As I mentioned in an earlier post, I mentioned that
many of my clients have started to demand a reasonable mockup in addition to a
printed score. These clients are most concerned with a good quality score and a
reasonably representative mockup that they can take to conductors, grantwriters,
etc.
Since I am a heavy user of GPO, I switched
temporarily to a competing product (the name of which does not begin with an S)
that was more GPO-centric and produced acceptable notation.
Though this may anger some parties here, I
must report that I have received numerous requests for good mockups, but I have
NEVER ONCE been questioned about the approach angle of tie ends or other such,
even with the competing product. It musi be OK; I'm still working at it, albeit
as time permits. Perhaps the local yokels in music here are simply too
unsophisticated--or too busy playing--to complain about the ends of the ties on
my scores
So I guess the long and short of it is this:
*Playback is an in-demand feature that will provide
a Win-Win for MM and its clients.
*Things such as circularly-bending staves aren't
and won't for MM. There are other solutions that meet the very legitimate needs
of these users.
*So my experience echoes Tyler's earlier
post.
*I expect (indeed, I HOPE) to see notation and
sequencing moving even more close together in the
future, eventually providing a seamless working environment in which files
need not be passed around from a notation environment to a sequencing
environment. The competing product with which I work is paving this way, as
people will shortly see. I have also ordered 2006 since it seems to be
taking some steps in this direction.
*For me, it's all about doing the best job with the
least amount of nuisance.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <finale@shsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has
dynamic score/parts linking!
>
> []
>
>> 2. It was mentioned that Finale's playback has now
>> caught up to and in some ways perhaps exceeded that of
>> Sibelius. There's no competition. Finale's playback is
>> far beyond Sibelius', both in terms of automatic
>> playback and in customizability. For what you get
>> included with the program, Sibelius doesn't come
>> close. Sibelius gives you 20 instruments and the
>> ability to load 8 of them. Finale gives you 100 higher
>> quality instruments, and the ability to load 64. Human
>> Playback is far beyond Espressivo, and is optimized to
>> work with GPO. As alluring as linked parts is to the
>> engraving crowd, I guarantee you that the inclusion of
>> Finale GPO will attract more users than anything
>> Sibelius has included in their new version.
>
> That this may very well be true suggests to me one distressing fact:
>
> Fewer and fewer people are actually creating music to be performed by
> live musicians. Good computer-based playback means you don't need
> human beings.
>
> While Dennis may think this is A Good Thing, I think it's very
> distressing -- perhaps the beginning of the end of live performance
> as anything other than a hobby/curiosity.
>
> []
>
>> 4. A mixer was a highly requested feature long before
>> Finale included its own sounds, and with good reason.
>> Many people make their files for their own personal
>> use, and the fact that they might play differently on
>> a different person's equipment matters little . . .
>
> But then the mixer belongs in your *sequencer*, not in Finale.
>
>> . . . - they
>> still want to balance them so that they can hear their
>> work. If this wasn't a valued feature, than thousands
>> of people wouldn't have used the MIDI Tool and
>> _expression_ Tools for this task all these years. And of
>> course, for people that did want to share their
>> recordings, they've always been able to do this via
>> free recording software.
>
> If I were creating my MIDI files for performance on a single
> synthesizer, I certainly wouldn't be using Finale to tweak it for
> performance, mixer or not. It makes no sense to me to do it that way
> for a carefully tuned performance, given that Finale's tools are just
> not designed to make it very easy to do these things.
>
> Yes, I use Finale to do lots of MIDI work, but only GM performances,
> not carefully detailed final-quality renditions. If I wanted to do
> that, I certainly wouldn't want to work within the straitjacket that
> Finale's horrid UI (especially for continuous data) provides.
> Replacing that with a mixer still wouldn't do it for me, as I don't
> like that as an UI for continuous data, anyway (I think it shapes,
> and would like to be able to draw the shapes for the volume changes).
>
> But, again, I agree that once Finale has its own built-in sounds,
> then, yes, a mixer is an appropriate tool to have built into the
> program.
>
> I just don't think it belonged there before that point.
>
> I also think that Human Playback also increases the level of
> necessity of having a mixer built into Finale, but that's something I
> haven't experienced firsthand (except very briefly for a 45-minute
> transposition job I did last August in California for the performance
> of Handel's Alcina I was playing continuo in).
>
> --
> David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
> David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
>
> _______________________________________________
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
