At 12:00 -0500 3/8/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:11:38 +0200
From: Barbara Touburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
To: finale@shsu.edu
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
dhbailey wrote:
I think that MM may simply be using
that as a smokescreen to hide the true reason for the limitation, one
that they don't want to admit to.
What would that reason be, then? I can't think of one. Curious!
as many of you are aware, a parallel discussion on SLs has been going
on at http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6&m=230216 (there are
currently 58 posts over 3 pages. You can see all posts in one
continuous html page if you choose "Printable")
re MM and publishers lobbying MM for 4 SLs???? a quick summary of the
MM perspective is below
Posted By : Tyler - Yesterday 4:32 AM
Publishers have told MakeMusic that the fact Sibelius guides users
into specific workflows has become a reason that they prefer to
receive files in Sibelius format and prepare files in Sibelius.
The most extensive rationale from Scott at MakeMusic (too long to
include here) has come from (see his post at
http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6&m=230216 ):
Posted By : Forum Admin - 8/1/2008 3:12 AM
who subsequently posted this caveat:
Posted By : Forum Admin - 8/2/2008 7:24 AM
Perhaps I should reiterate that I am not personally an expert on
subject of expressions, and that I did copy and paste much of the
text of my mondo post from the work of others. That said, here's my
two cents:
I think that among the benefits of imposing an artifical limit on
staff lists includes insuring that those who edit Finale files for a
living, and receive submitted files from a variety of sources, don't
have to work with files that have dozens of staff lists that were
created by accident or because the user (like me) could never be
bothered to remember which existing staff list did what and just
made another and another...
If you object to the staff list limitation on a philosophical basis,
then posting your feelings in this forum is an excellent idea. If
you object to this limitation because you've actually used the
software, have fully explored the possibilities this new paradigm
offers, and know that this limitation will actually make you less
productive, then I'd ask that you share this information with our
support staff so it can be properly logged and considered during
future development.
Scott at MakeMusic
Forum Administrator
MakeMusic, Inc.
And then there was this post:
Posted By : Tyler - Yesterday 4:32 AM
Michael Mortilla said...
Are you trying to protect us from ourselves?
The goal is to make the program more efficient and easier to learn
for more people than it has been in the past. That's the single
largest problem facing Finale's future. Publishers have told
MakeMusic that the fact Sibelius guides users into specific
workflows has become a reason that they prefer to receive files in
Sibelius format and prepare files in Sibelius. But even more
importantly, new users have opted for Sibelius many times precisely
because it is simpler, with fewer options that guide them into
inefficient and frustratingly slow program usage.
If your audience is solely made up of people who prepare music
notation for a living, then including an option simply because
"somebody might have a use for it" is a good enough reason. But when
the vast majority of your audience includes people who can be
negatively affected by that philosophy, you have to be a lot more
careful in when and how you make those options available.
Michael Mortilla said...
Are you trying to keep our music more manageable; more conservative?
There is absolutely nothing from a notation perspective that this
staff list limitation makes impossible that was formerly possible.
It only affects the method of accomplishing various tasks, not
whether or not it can be done. So no, this doesn't keep music "more
conservative" in the least.
Robert P and many others have expressed support for the new
Expressions paradigm but articulated well-reasoned scenarios and
arguments for the retention of full SL capability, summed up by
Robert as "group-level SLs":
Posted By : Robert Patterson - 8/2/2008 9:33 AM
Meanwhile, the new paradigm makes staff lists more inviting than
ever. Group-level staff lists is what this discussion is really
about. The ability to define a staff list that displays on, e.g.,
one staff within a group in the score but all (or selected) staves
within the part, for as many groups as I care to define. Drag-apply
is utterly not the tool for it.
--
cheers, Claudio
****************************************************
Claudio Pompili
composer, sound designer, music consultant
http://www.claudiopompili.net.au/ (**2002-2003 Golden Web Award**)
Skype: claudiop_509
Australian Music Centre http://www.amcoz.com.au;
http://www.amcoz.com.au/composers/composer.asp?id=236
****************************************************
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
