Hello Dennis!
Am 02.02.2011 um 03:16 schrieb Dennis Bathory-Kitsz:
On Tue, February 1, 2011 2:58 pm, Gerhard Torges wrote:
Then the examples on the website are probably not done with the software. :-D
The examples on the website were done with Graphire and they came packaged as
samples
Actually on the Mac (Finale 2010), just 4 on its own within the
selection tool does the job. No modifier needed.
On 2/02/11 6:20 PM, Jari Williamsson wrote:
On 2011-02-02 05:04, Raymond Horton wrote:
There's no tool called the MassMover Tool anymore and 4 (without
modifier key) isn't used
On 1 Feb 2011, at 23:09, David W. Fenton wrote:
What about Windows emulation on a Mac? There are a number of options
there, in fact.
I did try. The Windows version had its bugs and there were so many
things to iron out that I made a decision to
put my time into Finale rather than
About as modal as could be!
A tie-in with the Graphire monk here I think ;-)
Steve P.
On 2 Feb 2011, at 04:04, Raymond Horton wrote:
OK, youse guys has lost me. Is Finale modal or non-modal?
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
I've always wondered why lines are so thin in Finale. I couldn't
imagine anyone using them without thickening them up.
Staff lines, ledger lines, note stems, bar lines, ..., ...
Steve P.
On 2 Feb 2011, at 06:26, Jari Williamsson wrote:
MO, what you're talking about is based on very old
On 2011-02-02 12:01, Steve Parker wrote:
I've always wondered why lines are so thin in Finale. I couldn't imagine
anyone using them without thickening them up.
Staff lines, ledger lines, note stems, bar lines, ..., ...
For me it's printer-related. On one of my printers (both are 1200 DPI
On 2011-02-02 11:05, Matthew Hindson (gmail) wrote:
Actually on the Mac (Finale 2010), just 4 on its own within the
selection tool does the job. No modifier needed.
Yes, you're correct and the modifier version works as well:
With the Selection Tool, select the measures you want to affect, then
This is interesting. I've not seen any difference in thickness
between numerous printers, laser and inkjet.
I've had one or two dodgy things back from print companies but only so
bad that it is a definite cock-up.
Surely 1200dpi is resolution enough to get exact and predictable output?
On 2/2/2011 6:01 AM, Steve Parker wrote:
I've always wondered why lines are so thin in Finale. I couldn't imagine
anyone using them without thickening them up.
Staff lines, ledger lines, note stems, bar lines, ..., ...
Interestingly enough, in all the music I've produced with Finale I've
On 2/2/2011 6:42 AM, dc wrote:
Steve Parker écrit:
Surely 1200dpi is resolution enough to get exact and predictable output?
It certainly should be, or there's something wrong with it. That means a
stem with Finale's default thickness has a width of about ten dots - in
other words, there
On Wed, February 2, 2011 2:58 am, Gerhard Torges wrote:
They were done by a composer/engraver who is now
living as a monk and no longer uses technology.
Now that's an interesting story!
Where can I read more about that?
You can't; he's a very private person.
He wrote the Graphire
On Wed, February 2, 2011 6:17 am, David H. Bailey wrote:
Interestingly enough, in all the music I've produced with Finale I've
never changed any of the line thicknesses and haven't gotten any
complaints
I changed mine some time ago. I've tried to thicken many of the lines. They're
not as
On 2011-02-02 14:45, dc wrote:
Interesting sample. The stems seem to be thinner than the staff lines.
And staff line seems to be identical to barline width?
As I understand it, there are at least 2 schools regarding barlines:
One with thicker barlines than staff lines, and one with same
That's not too far away from my defaults:
http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/01/22/string-quartet-i-vi/string-quartet-i-vi.pdf
Steve P.
http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/01/22/string-quartet-i-vi/string-quartet-i-vi.pdf
On 2 Feb 2011, at 13:10, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Wed, February 2, 2011
On Wed, February 2, 2011 9:44 am, Steve Parker wrote:
That's not too far away from my defaults:
http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/01/22/string-quartet-i-vi/string-quartet-i-vi.pdf
Close, yes. Your staff lines are thinner than mine, and you make a distinction
between staff and barlines. And
On Wed, February 2, 2011 8:45 am, dc wrote:
Interesting sample. The stems seem to be thinner than the staff lines. What
publications did you measure as reference?
Reprints, which I find more legible than some primary printings (don't know
the proper word in music, nor how many stages they go
On Wed, February 2, 2011 9:42 am, Jari Williamsson wrote:
And staff line seems to be identical to barline width?
Yes.
As I understand it, there are at least 2 schools regarding barlines:
One with thicker barlines than staff lines, and one with same width. For
parts (but not for scores) I
I still can't get my head round this..
Surely at worst the difference should half a dot or so?
To look significantly different we must be talking about an error of a
couple of pixels at least on lines?
Or where am I up a creek?
My output has been consistent from HP to Samsung to Lexmark,
Jari is absolutely right, of course. I am using Finale Windows 2011(b or c,
whatever, I am on a smartphone right now).
The new-improved massmover is now called something else, and the respacing
command is, I believe, alt-4. As I said, it's routine for me.
As I was typing the first post I
Yes. I like the thicker staff lines, but also want the barlines to be
thicker so my staff lines are a compromise.
I definitely like the stems thicker than the staff lines too, although
it is a tightrope getting them to look ok with the flags.
If you zoom in wildly you can see that there is a
My reason is that I don't want my bars to look like boxes, which they
tend to if staff = bar lines.
I like notes, stems and bar lines to be 'off' the page compared to the
staff.
Steve P.
On 2 Feb 2011, at 15:22, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
What's the reason for the thicker barlines
Yes, I would like exactly Dennis' staff lines, but can't make them
work for me without silly barlines..
Steve P.
On 2 Feb 2011, at 15:17, dc wrote:
Except that on the subject of line thickness, you do the reverse:
your stems are thicker than your staff lines.
On 2 Feb 2011 at 7:26, Jari Williamsson wrote:
On 2011-02-02 00:07, David W. Fenton wrote:
Finale's defaults have always been terrible, and no one who wants
decent output uses the defaults for layout. The experienced Finale
user can get excellent output, but at the cost of a pretty large
On 2 Feb 2011 at 11:26, Steve Parker wrote:
I've not seen any difference in thickness
between numerous printers, laser and inkjet.
I've had one or two dodgy things back from print companies but only so
bad that it is a definite cock-up. Surely 1200dpi is resolution enough
to get exact and
On 2 Feb 2011 at 12:16, Jari Williamsson wrote:
On 2011-02-02 12:01, Steve Parker wrote:
I've always wondered why lines are so thin in Finale. I couldn't
imagine anyone using them without thickening them up. Staff lines,
ledger lines, note stems, bar lines, ..., ...
For me it's
On 2 Feb 2011 at 7:40, dc wrote:
Raymond Horton écrit:
If anyone is still reading, have you figured out what I occasionally
do wrong to cause this dreadful mass score change into a tenor sax
band? I finally did - it happens when I type ctrl-A, 4 while the
STAFF Tool is selected instead of
On 2 Feb 2011 at 16:48, dc wrote:
Jari Williamsson écrit:
As I understand it, there are at least 2 schools regarding
barlines: One with thicker barlines than staff lines, and one with
same width. For parts (but not for scores) I often use thicker
barlines than staff lines.
I recall
Raymond mentioned that, also.
Raymond Horton
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM, David W. Fenton
lists.fin...@dfenton.com wrote:
On 2 Feb 2011 at 7:40, dc wrote:
Raymond Horton écrit:
If anyone is still reading, have you figured out what I occasionally
do wrong to cause this dreadful mass
On Feb 2, 2011, at 11:57 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
While it's true that I am using an old version of Finale,
I recently (november) upgraded from Finale 2002 to 2011. I am amazed
and delighted at the ease of learning the new features and
highly recommend that people who have not upgraded
My point was, it was a one or two keystroke screw-up, so it seems
obvious, at first, that one or two Ctrl-Z's should undo it.
Raymond Horton
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM, David W. Fenton
lists.fin...@dfenton.com wrote:
On 2 Feb 2011 at 7:40, dc wrote:
Raymond Horton écrit:
If anyone is
On 2 Feb 2011 at 12:32, Raymond Horton wrote:
My point was, it was a one or two keystroke screw-up, so it seems
obvious, at first, that one or two Ctrl-Z's should undo it.
While I understand that this is the mental map you have (and it's
perfectly appropriate that you do!), Finale actually
Back when I was using Finale 98 and just beginning to use Sibelius I
noticed that the Sibelius parts were more legible to my older eyes than the
finale ones. The Finale looked great but the staff lines were so fine that
I was having trouble distinguishing staff lines from ledger lines. I did
not
And I would (controversially no doubt) put Igor Engraver above all of
them..
Which is probably not good form on the FInale list ;-)
The big caveat is that it's dead in the water..
Steve P.
On 31 Jan 2011, at 23:52, Jari Williamsson wrote:
On 2011-01-31 23:51, Matthew Hindson (gmail) wrote:
To continue this, I'd put Graphire Music Press up there for sheer looks out of
the box, and for the fastest input via computer keyboard, with auto-update and
reflow and objects that moved out of each others' way automatically. A
beautiful but expensive piece of software.
Of course, it's also dead
I would agree as well with putting Graphire up there.
The closest immediate output (in quality) to something like a Peter's
edition.
Steve P.
On 1 Feb 2011, at 12:15, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
To continue this, I'd put Graphire Music Press up there for sheer
looks out of
the box, and
Interestingly, Together in Song, also known as the Australian Hymn Book II,
was done with Graphire Music Press and it is without a doubt one of the
poorest examples of music engraving I've seen published. Some errors were
the fault of the engraver but still, quite a lot were the fault of the
I think if something looks bad it is always the fault of the copyist!
I don't think a program will ever exist that will not need serious
tweaking to every bar to produce
publishable output. Improvements could be made still, for instance
giving up white-space at the end of the bar if the last
What prevents me from using it is that it only works in Mac OS9 or the
Classic environment so it is dependent on an old mac staying alive.
That old mac requires a printer that has drivers for OS9.
There are none so instead it requires a print to pdf kludge that
worked erratically, often
On 2/1/2011 8:13 AM, Andrew Moschou wrote:
Interestingly, Together in Song, also known as the Australian Hymn Book II,
was done with Graphire Music Press and it is without a doubt one of the
poorest examples of music engraving I've seen published. Some errors were
the fault of the engraver but
On 2011-02-01 15:40, Steve Parker wrote:
For example: input note, push A for accent, p for piano mark, f for a
pause, and d to start a hairpin.
All without changing tools or modes.
IIRC, Igor supported slurs as well in entry mode? Articulations,
Key/Time/Clef changes and Expressions at entry
On 1 Feb 2011, at 16:06, Jari Williamsson wrote:
IIRC, Igor supported slurs as well in entry mode?
Yes.
Articulations, Key/Time/Clef changes and Expressions at entry time
are supported in Finale Simple Entry (but not hairpins and slurs).
I find simple entry in Finale or Igor unusable
There are actually some examples on the website of what looks like
untweaked output.
http://www.noteheads.com/noteheads/pressf_set.html
I'll send to your email.
Steve P.
On 1 Feb 2011, at 14:48, dc wrote:
Steve Parker écrit:
I can send you samples of mine.
I would certainly appreciate
On 2011-02-01 17:15, Steve Parker wrote:
I find simple entry in Finale or Igor unusable for proper work.
Huh? I do all my entry in Simple Entry. And I would say that Simple
Entry in Finale using the computer keyboard is very similar to Igor's
computer keyboard input.
Best regards,
Jari
It's very similar to Igor's equivalent input method.
Igor also had an equivalent to speedy which is what I use in Finale
with only a laptop keyboard.
You really find it quicker than using the keyboard with speedy??
Steve P.
On 1 Feb 2011, at 16:31, Jari Williamsson wrote:
On 2011-02-01
On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Jari Williamsson wrote:
On 2011-02-01 17:15, Steve Parker wrote:
I find simple entry in Finale or Igor unusable for proper work.
Huh? I do all my entry in Simple Entry.
MM is clearly committed to Simple Entry as the input method that will continue
to be
On 2011-02-01 17:34, Steve Parker wrote:
You really find it quicker than using the keyboard with speedy??
Yes, for me Simple Entry is faster than Speedy - as long as I don't need
to insert a note entry in the music. Then I need to grab the mouse and
that slows things down.
Best regards,
On 2/1/2011 11:57 AM, Chuck Israels wrote:
MM is clearly committed to Simple Entry as the input method that will continue
to be developed. Unfortunately for those of us who think pitch first and note
value second, it turns our habits and movements upside down and impedes our
work.
Hear,
On 2011-02-01 17:57, Chuck Israels wrote:
MM is clearly committed to Simple Entry as the input method that
will continue to be developed. Unfortunately for those of us who
think pitch first and note value second, it turns our habits
and movements upside down and impedes our work. If MM
On 2011-02-01 17:15, Steve Parker wrote:
I think its strength was that Peter Bengtson the original author knew as
much about composing and engraving as programming.
I'd say the the real strength - as well as the weakness - from Igor was
that they choose Lisp as the development language. That
Am 01.02.2011 um 15:35 schrieb David H. Bailey:
If the examples on the website are very fine and the output you see in the
hymnal is poor,
Then the examples on the website are probably not done with the software. :-D
Gerhard
___
Finale mailing
Hello!
Am 01.02.2011 um 15:40 schrieb Steve Parker st...@pinkrat.co.uk:
What prevents me from using it is that it only works in Mac OS9 or the
Classic environment so it is dependent on an old mac staying alive.
Or on complete emulation of those.
I think there's software for that: vMac and
I agree with this although I don't understand the technicalities of it.
It was certainly a big part of the beta discussion towards the end.
I think there was some problem with an easy OSX port too?
Steve P.
On 1 Feb 2011, at 19:38, Jari Williamsson wrote:
I'd say the the real strength - as
Not sure to what extent you're kidding..
but Score was capable of serious results!
Steve P.
On 1 Feb 2011, at 19:58, Gerhard Torges wrote:
Am 01.02.2011 um 15:35 schrieb David H. Bailey:
If the examples on the website are very fine and the output you see
in the hymnal is poor,
Then the
On 1 Feb 2011, at 20:00, Gerhard Torges wrote:
Hello!
Am 01.02.2011 um 15:40 schrieb Steve Parker st...@pinkrat.co.uk:
What prevents me from using it is that it only works in Mac OS9 or
the Classic environment so it is dependent on an old mac staying
alive.
Or on complete emulation of
On 1 Feb 2011 at 14:40, Steve Parker wrote:
Igor will still work on a windows machine. I considered it but
changing platform to use dead and unsupported software seemed a whole
lot less appetising than switching (back) to Finale.
What about Windows emulation on a Mac? There are a number of
On 1 Feb 2011 at 9:35, David H. Bailey wrote:
If the examples on the website are very fine and the output you see in
the hymnal is poor, then how can you blame the program at all?
!!!
Of course you can blame the program! What that means is that a good
engraver knows what to adjust manually,
At 9:00 PM +0100 2/1/11, Gerhard Torges wrote:
Secondly I can assign shortcuts to any expression or slur or shape
or accent etc and enter them whilst entering notes.
For example: input note, push A for accent, p for piano mark, f
for a pause, and d to start a hairpin.
All without changing
On Tue, February 1, 2011 2:58 pm, Gerhard Torges wrote:
Then the examples on the website are probably not done with the software. :-D
The examples on the website were done with Graphire and they came packaged as
samples with the software. They were done by a composer/engraver who is now
living
Jumping into this conversation with both feet in my mouth:
...
I know little about it, but get the idea that mode-switching is now
considered generally bad for workflow in computer apps.
It it, indeed.
The problem with modes is that the very same keystroke will produce
completely different
On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Raymond Horton horton.raym...@gmail.com wrote:
Jumping into this conversation with both feet in my mouth:
...
I know little about it, but get the idea that mode-switching is now
considered generally bad for workflow in computer apps.
It it, indeed.
The
Sorry about the blank message.
Raymond, that scenario happened to me quite frequently. Luckily I caught it in
time, though. I finally came to my senses and removed the '4' metatool from the
staff tool in my default document. It still happens occasionally on older
documents!
On Feb 1, 2011,
On 2011-02-02 00:07, David W. Fenton wrote:
Finale's defaults have always been terrible, and no one who wants
decent output uses the defaults for layout. The experienced Finale
user can get excellent output, but at the cost of a pretty large
investment in learning what to change from the way
On 2011-02-02 05:04, Raymond Horton wrote:
Now and then, especially if i have auto-spacing switched off, with the
mass-mover tool I may hit ctrl-A to select the whole document, then
hit 4 to re-space.
You should probably include the Finale version you're using.
There's no tool called the
Hello John!
Am 02.02.2011 um 02:34 schrieb John Howell john.how...@vt.edu:
At 9:00 PM +0100 2/1/11, Gerhard Torges wrote:
But unfortunately, you have to enable the accent in Sibelius before entering
the note.
?? Not at all true. Depending, of course, on exactly what you
On 2011-01-31 22:51, Robert Patterson wrote:
Does anyone on the list have any experience with MuseScore? Have you ever
used it for a project, and if so what are its strengths/weaknesses relative
to Finale?
Seriously? It has a looong way to what should be required for
professional music
I haven't used it for a project, though my undergrad composition
students are increasingly coming in with experience in using the
software (and I do nothing to discourage them from continuing to use it).
- I think that it's the third most capable music notation application
out there, behind
On 2011-01-31 23:51, Matthew Hindson (gmail) wrote:
- I think that it's the third most capable music notation application
out there, behind Finale and Sibelius of course.
For Mac perhaps. On the PC, I would put Score and Primus above it.
Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
67 matches
Mail list logo
