On 12 Jul 2002, at 4:01, Mark D. Lew wrote: > As for the type-in-score question. The obvious problem with what was > originally suggested is that Finale stores anything that's typed onto > the page as an expression. On the whole, this is a very good thing, > and I don't think it ought to be changed even if such a change were > practical (which it surely isn't). So if a Sibelius-minded user comes > along and types "pizz." over and over every time he wants one, he's > going to end up with a dozen different definitions of "pizz." in his > expression list.
I think that's a ridiculous objection. The question as to what happens when you type into the score an already-existing exression would be up to Coda's programmers. The could do like Microsoft and have an autocomplete list, for instance. And in any event, the way Sibelius manages automatic playback of typed-in-score expressions is by having a predefined list of them, so that each instance of "pizz" in fact derives its meaning from a pre- defined single expression definition. To expand on some of your other comments: I'm still in the old version of Finale where you had a separate tool for note expressions and another tool for score expressions (note vs. measure in your description). I vastly prefer note expressions because I find that I very seldom have scores in my work where placing an expression in multiple staves is the slightest big useful. The music just doesn't work that way, and I also see lots of cases where there are differences in placement in my sources, sometimes differences that make a huge difference in performance. I don't want to lose information so I place each of my expressions individually. Obviously, were I composing an orchestral piece and wanted the entire brass section ff, a score/measure expression would make more sense, but not for the work I do. My point: the problems you have will depend on your personal working style and the kind of music you are engraving. The whole point of my raising the issue of automatic placement was that articulations placed with metatools have automatic placement. If expressions would simply be changed to have the same kind of automatic placement in the expression definition, I'd be happy. Of course, I also think all of these items should be made object- oriented, in the inheritence and sub-classing sense. For that non- programmers, what I mean is that one should really need to create multiple definitions with completely different behavior that look exactly the same. For instance, I find myself needing in some scores to have two "p" definitions because of different instruments, or context or whatever (real live musicians would understand to interpret them differently, but the computer needs help). Often, I only need the second definition in a couple of locations. If I could right click on a particular instance of "p" in the score and override the settings for that particular instance alone, it would be extremely helpful. I could, then, adjust one "p" to be louder or softer. I also think the "display only" attribute should be one of things you could override on individual expressions. I still think an expression should be definable as display only, but it would be nice to be able to override individual instances (and it would be nice if the display of these subclassed expressions/articulations would indicate that it has been altered from default settings). The basic principle is that the item in the score has default behaviors which are inherited from its parent (the expression or articulation definition), and any particular occurrence of that item can have certain its default properties overridden for that one instance. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
