. A real nuisance, in my opinion. This seems to be a marketing strategy to prompt users to upgrade. I'm convinced it backfires in many cases, especially for those working with people who used localized versions. I'm convinced it has nothing to do with marketing, and everything to do with the format actually NEEDING to change as they add new features, plus a lack of programming funding since the user base is so small. Nothing Machiavellian going on here, I'm sure. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] backwards conversion from 2005 to 2004
When you read part of what I wrote, please understand that instead of when the smallest hard easily available is at least 60 GIG I intended to write when the smallest hard drive easily availble is at least 60 GB. I know that it is still possible to find smaller drives, but last time I was in a computer store, 40 GB was the absolute smallest they had available (except for some recycled 1 GB drives for $10.00 each, as is) and that was through the service department, as a replacement part. The smallest new drive in retail packaging was 60, and these appeared to be close to downgrading to service department too. If you've got 200 GB of hard drive, you're not going to use it all, and I can't see any good reason not to keep (or re-install) your old versions. The only conflict I've ever run into is that it seems you can't have MIDI capabilities in both versions. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
