On 17 Mar 2004 at 16:58, Mark D Lew wrote: > For tremolos, I use TG's tool. . .
I don't have an tremolos, so have never used it. However, I don't like the plugin for trills that comes with Finale (nor the more elaborate version with the full set), because I can't control whether the trill starts from above. Also, I don't like the method it uses (hidden playback notes in layer 4, zero-velocity for visible notes in layer 1), but, of course, it's looking more viable now. > . . . For classic appoggiaturas, I redefine > the note lengths with the MIDI tool. . . . Can you explain that in more detail? I'm not getting what you're referring to here (I'd sure like a plugin to create on-beat appaggiaturas!). > . . . For cue notes, I turn off the > playback in the Edit Frames box. More info, please. If I could do this instead of setting key velocity to zero, that would be preferable. So far as I can see from it, though, you have to do it entry by entry, which is none too attractive. If I could turn it off measure by measure, that would be super. > The closest thing I have to your situation is when I have a piece > where the piano accompaniment has repeated chords that are displayed > on the page with repeater beams through the stem instead of spelling > out the repeated chords. (Not sure what the technical name is for > those beams.) > > For a piece like that I put all the playback notes into a single layer > for which I turn off spacing in the layer options. Everything in that > layer is seen and not heard; everything in the visible layer is heard > and not seen. Don't you mean exactly the opposite of what you just said? > When working on a file like this, I enter all the visible stuff first, > then copy the entire visible layer into the invisible playback layer, > then make the necessary changes to the playback layer. That way, all > of the playback for the entire piece is coming from invisible notes, > not just in some bars. Well, I can't see doing it that way. If copying between layers were easier, perhaps. If you're doing notation in a style where you're like to have that throughout the whole piece (say a continuo realization), it makes sense. But for pieces where less than 10% of the measures have playback that is different from the visible notation, it seems a pain. > Usually, I'll have the other two layers be visible and play back as > shown. If necessary, I could instead have two visible layers and two > playback layers. If I were to need two playback layers AND a third > visible layer, I'd have a problem, but so far that has never come up. Well, that's a pretty radical departure, and my problem with it would be that it's too easy for the two layers to get out of synch with each other (you change the visible layer and forget to alter the playback layer). If blank notation worked the way it used to, I'd not have a problem. I'll be reporting the bug soon. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
