Harold Steinhardt wrote:
[snip]
> Finale is a music notation program that can do midi. It's strength
> is notation. When you want fine detail over notation, use Finale.
> Logic is an example of a music sequencing program that can do notation.
> It's strength is sequencing. When you want fine detail over midi (and
> digital audio) playback, use Logic. Use the right tool for the job.
[snip]
This last sentence cuts to the heart of this discussion, doesn't it?
What the right tool IS, how that is concept defined by various people,
and whether or not tools can change.
And it is this last question (whether or not tools can or should change)
that is at issue here -- all of us think that Finale needs to change
what it can do as a tool, but some of us feel that midi implementation
and playback is part of that tool and others feel that it isn't.
Why can't tools change as they evolve? Heck, the very computers we use
have evolved enormously since the 8-bit processors and mostly blank DOS
(and whatever the old-fashioned Apple OS was called). And all along
have been people saying, Why would anybody ever need that? Heck, even
Bill Gates once remarked about nobody needing more than 256Kb of ram (or
was it when things expanded to 640K, my memory is hazy in this ancient
history) to do ANYTHING with a computer. I remember when there weren't
colored graphics available, then came 4-color graphics, and on and on
and on. So that now our computers can do many things that weren't part
of the original design and concept of the computer, yet most of us on
this list wouldn't want to live without.
Using your analogy, we wouldn't even be using computers for notation at
all, if people had listened to all the at-the-time experts who said that
composer should be able to write it all down by hand and there was no
need for computer-engraving, that should be left to the far more expert
plate-engravers.
Things change, tools change, they evolve to meet the changing needs of
an ever-changing user-base.
And I can think of many instances where I at first resisted change (I
can remember telling a friend I would never use Windows because I could
do all that I wanted to in DOS) only to find that eventually what I had
resisted became a real improvement.
So perhaps rather than the "use the right tool for the job" attitude, a
better attitude would be "change the tool we have so it IS the right
tool for the job."
Improving midi implementation is not going to diminish any of the
notational aspects of Finale, and as David Fenton pointed out that while
development of any one aspect of any program is a zero-sum situation for
any single release, over the life of a lively program, none of it is
zero-sum, it all gets worked on.
So I haven't complained about aspects of notation which I never use
being improved, since I have come to realize that just because it isn't
important to me now doesn't mean I won't ever want to use it.
And perhaps even though improved midi playback isn't important to you
now, the first time you can enter your score in Finale and get a
beautiful playback without wasting more time polishing it in Logic you
just might say, Wow, what a great addition, now I don't have to do it
all over again in Logic!
But even if you don't, the fact that others WILL say that and will then
encourage others to turn to Finale because it is a single program that
will do all they need to musically (many people really hate learning to
use computer programs, so if they only have to learn to use one rather
than two to get the desired result, they will learn the one) so that
Finale's user base will grow and more development dollars will be spent
to improve those items on YOUR wish list.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
