On 6 Oct 2006 at 12:15, Steve Schow wrote: > 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?
The creation of printed notation, and, secondarily, the production from that of MIDI output. > 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? Well, just a day or two ago, somebody claimed Finale did *not* include a sequencer. But it obviously does. But it doesn't include all the features that standalone sequencers include, such as piano roll editing (completely irrelevant, seems to me), or event editing (also irrelevant, as that's not the way the data is stored). I made both of these arguments at the time. Those are examples of what I don't like. I would love to be able to draw curves onscreen for things that it works for, such as volume changes and tempo changes. I would like the continuous data editing UI to be made precise, so that you could know exactly when the beginning and ends of the commands are occuring, but I think that would most likely be accomplished by folding it into the onscreen curve-drawing UI. But, as I said a couple of days ago, much of this has been obviated by the increasing sophistication of Human Playback, which makes it unnecessary to manually edit many volume settings, for instance. that's the ideal, of course -- to have Finale interpret the notation into correct playback without needing to manually set the MIDI playback. Perhaps it's the case that even better HP would make the MIDI sequencing capabilities completely unnecessary in the end. > > 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. Well, I would tend to agree. But the complaints about Finale from those who use sequencers are most often about the problems with sequencer->Finale (something I don't need). [] > > 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. I've just re-posted them above, the same things I posted a few days ago. [] > > 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. Oh, I don't want to minimize the number of people who'd like to do this. I just don't think the ones that want/need it are likely to want or need the precise notational control that Finale offers -- they will find the sequencer's notational output sufficient to their needs. > 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. Really? I think it's useful for a whole lot of people, and most sequencers provide some notational output, however poor. > 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". When dealing with idiots, it's often necessary to involve oneself in a high level of idiocy. > 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 No, the problem is that you need to work with people who have better imaginations, or who are more trusting of the people they hire to do their film scores. > 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. Yes, exactly. This is why I've always wanted Finale to do better in regard to offering control of the playback. HP has eliminated a lot of the need for MIDI editing (you don't need to manually implement key velocity changes for hairpins, for instance). > 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. You're preaching to the choir as far as I'm concerned. > 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. If you compare the tools in a full-fledged sequencer to the MIDI editing tools in Finale, you'll find that Finale doesn't offer but a tiny subset of those tools. But now, HP is a different way to alter playback from the notation without needing to use the MIDI tools. I think that's going to be better in the long run, as it will get 75% or more of the notation into the MIDI output without any MIDI editing. > > 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. Er, no, that's not relevant, and certainly not realistic. In an ideal world where our computer programs did what we needed them to do, there'd be integration between playback and notation such that you didn't need to fork the performance and notation files. > 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. Paging Dennis B-K!!!! > 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. I think you're suffering here from applying your own situation universally. Most of my work is not composition, and when I'm composing, I use Finale anyway, because I think in terms of notation first. I'm certainly not depending on Finale's output to tell me what my composition sounds like -- it's only a rough approximation, comparable to sitting at a piano and playing through an orchestral score. > > 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. Oh, come on. MM is a publicly-held and traded company. We know something about their finances. We can also tell what their circumstances are by looking at the way they do upgrades and how many major changes there are in each upgrade. That tells us how many programmers they've got working on it and how much capital they have to invest for the long term in major overhauls of the program. > 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? As I said before, I've already posted on this subject, but you apparently didn't read it. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
