At 07:34 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Change all of those settings at once in a pre-existing file, simply
by choosing a different house style?
I don't know -- I'm guessing.
It's the only implementation of such a thing that would make any
sense to me.
Yes, that;s the way it's designed to work.
David W. Fenton schrieb:
Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
Of course Macs support add on cards (at least those that have PCI).
The System doesn't support old
I am talking about the smart cue notes plugin that is part of Finale
(not TGTools, though I think Tobias programmed the plugin, too).
Johannes
Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account schrieb:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
The smart cue notes plugin doesn't cut it for me, it causes more
trouble than it
David W. Fenton schrieb:
I guess my point is that the kind of restructuring I'm calling for
here would go much further to making it possible to manage house
styles than any of the things you mentioned.
Except it won't happen.
I'm not certain about that. The Finale developers are computer
I haven't actually looked at Sibelius in a long time, but in David's
case I am actually pretty sure he would find a lot of things to his
liking in Sibelius. The basic concept of the application is much more
what he has been asking for. Partly because Sibelius is a more modern
package. But also
I think you are somewhat missing the point. It's not about supporting
any kind of style element, it is about switching between different house
styles. In Sibelius I understand you can switch between house styles at
the click of the mouse, while in Finale try doing this.
In Sibelius this also
I think you'll find that "Q=80" only means anything to Americans. It
means nothing in Europe.
Lawrence
"þaes
ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.ukDulcian
Wind Quintet: http://dulcianwind.co.uk
___
Finale mailing list
On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
Yes, I believe Chris's Mac has only USB 1.1.
And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
I think you misunderstood
On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:18 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
No, it wouldn't.
Yes, I knew you'd object. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view,
but I also have good reason to believe a multi-file equivalent to
Dynamic Parts (perhaps implemented by plug-ins -- e.g., Update score
based on this
Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Let's say you were honking along happily in 4/4, mixing eighths,
sixteenths, and eighth-note-triplets freely, as those young kids today
are wont to do. Then suddenly, you just want 3 eighth notes in a bar.
Great, a bar of 3/8 (or 1/Q. ) and there
I didn't look at your file yet, David, but from Rafael's subsequent
comment and your reply, it sounds like it's the exact same thing I saw
on a file that Andrew Levin sent to me directly. That is, the
discrepancy in spacing is due to the need to accommodate leger lines on
one staff but not on
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip] Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
USB2 midi interfaces are just external devices which connect to the
computer via the USB port.
Owain Sutton wrote:
[snip]
Why is it inapproptiate to give decimal-point metronome marks which will
be ignored, but perfectly appropriate to state Q=80 and see it equally
ignored? (Although I'm not necessarily stating that this is the reason
Ferneyhough uses these metronome markings.)
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
While we are on about it: House styles is another area where Sibelius
is far superior to Finale.
In my considerations of Sibelius, the closed, proprietary way they treat
the data file structure is such an early consideration, that I'm not
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
[snip]
David, I am absolutely certain it won't happen. Not unless the way
MakeMusic has been working the last few years will change radically.
Johannes
We've already been told on this list that unless whatever engraving
changes are requested can demonstrably be
dhbailey schrieb:
I agree with Johannes that things such as house styles (or Finale
style-sheets or whatever they want to call them) which can be altered,
saved, and then can be applied to any Finale file for instantaneous
appearance changes without having to copy the music to a new template
On 8-Jul-05, at 5:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But then later, you are playing some triplets which work out
perfectly,
but you ONLY NEED FIVE OF THEM, not six.
... so you mark 5/8: no big deal. Of course, Ferneyhough has more
complicated relationships than this to prescribe.
But of
At 11:38 AM 7/8/05 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
But then later, you are playing some triplets which work out perfectly,
but you ONLY NEED FIVE OF THEM, not six.
... so you mark 5/8: no big deal.
That's not the same thing, nor is a quintuplet.
As
I've been requested from a composer to produce a midi file from the
score where each instruments are assigned to a different channel to
separate everything.
Now I can't get the Timpani to open back to Finale once the midi file
is produced and display as a pitched intrument. It was assigned
On Jul 7, 2005, at 6:00 PM, M. Perticone wrote:
Christopher Smith wrote:
and I would put a bracketed 3 tuplet over
the first group, and the same over the second group (even though there
are only TWO notes in it) for clarity.
while i certainly agree with your post i think that tuplets are
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
If students start with the easy small numbers, soon tupletted full measures
will start to look anachronistic and quaint, i.e., How did we ever make
music out of that convoluted notation? or A triplet in a quintuplet...
um, oh, I see, a triplet in a measure of 5/6!
On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 at 17:13, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Do you have a non-USB keyboard port? If so, I'd try getting the
keyboard off the USB bus so that MIDI is on USB and the rhythmic
values
On Jul 7, 2005, at 9:47 PM, Neal Schermerhorn wrote:
Owain Sutton wrote:
(7/10, 13/20)
Why? It's easily playable, and it's something that cannot possibly be
notated another way, unlike x/12. And, like it or not, it's found its
way into mainstream notation and publication.
I've never seen
On Jul 7, 2005, at 11:16 PM, shirling neueweise wrote:
in a 70mm passage for 6 voices, i have renotated the rhythms/durations
(attack points remain the same) of the top voice and want to do the
same changes to the other 5 voices (all 6 in rhythmic unison). i've
tried doing it with
At 11:18 PM +0200 7/7/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
And much more basic: as Robert remarked it is absolutely essential
to have separate spacing for each part. The way that Finale's
spacing works I fear that this might indeed make the one file,
different views approach incredibly complicated, as
At 03:37 AM 7/8/2005, you wrote:
Because a serious musician can set a metronome to 80 and at least try to
make an attempt to follow that tempo, while nobody has a metronome that
I've ever seen which will give a 69.75 tempo so nobody can even try to
follow it, even if they want to.
No but
At 5:39 PM -0400 7/7/05, Andrew Stiller wrote:
In Broadcast Standard American, w and wh are pronounced identically,
and the phoneme [hw] simply does not exist.
I'm not sure whether you are referring to a reference book, or just
to general practice. I do know that I grew up having been
Ken Durling wrote:
At 03:37 AM 7/8/2005, you wrote:
Because a serious musician can set a metronome to 80 and at least try
to make an attempt to follow that tempo, while nobody has a metronome
that I've ever seen which will give a 69.75 tempo so nobody can even
try to follow it, even if
Am 07.07.2005 um 11:12 schrieb Christopher Smith:
Let's say you were honking along happily in 4/4, mixing eighths,
sixteenths, and eighth-note-triplets freely, as those young kids today
are wont to do. Then suddenly, you just want 3 eighth notes in a bar.
Great, a bar of 3/8 (or 1/Q. ) and
On Jul 7, 2005, at 6:56 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Tacet movements and other omitted or added measures for one part
(e.g., optional cadenza not written out in score)?
Cue notes--not in score, and different in different parts?
Cadenza and cue notes sounds like the same thing to me, and I
James E. Bailey wrote:
Okay, so perhaps I'm dim, or simply not understanding, but would not a
simple metric modulation of previous quarter=new dotted quarter in 5/8
effect the desired rhythm?
Yes. But no such easy indication is possible for any metre beyond x/12
- and if there's
Darcy James Argue schrieb:
Johannes,
You need to use the keyswitched instruments and download the library of
keyswitching Finale expressions from the GPO website. This makes it
very easy to switch from legato, sustained articulations (default) to
the alternating bows articulations (which
On Jul 8, 2005, at 1:22 AM, Owain Sutton wrote:
Neal Schermerhorn wrote:
...e 13 notes to the bar
all equal to a quintuplet division of a quarter. Basically 2 sets of 5
sixteenths with a 5 under them, and 3 extra. Am I close?
Spot on
Time for a reality check. There are other ways to notate
On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:47 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
The problem Andrew describes has nothing to do with libraries, and it
is even a problem going from OS 9 to OS X. To my knowledge there is no
easy work around.
Please enlighten me as to what Andrew is talking about.
Whatever it is, if
Am 08.07.2005 um 08:57 schrieb Andrew Stiller:
the still-small set
of musicians who can play a quintuplet accurately in the first place.
You can't be serious. Chopin requires them!
I understand the point he's trying to make. Accurate execution of a quintuplet
is rather tricky. Chopin may
Andrew Stiller wrote:
Time for a reality check. There are other ways to notate such complex
rhythmic proportions, some of them much more intuitive to play. Check
out Ben Johnston's /Knocking Piece/, wh. was published in /Source/ #2
(1967) and recorded at least once. There are no meter
On Jul 8, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Owain Sutton wrote:
ctually, Ferneyhough's apparently-ludicrous metronome markings have a
logic to them. A score I have in front of me begins with 8th=54, the
next marking is 8th=60.75, then 47.25 and back to 54.
This may seem an impossible task - until you
Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 8, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Owain Sutton wrote:
ctually, Ferneyhough's apparently-ludicrous metronome markings have a
logic to them. A score I have in front of me begins with 8th=54, the
next marking is 8th=60.75, then 47.25 and back to 54.
This may seem an
Éric Dussault wrote:
Now I can't get the Timpani to open back to Finale once the midi file
is produced and display as a pitched intrument. It was assigned to
channel 26 and I chose timpani from the geneal midi list.
Best guess, though I am not certain: 32 MIDI channels is 16 + 16. As 10 is
On 08 Jul 2005, at 11:02 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Well, I tried this, how awful!!!
Now whenever there is an uneven number of notes in a measure it ends
up being off-beat emphasized.
When you need to break the down-up pattern, use the keyswitched bowing
indications (which are expressions,
On 08 Jul 2005, at 12:25 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
My concern is that I have never heard of any Mac application in which
two different Page Setup configurations could be applied
simultaneously to the same file,
Yes you have -- Sibelius 4.0.
and I therefore wonder whether it might prove
At 9:21 PM -0500 7/7/05, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
What can a Sibelius House Style do that one cannot do with a
Finale template?
Ummm, save you the time and knowledge base needed to create your
template? I, for one, don't speak EPVU or whatever the heck it is!
It's my son who investigated
Darcy James Argue schrieb:
On 08 Jul 2005, at 11:02 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Well, I tried this, how awful!!!
Now whenever there is an uneven number of notes in a measure it ends
up being off-beat emphasized.
When you need to break the down-up pattern, use the keyswitched bowing
Can someone remind me why I _shouldn't_ switch to Sibelius? Seems like
it much more fulfills the promises of CAE (computer aided engraving...).
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
Hi Johannes,
Not saying you *shouldn't* investigate Sib 4 -- they have a very nice
competitive upgrade price for Finale uses, and it's a good idea to try
to stay on top of the competition.
But I have a hunch that you will feel that the slurs are unacceptable
by your standards.
Have you
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
[snip]
David, I am absolutely certain it won't happen.
Not unless the way
MakeMusic has been working the last few years will
change radically.
Johannes
We've already been told on this list that unless
whatever
Darcy James Argue schrieb:
Hi Johannes,
Not saying you *shouldn't* investigate Sib 4 -- they have a very nice
competitive upgrade price for Finale uses, and it's a good idea to try
to stay on top of the competition.
But I have a hunch that you will feel that the slurs are unacceptable by
Dear Finale list members,
Recordare's Dolet 3.0 for Finale plug-in is entering the final stages of
beta testing. This new version of our plug-in will both read and write
MusicXML 1.1 files. It will be a much improved way to exchange files
back and forth with Sibelius and to move files back to
Tyler Turner schrieb:
I stated that when you consider the size of the
professional engraver market, MakeMusic devotes a
disproportionate number of features directly to that
market. These are features that benefit this group and
few other people. I also stated that when MakeMusic
has ideas on
Johannes,
Trust me, you really are better off downloading the demo and
experimenting for yourself. You are the only one who knows which
Finale features are essential to you, and which you can do without, and
nothing can take the place of hands-on experimentation.
Download the demo, read
Darcy, I wasn't 100% serious anyway. I have no time nor intention to do
a quick switch to Sibelius, but I do want to put some pressure on
MakeMusic to move into the right direction.
Johannes
Darcy James Argue schrieb:
Johannes,
Trust me, you really are better off downloading the demo and
On 7 Jul 2005 at 22:57, Richard Smith wrote:
May I, as a longtime Finale user (begining with v.2) who now uses
mostly Sibelius (although I have Finale 2005), respond to this post.
The reason you can't get Sibelius to work easily is probably because
you expect it to act like Finale. It is
On 8 Jul 2005 at 6:19, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
Seems to me the problem is not docking your toolbars, not the lack
of transparency. Why not dock the palettes at the edge of the
screen, as in my Finale in this screenshot?
http://dfenton.com/Toolbars.gif
I only
Johannes:
I agree with Darcy though, you should download the demo and check it
out. It's pretty amazing. I've owned Finale since 1989, Mosaic since
1990, and Sibelius since 2000, but I've primarily used Sibelius since
2002 for music prep and engraving, and this new version seems really
Okay, my interest was piqued, so I downloaded it and gave it a brief try.
Initial look and feel was impressive. However, I have a significant
investment already in FINALE formatted files. I tried to import a couple
files and was not successful. Even after exporting to ETF first and then
On 8 Jul 2005 at 9:18, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
David W. Fenton schrieb:
I guess my point is that the kind of restructuring I'm calling for
here would go much further to making it possible to manage house
styles than any of the things you mentioned.
Except it won't happen.
I'm not
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 at 6:19, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
Seems to me the problem is not docking your toolbars, not the lack
of transparency. Why not dock the palettes at the edge of the
screen, as in my Finale in this screenshot?
Hi Richard,
However, I have a significant investment already in
FINALE formatted files. I tried to import a couple
files and was not successful. Even after exporting
to ETF first and then importing.
Your best way to transfer Finale files to Sibelius V4 is usually via
MusicXML files
On 08/07/05, Michael Good [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For older versions of Finale on Windows or Macintosh OS X, you need our
Dolet for Finale plug-in to export the MusicXML file. Finale 2006 has
MusicXML import and export on the File menu on both Windows and Mac.
Will the included MusicXML in
On 8 Jul 2005 at 3:42, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:18 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
No, it wouldn't.
Yes, I knew you'd object. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your
view, but I also have good reason to believe a multi-file equivalent
to Dynamic Parts (perhaps
On 8 Jul 2005 at 2:49, Mark D Lew wrote:
Once you understand the logic that causes the misalignment, the
solutions suggest themselves, so I don't think I need to spell out
procedures. Rafael already mentioned the option of turning ledger
lines on or off in the Music Spacing Options. A more
On 8 Jul 2005 at 6:35, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip] Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
USB2 midi interfaces are just external devices which
When David W. Fenton writes:
I think they are going to have to abandon the yearly upgrades. I
think it's a really bad business practice in the first place, because
it places a schedule on development that is artificial -- a software
development schedule should be determined by the goals of
Hi Brad,
Will the included MusicXML in Finale 2006 still be a Dolet Lite
version only, or will it now be fully included? That is to say, in
order to transfer entire contents of files (lyric, expressions, and
all), will it still be necessary to purchase the full version of
Dolet?
The
Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
It seems to me self-evident that linked parts are the way Finale
should have been designed from the beginning. ...The data
file is a database, and there are various report views for showing
that data and subsets of that
On 08 Jul 2005, at 5:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, if your computer supports only USB 1.x, attaching a USB 2 MIDI
interface won't get you USB 2 performance.
My suggestion was predicated on getting a USB 2.0 PCI card.
Another option I forgot to mention earlier: if you have built-in
Eric Dussault wrote:
I've been requested from a composer to produce a midi file from the
score where each instruments are assigned to a different channel to
separate everything.
Now I can't get the Timpani to open back to Finale once the midi file
is produced and display as a pitched
On 8 Jul 2005 at 7:39, Ken Durling wrote:
At 03:37 AM 7/8/2005, you wrote:
Because a serious musician can set a metronome to 80 and at least try
to make an attempt to follow that tempo, while nobody has a metronome
that I've ever seen which will give a 69.75 tempo so nobody can even
try to
John Howell wrote:
At 11:18 PM +0200 7/7/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
And much more basic: as Robert remarked it is absolutely essential to
have separate spacing for each part. The way that Finale's spacing
works I fear that this might indeed make the one file, different
views approach
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Can someone remind me why I _shouldn't_ switch to Sibelius? Seems like
it much more fulfills the promises of CAE (computer aided engraving...).
Johannes
These days the older complaints of Sibelius being too rigid in the
placement of items and not allowing engraver
On 8 Jul 2005 at 12:25, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:47 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
The problem Andrew describes has nothing to do with libraries, and
it is even a problem going from OS 9 to OS X. To my knowledge there
is no easy work around.
Please enlighten me as to
David W. Fenton wrote:
I don't see what double decimal point precision of tempo markings
accomplishes in that regard.
I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75.
I gave an explanation of this earlier - but to summarise, it's derived
as a 9:8 ratio from Q=54.
On 8 Jul 2005 at 16:07, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
When David W. Fenton writes:
I think they are going to have to abandon the yearly upgrades. I
think it's a really bad business practice in the first place, because
it places a schedule on development that is artificial -- a software
David W. Fenton schrieb:
The cadenza example was about having more measures in the part than
there are in the score.
Hmm. Easily handled by optimizing out the cadenza systems in the
printed score, no?
Why make it harder than that?
Actually I don't think this is sufficient. What if the
On 8 Jul 2005 at 23:00, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I don't see what double decimal point precision of tempo markings
accomplishes in that regard.
I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75.
I gave an explanation of this earlier - but to summarise, it's derived
as a
Tyler Turner wrote:
[snip]
If you're upset with the features being included,
fine. But don't stretch my words to forward your
argument.
I publicly apologize if I have misinterpreted Tyler's remarks (which
apparently I have done.)
I don't mean to put words into anybody's mouth (other than
David W. Fenton wrote:
And my main objection was that I could never figure out, once the
music was entered, how to (in Finale terms):
1. change the page percentage OR
2. change the system percentage
The music was TOO BIG. I wanted it smaller. I couldn't figure out a
way to do that. And the
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 at 23:00, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I don't see what double decimal point precision of tempo markings
accomplishes in that regard.
I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75.
I gave an explanation of this earlier - but to summarise,
Richard Bartkus wrote:
Okay, my interest was piqued, so I downloaded it and gave it a brief try.
Initial look and feel was impressive. However, I have a significant
investment already in FINALE formatted files. I tried to import a couple
files and was not successful. Even after exporting to
Thank you. The XML files ported over well. Not perfect, but reasonably well.
Just have to tweek some things here and there, such as octaves etc, but it's
manageable.
I still need to do more writing in it to see if it's worth the bother to change.
Is there a Sibelius list somewhere
Go to http://www.sibelius.com and choose Help Center, and then join the chat page.You can view posts there or choose to have them sent to you via email.==Doug LeBowLeBow Music Multimedia, Inc.Santa Clarita, CA 91390-5233(661) 297-1001 Studio(661) 244-4400 Fax(661) 313-6044
Indeed. We should start a petition or something. Light a fire under
MakeMusic's ass. Or something.
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Darcy, I wasn't 100% serious anyway. I have no time nor intention to
do a quick switch to Sibelius, but I do want to put some pressure on
MakeMusic to move into the
On 08 Jul 2005, at 6:53 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Indeed. We should start a petition or something. Light a fire under
MakeMusic's ass. Or something.
By all means, if you want this feature implemented in future versions
of Finale, tell Coda. If you have any detailed suggestions about
On 9 Jul 2005 at 0:08, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
David W. Fenton schrieb:
The cadenza example was about having more measures in the part than
there are in the score.
Hmm. Easily handled by optimizing out the cadenza systems in the
printed score, no?
Why make it harder than that?
The HOW part is up to them. Playing with the Demo of Sibelius 4, I think
what they did is very good. So, they could just COPY them
Darcy James Argue wrote:
By all means, if you want this feature implemented in future versions
of Finale, tell Coda. If you have any detailed suggestions
On 8 Jul 2005 at 23:23, Will Roberts wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
And my main objection was that I could never figure out, once the
music was entered, how to (in Finale terms):
1. change the page percentage OR
2. change the system percentage
The music was TOO BIG. I wanted
On 08 Jul 2005, at 7:11 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
The HOW part is up to them.
I meant how do you want this feature to work, not how do we
implement this feature.
Playing with the Demo of Sibelius 4, I think what they did is very
good. So, they could just COPY them
If that's
On 8 Jul 2005 at 23:29, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 at 23:00, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I don't see what double decimal point precision of tempo markings
accomplishes in that regard.
I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75.
I gave an
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Snip
We've already been told that Finale almost had linked
score/parts a
while ago and it was nearing completion when it was
yanked in favor of
other programming directions.
I should have kept my mouth shut for the last couple
of days! I apologize for the
David W. Fenton wrote:
I don't know. I have a fundamental lack of understanding of what is
desired tempo-wise and rhythmically in these kinds of scores.
Notations like 60.75 beats to the minute and time signatures of 5/12
don't make it any clearer to me.
Get yerself a score or two,
I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75.
Then isn't the next hypothesis that there is a non-obvious meaning? I think
it is overwhelmingly likely that the composer was entirely aware that the
two-decimal point precision is impossible to follow or maintain. It seems
ludicrous to think
Thanks David, you're right and I got it to work with the advise of
Steve and Neal.
Éric Dussault
Le 05-07-08 à 17:33, dhbailey a écrit :
Channel 26 is actually channel 10 of the second group of channels,
and channel 10 in GM is a percussion channel. Try changing it to
25 or 27.
Yes. At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sibelius-list/ and it is a very
helpful community.
Richard Smith
www.rgsmithmusic.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 10:42 PM
To:
On Jul 8, 2005, at 2:06 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
But the problems I've seen are rather different -- it's the problem
with extra space, or insufficient space. I've given up on tweaking
every case, since it's just such a pain. I just accept less than
perfect spacing and make alterations only
On 8 Jul 2005 at 17:14, Richard Yates wrote:
I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75.
Then isn't the next hypothesis that there is a non-obvious meaning? I
think it is overwhelmingly likely that the composer was entirely aware
that the two-decimal point precision is impossible to follow
Can someone remind me why I _shouldn't_ switch to Sibelius? Seems like
it much more fulfills the promises of CAE (computer aided
engraving...).
I thought that and tried it and discovered that it just couldn't do the job.
The performance claims were over exaggerated and if you didn't want to
At 02:44 PM 7/8/2005, you wrote:
When I first became aware of what Ferneyhough was doing it reminded me
of this experiment. The response to the score is the piece.
I can't see any obvious meaning to 60.75.
--
Who said anything about obvious? ;-)
Ken
At 12:39 PM 7/8/2005, you wrote:
And my main objection was that I could never figure out, once the
music was entered, how to (in Finale terms):
1. change the page percentage OR
2. change the system percentage
The music was TOO BIG. I wanted it smaller. I couldn't figure out a
way to do that.
On Jul 8, 2005, at 5:24 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 at 10:21, Christopher Smith wrote:
My trick was (for 4 sixteenths, a quintuplet, and a quarter note) to
say out loud TEE-ry tee-ry MATH-e-ma-ti-cal TAH. My nine year old
can do it (I tested it out on him.)
Hmm. You pronounce
A score is a recipe for performing the piece.
This assumption does seem to lead to your outrage.
Specifying a metronome marking of 60.75 would be like specifying
1.00456 teaspoons of sugar in a recipe -- not something to be taken
at all seriously
Good analogy, and yet you are the one
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
