On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 13:55:52 -0400, "David W. Fenton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The analogy to a notation package and a sequencer is unclear. Finale
> does not store its data as MIDI, so you couldn't just embed an
> existing sequencer into Finale. No sequencer I know of reads Finale
> data files, so that's not going to work, either.
>
> What you're asking for is not integration on the MS model, but the
> incorporation of a whole set of features into Finale that don't fit
> very well with what Finale is.
>
> I think limited sequencing capability in the service of producing
> good playback is a good thing in Finale. A full-fledged sequencer,
> however, makes no sense to me, as that's not the purpose of Finale.
I have enjoyed many of your posts. Let's take a step back here. First,
what is"the purpose" of Finale in your view?
Secondly, maybe we can chat for a bit about what specifically are the so
called full fledged sequencer features that don't make sense to be in
Finale. I mean, Finale already has a kind of sequencer in it already.
So when you say the "full fledged sequencing" does not belong in
Finale...what do you mean exactly? What specific features do you think
do not make sense in Finale or any other notational for that matter?
>
> Now, if Finale teamed with the maker of a sequencer such that the
> sequencer's output could be imported into Finale without the current
> problems of MIDI import, such that it would be painless to open the
> sequencer file and convert it to printed notation, that would be
> quite wonderful. But I don't think it would be a MIDI file that would
> be used, as that's inherently too ambiguous to give good results.
Trying to interpret a midi file, which is essentially a captured
performance, and turn it into an appropriate notation is interesting,
but how useful? Doing the opposite, taking a notation and rendering a
reasonable performance is much more interesting and needed far more
often. I'd dare say its easier to do also.
>
> Indeed, I don't see how a sequencer could ever produce data that's
> unambiguous for a notation package without there being some kind of
> notational representation within the sequencer -- after all, MIDI
> doesn't specify flat or sharp.
Then there is all that too. MIDI has no notion of key center or any
number of other factors which are captured in notation to make it easier
for real life musicians to comprehend it and perform it.
>
> For my purposes, a few well-chosen revisions and additions to the
> current Finale MIDI tools (including a modern UI) would be all that's
> necessary to give me what's needed to create the playback I need. I
> wonder if there is a large enough audience of Finale users who'd
> benefit from such innovations to make it worth the effort of the
> programmers.
let's hear your ideas.
by the way, the Overture product as introduced a lot of great ideas in
this regard. Unfortunately their product is buggy and supported by only
one developer. But its interesting to see what is possible.
>
> And I also don't think the number of people who work first from a
> sequencer is going to place that high a value on Finale's notational
> capabilities to justify the programming investment to attract their
> interest.
I tend to agree. I doubt there are that many people who work first from
a sequencer and then want to somehow instantly see their score printed.
That would be a neat parlor trick, but really not useful for very many
real-world scenarios of any significance that I can think of. that
being said, here is one composer who needs to compose for film. I need
to publish accurate and presentable notation. I need to produce
mock-ups. I need to hear the music as I work. Finale is great for all
of this by the way. But the one area where it may fall a little short
is if I want to make my mock up just a little bit better and finely
control how it sounds. let's say I've been working with notation,
composing, hearing a reasonable rendition as I go. Then the director
calls and says "I just don't get it, the strings sound lame that way".
I have to meet him in 3 days to convince him. I know the only problem
is that i need to use a better string sample library and I need to tweak
some of the CC curves and note overlap to make it sound remarakably
better so that the film director will do "ah, that sounds fantastic, I
love it". This is where Finale is not a "full fledged sequencer" as you
say..and is a bit limited for me. that forces me to have to export it
all to MIDI, take it to Sonar or whatever and tweak it there. But from
that point forward in the project i now have to potentially maintain two
versions of the score. The Finale version which will be printed and
played by real musicians I hope eventually and the sonar version. Or
perhaps it will never by performed by real musicians, but when I'm
composing I want to use a notational program for obvious reasons and as
the score goes along I will need to present to the director what is
going to go on to his film as it will sound... If I have to do that
performance version in Sonar seperately because finale is lacking the
midi tweakability..then I have to maintain two seperate versions of
everything...one in finale so that I can compose with notes on a staves
and the other in Sonar where the final production version is being
sequenced out. There are tremendous advantages to having just a bit
more performance capability in Finale. Does this make it a "full
fledged" sequencer? I don't know...but it certainly would be more
useful to me. Otherwise, for practical purposes i would fundamentally
HAVE to start working primarily in Sonar and learn to live without
note-on-staff composing paradigms.
>
> In an ideal world, sure, I'd love a fully integrated sequencer in
> Finale, or, even, hooks between an existing sequencer and Finale so
> that Finale used the sequencer for editing MIDI data and the
> sequencer used Finale for notational output.
You have it backwards. In an ideal world we'd all have access to real
musicians to perform our work for us. We don't. But certainly most
people in this forum realize how much better it is to compose with pen
or ink on paper then by hitting record and playing your midi controller.
the question here, is how can we compose that why and avoid having to
redo it all over again in another sequencer just for the sake of hearing
a superior midi/sample rendition.
>
> But in the real world, I don't don't think MakeMusic has the capital
> to do that. Whether or not Sibelius does is an open question.
You don't know MM's financial position any better than the rest of us.
But anyway, let's get back to my previous question. What specific
sequencer oriented features do you think are not appropriate or perhaps
not feasible for MM to implement? Simply saying full fledged sequencer
built into finale is not enough info. That could mean anything.
Certainly it has a few sequencer features already and probably could use
a few more. Does it need to become a complete DAW with plugins and all
manner of complicated routing..I certainly hope note. But where does
the line need to be drawn? What specifically do you hope will never
show up in Finale?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|"Music is a manifestation of the human spirit
Steve Schow | similar to a language. If we do not want such
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | things to remain dead treasures, we must do our
www.bstage.com | upmost to make the greatest number of people
| understand their secrets" -- Zoltan Kodaly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
