> 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.
Seems reasonable so far. That is more or less the approach Overture is
taking, though they did add piano roll editing and I agree with you,
perhaps unneccessary....EXCEPT for one task which is editing the overlap
of notes during legato sections, etc... But there is probably a more
simple approach for these kinds of things..
>
> 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.
exactly. I see that as the future of Finale. Increased HP
sophistication and tweakability in controlling how Finale will interpret
the playback...and less note by note tweaking...or perhaps even none.
>
> that's the ideal, of course -- to have Finale interpret the notation
> into correct playback without needing to manually set the MIDI
> playback.
yep
>
> Perhaps it's the case that even better HP would make the MIDI
> sequencing capabilities completely unnecessary in the end.
There will always be someone that needs to do some tweaking that hp
can't do, but that is my hope also that HP will become sophisticated
enough that 99% of us won't need the extra tweaking capabilities. They
have a ways to go.
> 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's basically what i meant too.
> When dealing with idiots, it's often necessary to involve oneself in
> a high level of idiocy.
LOL
> 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.
lol. Well, I'm just getting started in this business. Maybe someday I
will have networked with all the right people and I can pick and choose
who I want to work with and only use people that completely trust me
implicitly. Until such time I will have to bend a lot and probably
compose some music that I don't even like sometimes to make sure the
film director is happy.
> 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).
Right. Well then what will happen is that some library will come out
that uses CC#59 to control some certain thing that HP doesn't account
for yet. HP needs to be more open ended. They'll get there.
> 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.
Ok, so now we're getting to it. What you don't want to see in finale is
an event list editor or piano scroll editor and perhaps not a CC curve
editor. Perhaps none of the fancy things like quantizers, humanizers,
groove mappers, drum map editors, etc.. And I agree. most of those
things are inapplicable..though..until HP is perfect..I still think we
do need a way to control CC curves and note start times and durations.
But what would really be better, indeed, would be to continue improving
HP so that you can basically configure how you want Finale to interpret
your notation and turn it into the right things..including random note
offsets, overlapping notes, CC curves, velocities, etc.. I think its
getting there. When we get to the point that literally every sample
libary imaginable can be configured in hp to work properly and require
no manual editing, while still introducing some sensible randomness
(also configurable), then we'll be there.
Sorry if I missed your earlier posts, I don't have time to read all the
finale posts every day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|"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
