On 4 Jun 2004 at 20:36, dhbailey wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 4 Jun 2004 at 18:55, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > > > >>I suppose this amounts to a different philosophy about what I want > >>my notation program to do. > > > > > > You seem to assume a number of things: > > > > 1. layout in the linked part would not be as fully adjustable as > > layout in an extracted part. > > > > 2. the implementation of such a feature would be accompanied by the > > removal of the current part extraction capability. > > > > Why is it that whenever someone proposes what are obvious changes to > > Finale that would make it much, much easier to use that so many > > people argue against the change on the grounds that it would be > > implemented in the most stupid fashion imaginable? > > > > Because of features such as MicNotator and MidiScan and Hyperscribe > and the Tempo Tool you were just complaining about, and on and on and > on.
The first two there were added in and did not change in any way the behavior of the rest of Finale. Hyperscribe and the Tempo Tool seem to me to be relatively unchanged from my memory of them in the earliest version of Finale I used, 2.01. Hyperscribe was clearly useless, and I concluded the same thing about the Tempo Tool, since I didn't know there was a way to make tempo changes be saved to MIDI files. > It seems nothing gets implemented these days in Finale without being > totally backwards or inefficient. Human Playback where we can edit > LOTS of stuff EXCEPT the important things such as trills and other > ornaments. But you can turn it off and still use all the playback tools Finale always had, right? > The only thing which has been implemented properly, recently, in my > opinion, has been staff styles. . . . Well, except for spacing of blank notation. . . > . . . THEY were/are a stroke of genius and > are implemented properly. I suppose if MakeMusic were to reconstruct > the development team that produced staff styles they might have a shot > at a logical and actually helpful implementation of part/score > linking. When I was trying to get Winsupport to understand that blank notation spacing was broken in a way that had no rational justification, I was told that they consulted with the people who implemented staff styles, so those people are apparently still working at Coda. > But we are several versions away from the introduction of staff styles > and each new version has produced bloat without productivity > increases. Yes, and old things continue to have terrible problems. I've been saying for more than five years that Finale needs to be redesigned in major ways to correct many of the underlying flaws. But it's not going to happen. And I predict I won't be using Finale 5 years from now. -- 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
