Leaving aside what happened with BIAB, how is Dorico more automatic than Finale with respect to beams and ties? (I don't doubt it is. I'm just curious how.) I tend to distrust a lot of automation, unless it can be overridden on a case-by-case basis.
What I expect the company that owns Finale to do is to continue addressing pain points. That's what I hope they'll do anyway. Address enough pain points and I suppose it won't matter if it's on the vanguard. I'm not sure I even know what "state of the art" means. Are there notations Finale won't do that it should? Absolutely: multihandle smart shapes, for example. And I believe Dorico *does* that, at least for slurs. Finale should have added it years ago, and there is nothing precluding them from adding them now. But that's not revolutionary change. Is there a notation Finale won't do that requires revolutionary change? I'm not sure. What might it be? On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Craig Parmerlee <cr...@parmerlee.com> wrote: > I used BIAB harmonization a lot, especially to get a quick draft of an > arrangement. I usually re-harmonized manually for the final copy, but it > was a very useful way to get something going quickly. > > Over time, this degraded. Eventually it became very destructive, as > whenever you would run the tool on a range of measures, it would mess up > the beaming for other measures on the same instrument, even measures not in > the selected range. Because of this rather serious bug, it really isn't > productive to keep a version of F2012 installed to be able to run the BIAB > plug-in. > > And that bug illustrates a difference between a 1980s era program like > Finale and a modern program like Dorico. In Dorico, the beaming and ties > are completely automatic, following the notation rules you establish. If > you move notes around in time, the music automatically re-casts itself to > be notated correctly with regards to beams and ties. Every year that > Finale does nothing, it gets another year behind the state of the art. It > seems doubtful to me Finale will ever return to anywhere close to the state > of the art. Moreover, I don't see any indication the company even > considers that a goal. > > > > > On 4/19/2018 1:46 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: > >> Tempo tool and BIAB were significant features? Color me surprised. I'd be >> interested to know if others found them to be significant. Personally I >> never used BIAB even once, and the Tempo Tool only rarely and only up >> until >> Human Playback was a thing. But I admit I'm not that fussy about playback. >> Obviously ymmv. >> >> FWIW: I recompiled JW Tempo for 64-bit macOS. It works just fine in >> MacFin25. (Basically, the Tempo Tool was removed from the F25 U.I. but not >> the underlying support for tempo changes.) It's a free download on my >> website if you think it might be useful. I always found it to be more what >> I wanted out of tempo changes than the Tempo Tool. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Craig Parmerlee <cr...@parmerlee.com> >> wrote: >> >> Tempo tool. BIAB harmonization. >>> >>> >>> On 4/19/2018 9:10 AM, Robert Patterson wrote: >>> >>> Which functionality was lost v25? I've been on it so long I forgot. >>>> >>>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Finale mailing list >> Finale@shsu.edu >> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale >> >> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: >> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu >> >> > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
