David W. Fenton wrote:
My point is that simple optimization (i.e., removing blank staves
from a systen) should happen automatically if you have optimization
turned on for the passage of music represented on a system (while I
understand that Johannes has a use for optimization being stored in
David,
Optimization in Finale allows to remove blank staves _and_ makes the
vertical spacing of each system independent from the global setting. It
has *all* to do with the vertical spacing.
You can optimize without removing empty staves.
Unless I am missing something here it is you who hasn't
I appreciate all the feedback and ideas, everyone, thank you. I've worked
with 2005 for the last day now, and already see many dramatic improvements,
and appreciated the returned control over the end product. So it is back to
Finale for me.
I've also written a blog entry on this topic (Finale vs.
On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've also written a blog entry on this topic (Finale vs. Sibelius) on
my
website, would be interested in your feedback:
Very nicely put, but for my money (all 0$ of it!) I would have liked
more detail than just hairpin openings, particularly
] Finale/Sibelius and Finale 2005/Finale 200x
comparison
On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've also written a blog entry on this topic (Finale vs. Sibelius) on
my
website, would be interested in your feedback:
Very nicely put, but for my money (all 0$ of it!) I would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've also written a blog entry on this topic (Finale vs. Sibelius) on my
website, would be interested in your feedback:
http://www.jefferycotton.net/info.asp?pgs=blogentryblbe=10
I hope you've also found the Interviews on the Finale Tips site. Those
should give you many
On 3 Mar 2005 at 19:37, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:40 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Do you currently have to define default vertical spacing for systems
on a per-system basis? No, of course not -- there are default
settings already. The default setting for the system I describe
On 4 Mar 2005 at 9:50, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
My point is that simple optimization (i.e., removing blank staves
from a systen) should happen automatically if you have optimization
turned on for the passage of music represented on a system (while I
understand
On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
OK, that makes sense. I'm in the habit of doing all my layout
adjustments only after layout is set, so the change wouldn't really
benefit me much, but I can see how it would be a great help to people
who make large changes to a piece after
David W. Fenton wrote:
In my case this has nothing to do with parts at all. The reason I need
to optimize out parts which have got music in them has to do with
doubling parts. For instance, in some situations the first and second
violins play identical parts, and for space reasons I just want to
On Mar 4, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Whether this has to be invoked or is updated automatically is actually
a pretty minor point in terms of time savings - at least for the way I
do my work.
Yep. Especially if all the systems are pre-optimized in the template.
mdl
Hi Johannes,
There's no reason why Finale couldn't have automatically updating
optimization with the option to do a manual override. You had to do a
manual override anyway to hide staves containing notes. It would be
easy for Finale to keep track of which staves have been manually
I was merely commenting to what David said: I think it's
crazy that the optimization information is stored with the absolute
system rather than as a global setting that automatically updates the
optimization when conditions change to warrant it.
It is precisely the fact that the optimization
On Mar 2, 2005, at 10:35 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 2 Mar 2005 at 20:18, Christopher Smith wrote:
disappearing measures,
I've never seen that. What is that? I have occasionally seen measures
APPEAR to vanish, but that is usually because I had a multi-measure
rest where I later entered notes,
disappearing measures,
I've never seen that. What is that? I have occasionally seen measures
APPEAR to vanish, but that is usually because I had a multi-measure rest where
I later entered notes, and forgot to turn off the rest.
That
was a typo (although I have seen the measures
Jeremy,
Unless I've very much misunderstood your explanation, it sounds like
something a simple Update Layout will fix. You can even turn on
Automatic Update Layout, if you like.
(BTW, since there has been discussion of the sluggishness caused by
Automatic Update Layout, Automatic Word
On 3 Mar 2005 at 8:44, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I also think that staff optimization should not be something that
you have to remove and then re-apply. If you insert new measures, or
insert data in previously empty measures (or you clear/hide
previously populated
On 3 Mar 2005 at 11:40, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I am not against an automatic function with manual override, although
I don't think I'd need or use it (because undoubtedly it will again
slow down Finale, as most of these automatic update routines do).
What if there were an option to set it to
On 3 Mar 2005 at 7:06, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Mar 2, 2005, at 10:35 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 2 Mar 2005 at 20:18, Christopher Smith wrote:
disappearing measures,
I've never seen that. What is that? I have occasionally seen
measures APPEAR to vanish, but that is usually
Although I can see that it may be useful to some, it wouldn't be useful
to me, so I am not interested (but I don't object).
However, something I'd much rather see is automatic vertical staff
spacing. ;-)
Johannes
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 at 11:40, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I am not
On Mar 2, 2005, at 11:44 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Just for the record, I just had to optimize many parts out of the
score, which weren't empty at all. This was possible because the
optimization information is stored with the absolute system, and is in
fact manually accessable. I do not wish
On 3 Mar 2005 at 15:22, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Mar 2, 2005, at 11:44 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Just for the record, I just had to optimize many parts out of the
score, which weren't empty at all. This was possible because the
optimization information is stored with the absolute system,
On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:49 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
My point is that simple optimization (i.e., removing blank staves
from a systen) should happen automatically if you have optimization
turned on for the passage of music represented on a system
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting
On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:49 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
My point is that simple optimization (i.e., removing blank staves
from a systen) should happen automatically if you have optimization
turned on for the passage of music represented on a system
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting
On 3 Mar 2005 at 17:28, Mark D Lew wrote:
It's just that I would have worded it to say that removal of
empty staves is what needs to be separated from optimization.
The meaning of the word optimization would then be associated with
something that is not remotely related to the concept the
On 3 Mar 2005 at 17:28, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:49 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
[]
. . . I use this constantly, because the vertical height of a piano
accompaniment varies throughout the piece. A constant distance
from voice staff to piano-treble staff is unacceptable
On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:25 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
The meaning of the word optimization would then be associated with
something that is not remotely related to the concept the word
represents.
You optimize in Finale in order to optimize the usage of space on
the page, by eliminating blank staves,
On 3 Mar 2005 at 18:51, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:25 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
The meaning of the word optimization would then be associated with
something that is not remotely related to the concept the word
represents.
You optimize in Finale in order to optimize the
On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:40 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Do you currently have to define default vertical spacing for systems
on a per-system basis? No, of course not -- there are default
settings already. The default setting for the system I describe would
be that the default vertical spacing for a
On Mar 3, 2005, at 7:10 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Removing blank staves returns a lot more usable space than vertically
adjusting spacing within a staff.
Taking up space is not the only criterion. An attractively spaced page
is more optimal than one in which every system is cramped.
To offer a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway: I'm wondering if I can get some feedback on where things stand
with Finale 2005 as regards the many problems I am familiar with in
F2002, and I'm wondering what the NEW frustrations might be with 2005
(again, as regards notation -- I do not use these programs'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there is somewhere on the internet where someone has actually
documented these things, that would certainly suffice.
Go to the Finale tips site, click on Other Texts. There you have
in-depth reviews of Finale 2002, Finale 2003, Finale 2004 Finale 2005.
Best
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings all,
mailing list newbie here. Glad to have found this.
The latest version of Finale I am familiar with is 2002, having refused
to upgrade beyond that until they fixed some of the basic notational
problems in Finale that always seemed to get overlooked --
An often-overlooked area of improvement in Finale versions is the
interface for plugins. Both Finale 2003 and Finale 2004 included
significant improvements that greatly expanded the power of plugins.
Finale 2003 allowed plugins to detect and operate on multiple open
documents. Finale 2004
On Mar 2, 2005, at 4:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings all,
mailing list newbie here. Glad to have found this.
The latest version of Finale I am familiar with is 2002, having refused to upgrade beyond that until they fixed some of the basic notational problems in Finale that always
On 2 Mar 2005 at 20:18, Christopher Smith wrote:
disappearing measures,
I've never seen that. What is that? I have occasionally seen measures
APPEAR to vanish, but that is usually because I had a multi-measure
rest where I later entered notes, and forgot to turn off the rest.
Well, that
David W. Fenton wrote:
I also think that staff optimization should not be something that you
have to remove and then re-apply. If you insert new measures, or
insert data in previously empty measures (or you clear/hide
previously populated measures), if you've got optimization turned on,
it
37 matches
Mail list logo
