[Finale] Optimization question
Can someone answer a question about optimization? I have MacFin2004b and optimization is not working. I do have "allow optimization" checked in the Staff Tool dialog box. It was working in all the previous versions. All the best, KIM Richmond ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Doubling Instruments
At 9:13 AM -0400 6/01/04, dhbailey wrote: I'm not sure it would be possible, since staff styles are applied in toto to the selected measures or parts of measures and the change is immediate, whereas expressions are applied only when that point is reached in real time. Huh? I'm not understanding you. Are you saying that staff styles can't be applied to partial measures? Because they can. What might be nicer/easier would be the ability to add text to a staff style, so that when applying the staff style for your bari example we could have it show (on bari), rather than the current system where we have to assign the staff style and then add an expression or a text block. Yes, that might be nice, but I'm holding out for some of the standing bugs (or features, depending on your point of view) to be ironed out first. My general productivity would depend way more on certain OTHER things being easier to do (like assign chord symbols to beats instead of always to measure items.) I think I can deal with the couple of keystrokes necessary to assign measure expressions in the meantime. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] printer question
I want to upgrade my printer to one that has Postscript capabilities and find one that is reasonably priced, if possible, under $400, new or used, inkjet or laser, available in the United States. All replies will be appreciated. Preston Keys ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Finale 2004b and iKey
Hi all, Something I ran into when switching to Fin 2004b MAC from Fin 2004 and using iKey. It seemed that iKey was not working in 2004b. What I need to do was select Finale 2004b as a new application in iKey and then copy over all of the sequences I had created for 2004. Since I did this, iKey has worked great with 2004b. By the way 2004b is running much better than 2004. It seems a bit slower than 2003 (OS9) but so far, I can actually get work done with it. Best regards to all, John Hinchey Hinchey Music Services Inc. 617 Dutchmans Dr. Hermitage, TN 37076 Phone: 615-874-1220 Cell: 615-397-3675 ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Doubling Instruments
At 12:36 PM -0400 6/01/04, dhbailey wrote: Christopher BJ Smith wrote: At 9:13 AM -0400 6/01/04, dhbailey wrote: I'm not sure it would be possible, since staff styles are applied in toto to the selected measures or parts of measures and the change is immediate, whereas expressions are applied only when that point is reached in real time. Huh? I'm not understanding you. Are you saying that staff styles can't be applied to partial measures? Because they can. No, I'm not saying that. If you read my sentence you will see that I say: to the selected measures or parts of measures. But staff styles are assigned and do their work when assigned and remain in effect until they are altered or removed. Expressions only have their effect when playback reaches that point, and then only on the sound, so for the visual a person would have to manually transpose the notes (or enter them transposed) and assign an expression to have them transposed back to the proper sound. An expression can't initiate a subsequent action (such as assigning a staff style which would be open ended until a closing expression was encountered.) The two (staff styles and expressions) work very differently on the data. Ah. I see now. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Doubling Instruments
This solution would work nicely for what I'm doing. I know that it's not hard to add an expression, but aren't we all looking for a way to minimize keystrokes? :) Giz The truly professional valve oil would be potable 80 proof! At 09:13 AM 6/1/04, you wrote: What might be nicer/easier would be the ability to add text to a staff style, so that when applying the staff style for your bari example we could have it show (on bari), rather than the current system where we have to assign the staff style and then add an expression or a text block. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Repeat sign in 17th-century editions
On 1 Jun 2004 at 20:26, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 01.06.2004 19:20 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote It's clear to me that for the A section, there should be a repeat (leaving out the starting ||: is common well into the 19th century), but not so clear about the C section. I'd make my decision based on balance -- if the 3 sections are of comparable length, I'd say the repeat of the C section is obligatory. If it's, say, 2X as long as the other sections, then I'm not sure what to do. I am pretty sure there is no ambiguity in this case, and section C is not supposed to be repeated. If it was then this would be a copying mistake. Naturally such mistakes occur, so if it makes no sense without the C section repeat then this can be corrected, with a footnote or similar. The :||: is a copying error in your interpration -- you're just choosing between which indication you're calling an error. But in 99% of all cases I have seen this simply means that C is not supposed to be repeated. I don't see what evidence there is to support such a strong statement. You're assuming the copying error is in the :||: and not in the lack of an ending repeat. While that is certainly completely plausible, the actual resolution of the choice between the two interpretations of the error will depend on a number of issues, not least of which is the genre of the piece in question. In the abstract, I just don't think there's any way to make any such determination with any certainty. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Repeat sign in 17th-century editions
Johannes is right on the money on this question. Repeat signs were not used in the modern way with any consistency before the 19th century. It's covered well in Robert Donnington, The Interpretation of Early Music. The only interpretation involved is studying how the signs were used AT THAT TIME. John At 12:22 AM +0200 6/2/04, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 01.06.2004 23:42 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote I am pretty sure there is no ambiguity in this case, and section C is not supposed to be repeated. If it was then this would be a copying mistake. Naturally such mistakes occur, so if it makes no sense without the C section repeat then this can be corrected, with a footnote or similar. The :||: is a copying error in your interpration -- you're just choosing between which indication you're calling an error. No, that is not my interpretation at all. You completely misunderstood. The :||: is not a copying error at all. It is simply a standard sign for the right end of a repeated section. It _can_ also exist between two repeated sections, but on it's own it is unlikely to mean that the following section is to be repeated, unless there is an ending repeat sign at the end of this section. There are other mss which do have single-sided repeat signs, but more often you will find the double sign. (It's similar to the use of flats instead of naturals, there is also no interpretation, even so naturals did exist.) Take it as you like, but I am absolutely sure of this, playing from 17th and 18th manuscripts is my daily job, and I know these things. It has got very little to do with interpretation. But in 99% of all cases I have seen this simply means that C is not supposed to be repeated. I don't see what evidence there is to support such a strong statement. Then you haven't seen many 17th century mss/editions that contain repeats. I have got several in front of me where there is absolutely no question of what is meant. Now, I know you are going to ask for an example: Here is one that is readily available, and where there is no question of any errors: Corelli, Concerto grosso op.6/9 (Walsh edition), Minuetto notated as A :||: B :||: B2 || C || A :||: B :||: B2 || The B2 sections are petite reprises, and the double repeat sign before it happens in every part and both times. That's about 15 times total, hardly an error. It is absolutely impossible that this should be repeated, since it's already the repeat of a repeat. There is no interpretation in this one. It's not an error, just the standard use of the double repeat sign. This kind of thing happens in almost every Concerto. It also happens in many other editions or manuscripts. You're assuming the copying error is in the :||: and not in the lack of an ending repeat. While that is certainly completely plausible, the actual resolution of the choice between the two interpretations of the error will depend on a number of issues, not least of which is the genre of the piece in question. I repeat, I am assuming there is no error. And yes, I know my stuff. In the abstract, I just don't think there's any way to make any such determination with any certainty. Because you obviously don't know. Sorry, David, I don't want to be harsh, but a lot of rubbish has come out of this kind of interpretation. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Repeat sign in 17th-century editions
On 1 Jun 2004 at 16:42, Mark D Lew wrote: On Jun 1, 2004, at 2:42 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: In the abstract, I just don't think there's any way to make any such determination with any certainty. Yes, but Johannes is not evaluating in the abstract. He's evaluating based on comparison with similar markings in a large sample of other scores of the same era. But that does not mean that we absolutely know that Dennis's source is part of the same tradition -- Johannes may be drawing on practices in a repertory that are wholly irrelevant. And even in the repertory he's speaking of, it's still a contingent determination -- you look at the general practice, and then determine if that applies to the source at hand. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
