Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?

[Don Hart]

I've never scanned any music to work with in Finale, so I guess I was
envisioning more rhythm and pitch errors than the type that you mention.  I
realize that if elements are showing up in the wrong tool ("ties
misinterpreted as slurs and tempo markings misinterpreted as song verse")
different problems are encountered.

In the past, I've bailed on a number of midi files and started over, but if
they had needed only 5 bars out of a hundred fixed, most in the speedy tool,
I probably would have stuck with them.  I guess all errors are not created
equal.

Don Hart




on 2/9/04 9:25 PM, Craig Parmerlee at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> At 09:43 PM 2/9/2004, Don Hart wrote:
>> I would think that proofing by playback, at least in most cases, would
>> make
>> 95% accuracy work pretty well, as opposed to reentering
>> everything.  Even if
>> both methods were a wash timewise, scanning would break the routine, and
>> that can sometimes be its own blessing.
> 
> 
> No.  The problem is that you might have to take 5 actions to fix each
> problem.  If a triplet is misread as a string of 8th notes with an
> extra rest inserted, you're better off wiping out that mess and
> entering it clean.  Likewise for ties misinterpreted as slurs and tempo
> markings misinterpreted as song verse.  I think the break even point in
> time is about 98%, but the break even point in terms of my patience is
> about 99.5%
> 
> Sometimes SharpEye gets there, sometimes it doesn't.  I haven't seen
> anything else even get closeto break even.
> 
> 
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?

[Craig Parmerlee]

At 09:43 PM 2/9/2004, Don Hart wrote:
I would think that proofing by playback, at least in most cases, would 
make
95% accuracy work pretty well, as opposed to reentering 
everything.  Even if
both methods were a wash timewise, scanning would break the routine, and
that can sometimes be its own blessing.


No.  The problem is that you might have to take 5 actions to fix each 
problem.  If a triplet is misread as a string of 8th notes with an 
extra rest inserted, you're better off wiping out that mess and 
entering it clean.  Likewise for ties misinterpreted as slurs and tempo 
markings misinterpreted as song verse.  I think the break even point in 
time is about 98%, but the break even point in terms of my patience is 
about 99.5%

Sometimes SharpEye gets there, sometimes it doesn't.  I haven't seen 
anything else even get closeto break even.

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?

[Don Hart]

I would think that proofing by playback, at least in most cases, would make
95% accuracy work pretty well, as opposed to reentering everything.  Even if
both methods were a wash timewise, scanning would break the routine, and
that can sometimes be its own blessing.

Don Hart




on 2/9/04 4:46 PM, Mark D Lew at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 
> On Feb 9, 2004, at 9:44 AM, Phil Daley wrote:
> 
>> Note bene:  I am not familiar with note scanning software.
>> 
>> I am _extremely_ familiar with character scanning software.
>> 
>> "95% accuracy" in scanning conversion to text produces a useless
>> document.  It is more work to clean up that mess than to retype it
>> from scratch.
>> 
>> 95% "sounds" good.  In reality, it produces an illegible (and
>> unreadable) text document.
> 
> That also matches my experience, from my days as typesetter for a
> weekly journal that reprinted numerous press releases.  Unless the
> accuracy is up around 98% you're going to spend more time futzing with
> the file than you would retyping it.  Part of the problem is that you
> don't know where the 5% errors are, so in addition to fixing the
> errors, you have to double-check everything.
> 
> Admittedly, an important factor in this equation is how fast a typist
> you are.  If retyping is a slow process for you, then your threshold of
> accuracy to make scanning worthwhile is going to be lower.
> 
> mdl
> 
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Triplet question

[Darcy James Argue]

On 09 Feb 2004, at 06:59 PM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:

There are some good reasons I can think of for his notation, for 
example, if another instrument somewhere IS covering that last eighth 
note triplet,
Nope.

I guess you know better than I do, but I would still go with the 
triplet normally notated, obscuring the third beat.
Er, that *is* the way I decided to do it…

Cheers,

- Darcy

-

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn NY
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Triplet question

[Christopher BJ Smith]

At 6:07 PM -0500 2/09/04, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 09 Feb 2004, at 05:01 PM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:

It looks to me that the difference between your first solution and this

quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: an eighth 
note followed by a sixteenth note, half rest

is only the length of the last note. If you needed the last note 
longer, why not just tie it to a sixteenth or eighth, rather than 
to a triplet value that doesn't get completed?
Because it's not my piece.

I totally agree with you that there will be little (if any) 
discernible difference between the original notation and the 
alternatives you suggest, but I just by looking at the piece, I can 
tell that the composer has certain conceptual reasons for preferring 
triplets here, and I'm guessing that for him, those reasons are 
going to trump practicality every time.

- Darcy



There are some good reasons I can think of for his notation, for 
example, if another instrument somewhere IS covering that last eighth 
note triplet, then it makes it easier to get together as an ensemble 
if the entire tuplet is notated. I have even seen quintuplet eighths, 
two sets to the measure, but I only played the first note of each 
set, and yet I had the whole tuplet notated! It looked weird at first 
glance (why not write eighth note, eight rest, quarter rest?) but I 
quickly discovered that having the entire tuplet notated there made 
it WAY easier to keep the time together.

I guess you know better than I do, but I would still go with the 
triplet normally notated, obscuring the third beat.

Christopher

"Why, if you were to choose the weevil that was bigger, you would be 
wrong, sir! You must always choose the lesser of two weevils!" 
Captain Aubry in "The Far Side of the World" (paraphrased)
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Triplet question

[Darcy James Argue]

On 09 Feb 2004, at 05:01 PM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:

It looks to me that the difference between your first solution and this

quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: an eighth note 
followed by a sixteenth note, half rest

is only the length of the last note. If you needed the last note 
longer, why not just tie it to a sixteenth or eighth, rather than to a 
triplet value that doesn't get completed?
Because it's not my piece.

I totally agree with you that there will be little (if any) discernible 
difference between the original notation and the alternatives you 
suggest, but I just by looking at the piece, I can tell that the 
composer has certain conceptual reasons for preferring triplets here, 
and I'm guessing that for him, those reasons are going to trump 
practicality every time.

- Darcy

-

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn NY
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Triplet question

[Christopher BJ Smith]

At 8:06 AM -0500 2/09/04, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Okay,

In 4/4, one normally "shows" beat 3 of a measure when it contains 
eighth note values or smaller.

However, I've run into a situation where my source has the following rhythm:

quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: two eighth 
notes followed an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter rest

In other words, an eighth-note triplet starting on the "and" of two.

I guess the "correct" way to write this would be to split the eighth 
note triplet into two groups of sixteenth note triplets, like this:

quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: an eighth note 
followed by a sixteenth note, tied to a triplet consisting of: a 
sixteenth note followed by an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter 
rest.

This would correctly show beat 3 of the measure.  But in this case, 
I think the above notation (with the tie) is actually much more 
difficult to read than a single eighth-note triplet starting on beat 
2.5.

What say you all?

- Darcy


It looks to me that the difference between your first solution and this

quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: an eighth note 
followed by a sixteenth note, half rest

is only the length of the last note. If you needed the last note 
longer, why not just tie it to a sixteenth or eighth, rather than to 
a triplet value that doesn't get completed?

If you really, really need the triplet completed in the third beat of 
the measure, I would go with covering the third beat - your first 
solution. If this went over a barline, then things start looking 
hairy.

Christopher
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius

[Christopher BJ Smith]

At 11:11 AM -0500 2/09/04, Darcy James Argue wrote:
 There's still all of Sibelius's blatant claims along the lines of 
"Finale can't do this," or "Sibelius is the *only* music notation 
program that does that."


There are a couple of unique features that caught my eye when I saw 
the Sibelius 2 demo at school.

One is the "instant arrangement", where you take a piece of piano 
music, hit the button, and it is immediately and surprisingly 
intelligently divided among the staves of a concert band or orchestra 
score. Everything seemed to be in the correct octave and preserved 
reasonable voice-leading, which already put it ahead of some of my 
students. Of course, I would rather do my own, but it seems if you 
need the Congolese national anthem in a hurry for a special occasion, 
you could run this, edit some sections, and bob's your uncle!

Another one that I could actually use is where you copy a passage to 
another staff, then put the cursor over the first note, and start 
playing the second voice harmony on the MIDI keyboard. Every 
successive note gets changed to the new melody you are playing, 
jumping over rests and intelligently converting tied notes in one 
hit. This takes at least twice the keystrokes in Finale, not even 
counting two hits to jump a rest, and four to tie a new pitch over 
the barline.

The "harmonic analysis" feature looked good until I tried it. It is 
no better than Finale's analysis, making similar errors.
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?

[Mark D Lew]

On Feb 9, 2004, at 9:44 AM, Phil Daley wrote:

Note bene:  I am not familiar with note scanning software.

I am _extremely_ familiar with character scanning software.

"95% accuracy" in scanning conversion to text produces a useless 
document.  It is more work to clean up that mess than to retype it 
from scratch.

95% "sounds" good.  In reality, it produces an illegible (and 
unreadable) text document.
That also matches my experience, from my days as typesetter for a 
weekly journal that reprinted numerous press releases.  Unless the 
accuracy is up around 98% you're going to spend more time futzing with 
the file than you would retyping it.  Part of the problem is that you 
don't know where the 5% errors are, so in addition to fixing the 
errors, you have to double-check everything.

Admittedly, an important factor in this equation is how fast a typist 
you are.  If retyping is a slow process for you, then your threshold of 
accuracy to make scanning worthwhile is going to be lower.

mdl

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Triplet question

[Darcy James Argue]

On 09 Feb 2004, at 03:55 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:

On Feb 9, 2004, at 5:06 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

In 4/4, one normally "shows" beat 3 of a measure when it contains 
eighth note values or smaller.

However, I've run into a situation where my source has the following 
rhythm:
[...]

In other words, an eighth-note triplet starting on the "and" of two.
[...]

What say you all?
I say it depends on the context and the style of music.
It's new classical mus… oh, er, I'm sorry.  It's "nonpop."

For what it's worth, if it were jazz, I would *definitely* show the 
middle of the bar, although probably using Liudas's suggestion of 
putting the entire figure -- eighth - sixteenth-tied-to-sixteenth - 
eighth rest -- under a single triplet bracket.  (i.e., one eighth-note 
triplet split down the middle, rather than two sixteenth-note 
triplets).  But in this style, I think just the regular triplet is 
best, even if it crosses the "invisible mid-measure barline."

- Darcy

-

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn NY
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius

[Mark D Lew]

On Feb 9, 2004, at 4:28 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:

There's actually FOUR kinds of lies, to paraphrase Mark Twain (I think 
he originated it): 1) Lies, 2) Damn Lies, 3) Statistics and
4) Marketing.
The line appears in Twain's autobiography, but he himself attributes it 
to Benjamin Disraeli.  More precisely, he characterizes the phrase as 
"attributed to" Disraeli, so perhaps he's just claiming that others 
have made the attribution.

There is no evidence that Disraeli ever used the phrase.  It was, 
however, used (in slightly different form) in an 1895 article by 
Leonard Henry Courtney, in which he characterizes is as "the words of 
the Wise Statesman", which presumably led to the misattribution.

See .

Not mentioned there is that the same quote has been attributed to Henry 
Labouchere, another articulate Liberal MP of the same time period.  I'm 
not aware of any evidence for this attribution, either.

Two possibilities here:  (1) One of these fellows really did use the 
line, and that's where Courtney got it, but no earlier written evidence 
has survived.  (2) Courteney was just being rhetorical, and others 
later had their own interpretation of who the "Wise Statesman" must be.

mdl

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Triplet question

[Mark D Lew]

On Feb 9, 2004, at 5:06 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

In 4/4, one normally "shows" beat 3 of a measure when it contains 
eighth note values or smaller.

However, I've run into a situation where my source has the following 
rhythm:
[...]

In other words, an eighth-note triplet starting on the "and" of two.
[...]

What say you all?
I say it depends on the context and the style of music.  I do stuff 
strongly in the classical tradition, where there is a stronger 
expectation of not having syncopations go across a major beat.  Thus, 
in my context, I'd spell it out the detailed way, with two smaller 
triplets and a tie across the beat.

I'm less familiar with pop and jazz, but my impression from the scores 
I've seen is that in those traditions it is far more common to have 
various sorts of syncopated rhythms that cross a major beat, and I 
assume readers of that sort of music aren't fazed by them.  So if I 
were transcribing music in that sort of tradition, I'd write it with 
the single eighth-triplet starting at beat "2.5".

(I still think "2.5" is a very strange way to label the 'and' of two.  
I only call it that because you do and Finale does, but it feels very 
much like 1.5 to me.)

mdl

P.S. You posted from Earthlink again

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Another tuplet question

[Mark D Lew]

On Feb 9, 2004, at 6:12 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

What is the standard way to notate a sixteenth quintuplet when only 
the final note is played?  What do you put under the bracket:

A quarter rest followed by the sixteenth note?

Two eighth rests followed by the sixteenth note?

Four sixteenth rests followed by the sixteenth note?
Perhaps I'm an inferior musician, but I confess I would have difficulty 
playing this any different from an ordinary 16th note pickup, unless 
the tempo is REALLY slow.

For the engraving question, my gut instinct is the middle option.  No 
real logic there, just a sense that it would be least distracting when 
sight-reading. I'm open to persuasion on that point if others feel 
differently.

mdl

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Converting Score files

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 09.02.2004 12:45 Uhr, Matthew Naughtin wrote

> This has probably been discussed before, but I'll ask anyway:
> a composer I work with has some old files of a piece that was engraved using
> Score. Is there any way for me to translate these over into Finale?

Finale can import Score files. I have no idea how well.

Johannes
-- 
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Converting Score files

[Matthew Naughtin]

This has probably been discussed before, but I'll ask anyway:
a composer I work with has some old files of a piece that was engraved using
Score. Is there any way for me to translate these over into Finale?

Matt Naughtin



___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius

[Raymond Horton]

Have you tried to tell automated Sprint "what the problem is"  _Sometimes_,
that even works.  Also, of course, tuners have become pretty discriminating.
The difference between all of these applications and a notation program,
though, is rhythm.  Placing all of this in exact relation to meter is a
whole 'nother story.

- Original Message - 
From: "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius


> On 9 Feb 2004 at 18:17, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote:
>
> > > I do notice nobody has jumped in to defend Micnotator at all.  :)
> > >
> > > David H. Bailey
> >
> > Ha! It's enough to try to develop error-free voice activated macros!
> > Even that is basically impossible. Or have the technologies changed
> > since about two years ago, when I tried this? Anybody using those?
>
> Well, certain companies manage to make it work with their automated
> telephone service lines, so it's obviously doable to a certain
> degree. While phones are rather low fidelity, the menus where it is
> used are also very limited (e.g., they only have to distinguish "Yes"
> from "No"). I also know several lawyers who do all their brief
> writing with voice recognition and have secretaries clean it up, and
> they've been doing this for several years.
>
> -- 
> 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

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Another tuplet question

[Raymond Horton]

I have seen a quarter rest, followed by a sixteenth, with a bracket over
both, on occasion.  As long as the bracket is obvious, it is clear enough.

Raymond Horton
Louisville Orchestra

- Original Message - 
From: "Darcy James Argue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 9:12 AM
Subject: [Finale] Another tuplet question


> What is the standard way to notate a sixteenth quintuplet when only the
> final note is played?  What do you put under the bracket:
>
> A quarter rest followed by the sixteenth note?
>
> Two eighth rests followed by the sixteenth note?
>
> Four sixteenth rests followed by the sixteenth note?
>
> - Darcy
>
> -
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Brooklyn NY
>
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Triplet question

[M. Perticone]

hello,

i'd prefer de original notation, that is a triplet starting at the second
half oh the second beat. i used that kind of rhythms a lot, and in my
experience the mentioned solution was the best one. i feel this applies to
moderate to fast tempi. if it's to slow, say m.m.40, probably your second
option would be more accurately played.
hope this helps,
regards,
marcelo

- Original Message -
From: "Darcy James Argue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 10:06 AM
Subject: [Finale] Triplet question


> Okay,
>
> In 4/4, one normally "shows" beat 3 of a measure when it contains
> eighth note values or smaller.
>
> However, I've run into a situation where my source has the following
> rhythm:
>
> quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: two eighth notes
> followed an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter rest
>
> In other words, an eighth-note triplet starting on the "and" of two.
>
> I guess the "correct" way to write this would be to split the eighth
> note triplet into two groups of sixteenth note triplets, like this:
>
> quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: an eighth note
> followed by a sixteenth note, tied to a triplet consisting of: a
> sixteenth note followed by an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter rest.
>
> This would correctly show beat 3 of the measure.  But in this case, I
> think the above notation (with the tie) is actually much more difficult
> to read than a single eighth-note triplet starting on beat 2.5.
>
> What say you all?
>
> - Darcy
>
> -
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Brooklyn NY
>
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>


___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Chord Entry

[Tim Thompson]

Sure--Chord Tool, Chord Menu, choose 1-staff or 2-staff analysis.  If 
your score is one part per staff, then you will have to implode first.  
I don't know how accurate it would be--I'm sure it depends on the 
degree of correlation between the harmonies in the piece and the 
contents of your chord library.

Tim

On Feb 9, 2004, at 1:10 PM, George Ports wrote:

Isn't there a way to have fin2004 tell you the names of chords by 
annalyzing a four part vocal score?  I thought I read it somewhere and 
now I can't find it. 
     I'm using winXP.  Thanks for any help.
George Ports
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale


___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?

[Raymond Horton]

I believe he said 97%, but I don't recall the percentage with 100 %
accuracy, or something like that.  All I know is my violist friend, who has
been using Finale for years, is now scanning rather than any of his other
note entry choices, when it comes to entering a clean printed work. Enough
said.

(Hell, I don't get 95% accuracy with Speedy Entry!)

RH


- Original Message - 
From: "Phil Daley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Finale list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?


> At 2/9/2004 12:17 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:
>
>  >"Lies" is a strong word, and here, unjustified.
>  >
>  >But I would have agreed with you on the scanning until last week.  A
friend
>  >of mine (a viola player and user of WinFin2003) astounded me, just a few
>  >days ago, by telling me that he has been having great success scanning.
>  >After some trial and error, he scans viola parts and up to four-part
scores
>  >regularly, with what he estimates at something like 95 to 97% accuracy.
>
> Note bene:  I am not familiar with note scanning software.
>
> I am _extremely_ familiar with character scanning software.
>
> "95% accuracy" in scanning conversion to text produces a useless
> document.  It is more work to clean up that mess than to retype it from
> scratch.
>
> 95% "sounds" good.  In reality, it produces an illegible (and unreadable)
> text document.
>
> Phil Daley  < AutoDesk >
> http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley
>
>
>
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Chord Entry

[George Ports]

Isn't there a way to have fin2004 tell you the 
names of chords by annalyzing a four part vocal score?  I thought I read it 
somewhere and now I can't find it.  
    I'm using winXP.  Thanks 
for any help.
George Ports
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale]

[ICECCS 2004]

Sorry for any multiple reception of this message,

Send an email with REMOVE on the subject

Cheers,
Pierfrancesco Bellini, Bernhard Steffen, Shawn Bohner
Paolo Nesi, Alessandro Fantechi, José-Luis Fernández-Villacañas

_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°

IEEE International Conference on
Engineering of Complex Computer Systems,
IEEE ICECCS, Florence, Italy, 14-16 April, 2004

http://www.dsi.unifi.it/iceccs04

_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°
Workshop on Software and Complex Systems, WSCS 
14th April 2004 , Florence , Italy 

This workshop will concentrate on how Software Technologies and Distributed
Systems can help in the design and management of complex systems, linking
industrial and academic partners, research and application.

organised by: 
- European Commission, DG INFSO D3, INFSO, Software Technologies and Distributed 
Systems. 
- DISIT-DSI, Distributed Systems and Internet Technology, 
  Department of Systems and Informatics, University of Florence 

http://www.dsi.unifi.it/iceccs04/ec-workshop.htm

Chaired by:
José-Luis Fernández-Villacañas, Paolo Nesi, Alessandro Fantechi

_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°

Topic Areas: related to complex computer-based systems, including the causes of 
complexity and means of avoiding, controlling, or coping with complexity. 
Topic areas includes, but are not limited to:
* System and software architecture and system engineering
* Tools, environments, and languages for complex systems
* Formal methods and approaches to manage and control complex systems
* Integration of heterogeneous technologies
* Software and system development and control processes for complex systems
* Human factors and collaborative aspects
* Interoperability and standardization
* Systems and software safety and security
* Industrial automation, embedded and/or real time systems
* Content production and distribution systems, mobile and multi-channel 
systems
* Software complexity visualization
* Virtual environments for managing complexity

_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Strings natural harmonics playback

[Rafael Junchaya]

I remember the old days when not even 8va signs 
could playback correctly! Then I remember Tobias Giesen issuing string harmonics 
with playback in TGTools. It's been great until HP in Fin2k4, but that's another 
thing that's been discussed elsewhere.
 
Now I'm facing this difficulty: Some composers 
(some of them my clients) use to indicate natural harmonics in strings just with 
the diamond shape where the string is to be stopped, sometimes with the string 
number sometimes with no other indication, with the confidence strings players 
won't mistake. I guess this could work, tho' I'd prefer at least the string 
number indication. Anyway, In Finale this could be easily done just entering the 
notes and changing noteheads, but when playback is concerned we face the 
problem. 
 
I've found a workaround, that I know won't work in 
every situation, that's create the two notes combination in layer 2, make 
TGTools display the diamonds and make it playback correctly, copy layer 2 to 
layer 1, hide layer 2 with a staff style, and finally deleting the normal 
noteheads in layer 1, leaving only the diamonds with 0 midi velocity (no 
playback) and correcting stem and ties directions and rest positioning. This is 
quite annoying if the whole piece is full of natural harmonics and playback is 
an issue.
 
I wonder if someone could find another easier way 
to accomplish this natural harmonics playback or maybe Tobias might upgrade 
TGTools harmonics with this option: creation of harmonics might be the same: 
with two notes, but giving the chance to delete the lower one and leaving just 
the diamond with correct playback
 
Thank all for your responses
 
Rafael Junchaya
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale]

[ICECCS 2004]

Sorry for any multiple reception of this message,

Send an email with REMOVE on the subject

Cheers,
Pierfrancesco Bellini, Bernhard Steffen, Shawn Bohner
Paolo Nesi, Alessandro Fantechi, José-Luis Fernández-Villacañas

_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°

IEEE International Conference on
Engineering of Complex Computer Systems,
IEEE ICECCS, Florence, Italy, 14-16 April, 2004

http://www.dsi.unifi.it/iceccs04

_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°
Workshop on Software and Complex Systems, WSCS 
14th April 2004 , Florence , Italy 

This workshop will concentrate on how Software Technologies and Distributed
Systems can help in the design and management of complex systems, linking
industrial and academic partners, research and application.

organised by: 
- European Commission, DG INFSO D3, INFSO, Software Technologies and Distributed 
Systems. 
- DISIT-DSI, Distributed Systems and Internet Technology, 
  Department of Systems and Informatics, University of Florence 

http://www.dsi.unifi.it/iceccs04/ec-workshop.htm

Chaired by:
José-Luis Fernández-Villacañas, Paolo Nesi, Alessandro Fantechi

_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°

Topic Areas: related to complex computer-based systems, including the causes of 
complexity and means of avoiding, controlling, or coping with complexity. 
Topic areas includes, but are not limited to:
* System and software architecture and system engineering
* Tools, environments, and languages for complex systems
* Formal methods and approaches to manage and control complex systems
* Integration of heterogeneous technologies
* Software and system development and control processes for complex systems
* Human factors and collaborative aspects
* Interoperability and standardization
* Systems and software safety and security
* Industrial automation, embedded and/or real time systems
* Content production and distribution systems, mobile and multi-channel 
systems
* Software complexity visualization
* Virtual environments for managing complexity

_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°_°

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?

[Phil Daley]

At 2/9/2004 12:17 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:

>"Lies" is a strong word, and here, unjustified.
>
>But I would have agreed with you on the scanning until last week.  A friend
>of mine (a viola player and user of WinFin2003) astounded me, just a few
>days ago, by telling me that he has been having great success scanning.
>After some trial and error, he scans viola parts and up to four-part scores
>regularly, with what he estimates at something like 95 to 97% accuracy.
Note bene:  I am not familiar with note scanning software.

I am _extremely_ familiar with character scanning software.

"95% accuracy" in scanning conversion to text produces a useless 
document.  It is more work to clean up that mess than to retype it from 
scratch.

95% "sounds" good.  In reality, it produces an illegible (and unreadable) 
text document.

Phil Daley  < AutoDesk >
http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley


___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius

[Raymond Horton]

> > I do notice nobody has jumped in to defend Micnotator at all.  :)
> >
> > David H. Bailey

You're right there.  I know I am more certain of the keyboard than my voice,
so why shouldn't I assume Finale would be?  (In other words, I've never
tried it.)

RH

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius

[Brad Beyenhof]

On 09 Feb 2004, at 10:58 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:

I do notice nobody has jumped in to defend Micnotator at all.  :)
It makes me wonder... if SmartMusic does a fairly decent job of 
assessing student performance, why can't MicNotator render performances 
with anything even approaching accuracy?

--
Brad Beyenhof
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you're enlightened and you know it, clap one hand

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius - subset: Finale lies?

[Raymond Horton]

"Lies" is a strong word, and here, unjustified.

But I would have agreed with you on the scanning until last week.  A friend
of mine (a viola player and user of WinFin2003) astounded me, just a few
days ago, by telling me that he has been having great success scanning.
After some trial and error, he scans viola parts and up to four-part scores
regularly, with what he estimates at something like 95 to 97% accuracy.  His
main wish is that he could buy a low-cost 9 1/2 x 13 scanner to make large
parts easier!

I'll try to remember to get some of the particular settings he uses and post
them here.

And you are dead wrong about midi import being a lie.  I import midi files
into Finale all the time.  Success depends entirely on the condition of the
midi file.  A clean, quantized midi file loads in as clean as a whistle.
(Where in the world did that phrase come from?)

For example (in addition to being a full-time symphony player) I am a part
time Minister of Muisc in a United Methodist Church.  Whenever I have an
instrumental group of some kind, even an odd group of instruments, playing
with the choir, I go to http://www.hymnsite.com/ and DL the midi files for
the hymns for that service (all the PD hymns in the UMC hymnal are there).
They nearly always load into Finale perfectly and I can rearrange them as
needed.   I can do these in a flash.  If my junior high trumpet players are
playing and the hymn is in E major I'll go the other way and transpose the
hymn to Eb or F for the organist.  For these I have to implode, so I have to
do a bit of layer switching when the rhythm is different, etc., but it is
still very fast.

And, I _have_ used midi files of "great complexity".  For example, last year
my violinist/pianist daughter found herself in a one-year position as a
music teacher, including directing a high school band with 9 players, some
of whom were fairly advanced.  The only published arrangements she could
find that would work for her small instrumentation were too easy to keep
them happy all year, so I did a few quicky arrangements for her, several of
them courtesy of midi files I could find on the web.   Bizet's "Farandole"
from  "L'arlesienne" was a big hit, as was their accompanying my daughter on
a movement from a Mozart violin concerto.  (I think legality is OK here, as
the pieces are PD, and I didn't take any dough for my rearrange of someone's
midi file.)  I never would have the had time to type so many notes from
scratch, and I am a rotten pianist.  The files needed some editing before
arranging, (like importing the Mozart at two different quantizations, and
copying from both as I went along) but nothing like typing in every
thirty-second note myself - the midi import saved countless hours.

Ray Horton

- Original Message - 
From: "David H. Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Darcy James Argue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius


> Finale has out and out lied, if you think that advertising a feature
> that doesn't work very well constitutes a lie (I do.)
>
> Scanning, for instance -- Yes, it is possible to scan a perfectly
> printed version of Mary Had a Little Lamb (as melody only) into Finale,
> using its built-in scanning capability.  However for any serious
> scanning of, say, a complex piano score for arranging as a chamber work,
> it won't work at all.  That seems to be an out and out lie, when they
> advertised that we could scan in music and work with it in Finale.  Coda
> knows that most users who use Finale are not working on Mary Had a
> Little Lamb.
>
> MicNotator, for another instance: Play or sing your music into Finale?
> C'mon!  That was another out-and-out lie -- has ANYBODY gotten that to
work?
>
> Importing of Midi files?  Another lie, if you're working with midi files
> of any great complexity.  Hyperscribe is a partner in this travesty -- 
> playing of complex music does not result in exact notation, rendering
> the feature useless for most advanced music entry.
>
> There's actually FOUR kinds of lies, to paraphrase Mark Twain (I think
> he originated it): 1) Lies, 2) Damn Lies, 3) Statistics and
> 4) Marketing.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying either company is worse in this
> regard -- I'm just saying that Coda has done its share of
> misrepresenting its product, too.  Sibelius certainly does have a
> chip-on-the-shoulder attitude in it's aggressive claims!  It is a young
> product still and they are gradually addressing complaints and bugs and
> deficiencies.  Admittedly with an attitude, it seems.
>
> But Sibelius has loosened up its overly rigid licensing so that both
> Sibelius and Finale are equivalent in that regard for the latest version
>   -- both have call/response software registration and both allow
> installation on two machines simultaneously without violating the
> license agreement.
>
> David H. Bailey
>
>
>
>
> Darcy James Argue wr

[Finale] MacOS X Booklet printing solution

[Johannes Gebauer]

I just stumbled across this, and I thought I should share this info:

There is a very simple but effective booklet printing solution for MacOs X
available at

www.metaobject.com


it's not free, I think it costs around 50 $. Probably worth the price. I
only had a brief look at it but it seems to do what it should.

Johannes
-- 
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 09.02.2004 16:58 Uhr, David H. Bailey wrote

> It may be better, but not much better -- I just tried to scan a
> 24-staff, finale-printed score and smartscore won't accept it.  Reading
> the documentation for Finale, it states right from the start, don't scan
> anything with more than 16-staves in it.  So anybody who bought the
> program hoping to be able to scan in large scores and edit them and
> modernize them or whatever would definitely have been lied to by the
> marketing hype, supporting my original thesis that scanning into Finale
> represents a marketing lie as bad as any I have read on the Sibelius
> publicity.

Now come on! Yes, you are probably right that it doesn't handle more than 16
staves. But that is a limitation, not a quality mark for scanning.

I used it to prepare parts for a Haydn String Trio from a score. The amount
of extra work needed was far less than having to reenter everything. That
makes it useful for the first time, and I would say this qualifies to be
called "much better" - much better indeed!

No it probably won't do as well as advertised. We all know that. But it is
useful now (something which I don't think can be said about MicNotator).

Johannes
-- 
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius

[Noel Stoutenburg]

David wrote:

I do notice nobody has jumped in to defend Micnotator at all.  :) 
I would have, except that I make it a matter of personal policy never to 
defend something I don't know how to pronounce.

ns

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2004 at 18:17, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote:

> > I do notice nobody has jumped in to defend Micnotator at all.  :)
> >
> > David H. Bailey
> 
> Ha! It's enough to try to develop error-free voice activated macros!
> Even that is basically impossible. Or have the technologies changed
> since about two years ago, when I tried this? Anybody using those?

Well, certain companies manage to make it work with their automated 
telephone service lines, so it's obviously doable to a certain 
degree. While phones are rather low fidelity, the menus where it is 
used are also very limited (e.g., they only have to distinguish "Yes" 
from "No"). I also know several lawyers who do all their brief 
writing with voice recognition and have secretaries clean it up, and 
they've been doing this for several years.

-- 
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] comparing finale/sibelius

[Mr. Liudas Motekaitis]

> I do notice nobody has jumped in to defend Micnotator at all.  :)
>
> David H. Bailey

Ha! It's enough to try to develop error-free voice activated macros! Even
that is basically impossible. Or have the technologies changed since about
two years ago, when I tried this? Anybody using those?

Liudas

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Rest in 6/2

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Feb 2004 at 10:16, Andrew Stiller wrote:

> >David W. Fenton écrit:
> >>Then why is 3/2 completely unacceptable?
> >
> >Well, it would involve cutting all the measures in two, and I don't
> >really see the point in it. The presence of a section in 6/4 isn't
> >the only reason against changing the 6/2 to 6/4. We've discussed this
> >here already, and I (and others) prefer to retain the original time
> >signatures.
> 
> I find the notion that any notatable time signature is somehow 
> undesirable to be faintly repellent, because it suggests that the
> composer's creativity should  be subordinated to the notation, which
> is precisely backward.

???

A composer lives in a reality where there are performers who have a 
limited amount of time to prepare performances, and its in the 
composer's interest to choose notation (not meters) that convey the 
musical content in a fashion that is most easily comprehended by 
performers and still conveys all the necessary musical information.

> I once had occasion to write a couple of measures of 3 / 1/2 time
> (three very slow double-whole-note beats), and I went right ahead and
> did it, because it's what the sense of the music demanded. I can't
> imagine re-metering something like that merely because it's
> unorthodox.

Yet, if there were an orthodox method of conveying exactly the same 
musical content (as there is not, in your case), and performers are 
more familiar with that method, why would you choose otherwise?

I assumed from context that Dennis was creating a modern edition of 
old music.

But the example I gave in another post of renotating a 6/4 
composition in 3/2 was one of my own compositions. I originally 
composed it in 6/4, but the result was rather incompatible with the 
meter. I ran it by a performer I trust and she agreed that the 3/2 
version was much easier to comprehend.

But if there had been no "orthodox" solution, I certainly wouldn't 
have re-written the piece to be more orthodox, and the suggestion is 
nowhere present any anything I've written in this thread.

I don't know what happened here, but I really feel like everything 
I've written on this subject has been willfully misinterpreted by 
people apparently spoiling for a fight.

So I shall stop now and leave the matter where it rests.

-- 
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] comparing finale/sibelius

[Darcy James Argue]

On 09 Feb 2004, at 10:58 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:

It may be better, but not much better -- I just tried to scan a 
24-staff, finale-printed score and smartscore won't accept it.  
Reading the documentation for Finale, it states right from the start, 
don't scan anything with more than 16-staves in it.  So anybody who 
bought the program hoping to be able to scan in large scores and edit 
them and modernize them or whatever would definitely have been lied to 
by the marketing hype, supporting my original thesis that scanning 
into Finale represents a marketing lie as bad as any I have read on 
the Sibelius publicity.

I do notice nobody has jumped in to defend Micnotator at all.  :)
I think you neglected to send your "original thesis" post to the list.

But, FWIW, in my experience Sibelius's scanning isn't any better than 
Finale's, and both have made similar claims about its efficacy.  So 
effectively, if you're tallying each company's marketing lies, those 
two cancel each other out.  There's still all of Sibelius's blatant 
claims along the lines of "Finale can't do this," or "Sibelius is the 
*only* music notation program that does that."

Also, I have to admit that scanning and Micnotator and all that have 
zero interest for me, partially because I know in advance that the 
marketing hype is almost entirely hot air.  It's hard for me to even 
take these "features" seriously enough to evaluate Coda's claims about 
them one way or the other.

- Darcy

-

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn NY
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Another tuplet question

[Michael Edwards]

[Darcy James Argue:]

>> What is the standard way to notate a sixteenth quintuplet when only the
>> final note is played?  What do you put under the bracket:

Is there a standard way?  It seems sufficiently uncommon that I can't think
of any standard method.

[David H. Bailey:]

>I would put 4 16th-rests so the rhythm of the quintuplet is readily
>apparent.

 In quick reading, using this, I would think a performer might stumble over
counting the number of rests.
 I'd go for the crotchet (quarter) rest followed by the note, clearly
bracketed together with a "5".  There is the least clutter this way, and I don't
see how this could fail to be perfectly clear.  Second best is two quaver (8th)
rests, which is equally clear, but slightly more cluttered.
 Beyond those two choices, I would be more likely to stumble over any other
arrangement, particularly the one that starts with the semiquaver rest (16th)
followed by the dotted note, because I'd have to mentally add up all the rests
and deal with the unusual ordering of those rests.
 I don't agree with the notion that the first note always defines the basic
unit of the tuplet, and in fact I've never heard that idea before.  Tuplets can
include notes of varying lengths, and that can include the first note or rest in
the group, but they are all multiples of a basic unit.  The basic unit is
whatever the value is that divides evenly into all the notes, not the value that
happens to appear as the first note.

 Regards,
  Michael Edwards.



___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius

[David H. Bailey]

It may be better, but not much better -- I just tried to scan a 
24-staff, finale-printed score and smartscore won't accept it.  Reading 
the documentation for Finale, it states right from the start, don't scan 
anything with more than 16-staves in it.  So anybody who bought the 
program hoping to be able to scan in large scores and edit them and 
modernize them or whatever would definitely have been lied to by the 
marketing hype, supporting my original thesis that scanning into Finale 
represents a marketing lie as bad as any I have read on the Sibelius 
publicity.

I do notice nobody has jumped in to defend Micnotator at all.  :)

David H. Bailey



Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 09.02.2004 13:28 Uhr, David H. Bailey wrote


Scanning, for instance -- Yes, it is possible to scan a perfectly
printed version of Mary Had a Little Lamb (as melody only) into Finale,
using its built-in scanning capability.  However for any serious
scanning of, say, a complex piano score for arranging as a chamber work,
it won't work at all.  That seems to be an out and out lie, when they
advertised that we could scan in music and work with it in Finale.  Coda
knows that most users who use Finale are not working on Mary Had a
Little Lamb.


Actually, not that I totally disagree, however, scanning has improved _a
lot_ in 2k4. You can actually make use of it with rather little extra work,
as long as the source is clean and clear.
Johannes
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Another tuplet question

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 10:35 AM 2/9/04 -0500, David H. Bailey wrote:
>I would put 4 16th-rests so the rhythm of the quintuplet is readily 
>apparent.

There's my opinion as well.

That's only for rests, though -- note groupings are an entirely different
matter, and sometimes tough to decode, whether composer, engraver, or
performer.

Dennis




___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Another tuplet question

[David H. Bailey]

I would put 4 16th-rests so the rhythm of the quintuplet is readily 
apparent.

David H. Bailey

Darcy James Argue wrote:

What is the standard way to notate a sixteenth quintuplet when only the 
final note is played?  What do you put under the bracket:

A quarter rest followed by the sixteenth note?

Two eighth rests followed by the sixteenth note?

Four sixteenth rests followed by the sixteenth note?

- Darcy

-

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn NY
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
.

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 09.02.2004 13:28 Uhr, David H. Bailey wrote

> Scanning, for instance -- Yes, it is possible to scan a perfectly
> printed version of Mary Had a Little Lamb (as melody only) into Finale,
> using its built-in scanning capability.  However for any serious
> scanning of, say, a complex piano score for arranging as a chamber work,
> it won't work at all.  That seems to be an out and out lie, when they
> advertised that we could scan in music and work with it in Finale.  Coda
> knows that most users who use Finale are not working on Mary Had a
> Little Lamb.

Actually, not that I totally disagree, however, scanning has improved _a
lot_ in 2k4. You can actually make use of it with rather little extra work,
as long as the source is clean and clear.

Johannes
-- 
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] Re: November Font

[Fisher, Allen]

He's also the author of FinaleScript and the Text Search and Replace
plug-ins...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Williams, Jim
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 3:05 PM
To: Rob Deemer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Finale] Re: November Font


Interesting...Mr. Piechaud is also the designer of "Human Playback." Jim

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Rest in 6/2

[Andrew Stiller]

David W. Fenton écrit:
Then why is 3/2 completely unacceptable?
Well, it would involve cutting all the measures in two, and I don't 
really see the point in it. The presence of a section in 6/4 isn't 
the only reason against changing the 6/2 to 6/4. We've discussed 
this here already, and I (and others) prefer to retain the original 
time signatures.

Dennis


I find the notion that any notatable time signature is somehow 
undesirable to be faintly repellent, because it suggests that the 
composer's creativity should  be subordinated to the notation, which 
is precisely backward.

I once had occasion to write a couple of measures of 3 / 1/2 time 
(three very slow double-whole-note beats), and I went right ahead and 
did it, because it's what the sense of the music demanded. I can't 
imagine re-metering something like that merely because it's 
unorthodox.

--
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Another tuplet question

[Darcy James Argue]

On 09 Feb 2004, at 10:08 AM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:

Darcy James Argue wrote:

What is the standard way to notate a sixteenth quintuplet when only 
the final note is played?  What do you put under the bracket:

A quarter rest followed by the sixteenth note?

Two eighth rests followed by the sixteenth note?

Four sixteenth rests followed by the sixteenth note?
I just fought this fight with a composer who had a dotted eigthth tied 
to an eighth, followed to a sixteenth, and defined the figure as a 
sextuplet.  I insisted that a performer is going to look at the figure 
and assume that the duration of the first note of the figure defines 
it, and finally persuaded him that it should be notated as a triplet.  
In your case, Darcy, I would argue that the first note has to be a 
sixteenth, and while I would consider four sixteenth rests to be 
ideal, I could live with a sixteenth rest followed by a dotted eighth 
rest, followed by the sixteenth note if it made the score sufficently 
less complicated to justify the device.  If this were a continuous, or 
frequently repeated figure, then I think you could perhaps get away 
after several repetitions with your quarter rest.

ns

think that the first note of any tuplet will be seen as defining the 
tuplet, so that in this case, the first note should be a sixteenth 
note.
Hmmm…

I think it depends on the tuplet.  I mean, everyone seems to understand 
the following rhythm well enough:

triplet bracket enclosing a quarter note followed by an eighth note

… but that notation may be an exception, because it's so commonly used.

On the other hand, I would consider replacing the first quarter note in 
the above figure with a quarter rest unacceptable.  (I would want two 
eighth rests.)

On the other other hand, *four* sixteenth rests in a row seemed kinda 
like overkill to me, whereas the quarter rest-sixteenth group seems 
easier to process at a glance.

On the other other other hand, the rhythm only happens once, and I 
definitely feel you RE: the first note of a tuplet being seen as 
defining the tuplet.

Hmmm…

- Darcy

-

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn NY
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Another tuplet question

[Noel Stoutenburg]

Darcy James Argue wrote:

What is the standard way to notate a sixteenth quintuplet when only 
the final note is played?  What do you put under the bracket:

A quarter rest followed by the sixteenth note?

Two eighth rests followed by the sixteenth note?

Four sixteenth rests followed by the sixteenth note? 
I just fought this fight with a composer who had a dotted eigthth tied 
to an eighth, followed to a sixteenth, and defined the figure as a 
sextuplet.  I insisted that a performer is going to look at the figure 
and assume that the duration of the first note of the figure defines it, 
and finally persuaded him that it should be notated as a triplet.  In 
your case, Darcy, I would argue that the first note has to be a 
sixteenth, and while I would consider four sixteenth rests to be ideal, 
I could live with a sixteenth rest followed by a dotted eighth rest, 
followed by the sixteenth note if it made the score sufficently less 
complicated to justify the device.  If this were a continuous, or 
frequently repeated figure, then I think you could perhaps get away 
after several repetitions with your quarter rest.

ns

think that the first note of any tuplet will be seen as defining the 
tuplet, so that in this case, the first note should be a sixteenth note. 

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Re: NOVEMBER and OSX

[story]

I sent a request in German to Klemm Musik and got a quick
and positive reply on the NOVEMBER font:
---
(a rouch translation:)

Good day, Mr Story.

The font "November" will soon, probably in February, also be available
for OS X.  The updater is already in house; we shall offer it as soon as
registration can be made available.

With friendly greetings,

---
Guten Tag, sehr geehrter Herr Story.

Der Font "November" wird in Bälde, noch im Monat Februar auch für OS X 
verfügbar sein. Der Aktualisierer ist schon im Haus, wir werden ihn 
alsbald den registrierten Anwendern zur Verfügung stellen können.


Mit freundlichem Gruß

Christian Lange
Vertriebsleiter
Klemm Music Technology
Sebastian-Kneipp-Str. 96
37217 Ziegenhagen, Deutschland
Tel: ++49 5545 950 918
Fax: ++49 5545 950 922

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Another tuplet question

[Darcy James Argue]

What is the standard way to notate a sixteenth quintuplet when only the 
final note is played?  What do you put under the bracket:

A quarter rest followed by the sixteenth note?

Two eighth rests followed by the sixteenth note?

Four sixteenth rests followed by the sixteenth note?

- Darcy

-

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn NY
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Triplet question

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 08:06 AM 2/9/04 -0500, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>However, I've run into a situation where my source has the following 
>rhythm:
>quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: two eighth notes 
>followed an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter rest
>What say you all?

This doesn't strike me as a particularly unusual figure, and I would leave
it as it is. (But then, I just got through copying a score [not mine] that
consists of hundreds of sequential triplets and quintuplets across strong &
weak beats and across barlines and with a mix of internal, starting and
ending rests.)

Dennis


___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Triplet question

[Mr. Liudas Motekaitis]

You could always try a fine dotted barline with a small (3) in parenthesis
above it just to show that it is written as intended.

Liudas


- Original Message -
From: "David H. Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Darcy James Argue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Triplet question


> Either will be hard to read (and try to count) at first glance.  So I
> would probably just put the triplet there without any tie to show the
> half-measure as probably being only slightly less confusing.
>
> David H. Bailey
>
>
>
> Darcy James Argue wrote:
>
> > Okay,
> >
> > In 4/4, one normally "shows" beat 3 of a measure when it contains eighth
> > note values or smaller.
> >
> > However, I've run into a situation where my source has the following
> > rhythm:
> >
> > quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: two eighth notes
> > followed an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter rest
> >
> > In other words, an eighth-note triplet starting on the "and" of two.
> >
> > I guess the "correct" way to write this would be to split the eighth
> > note triplet into two groups of sixteenth note triplets, like this:
> >
> > quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: an eighth note
> > followed by a sixteenth note, tied to a triplet consisting of: a
> > sixteenth note followed by an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter rest.
> >
> > This would correctly show beat 3 of the measure.  But in this case, I
> > think the above notation (with the tie) is actually much more difficult
> > to read than a single eighth-note triplet starting on beat 2.5.
> >
> > What say you all?
> >
> > - Darcy
> >
> > -
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Brooklyn NY
> >
> > ___
> > Finale mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
> >
> > .
> >
>
> --
> David H. Bailey
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Triplet question

[David H. Bailey]

Either will be hard to read (and try to count) at first glance.  So I 
would probably just put the triplet there without any tie to show the 
half-measure as probably being only slightly less confusing.

David H. Bailey



Darcy James Argue wrote:

Okay,

In 4/4, one normally "shows" beat 3 of a measure when it contains eighth 
note values or smaller.

However, I've run into a situation where my source has the following 
rhythm:

quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: two eighth notes 
followed an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter rest

In other words, an eighth-note triplet starting on the "and" of two.

I guess the "correct" way to write this would be to split the eighth 
note triplet into two groups of sixteenth note triplets, like this:

quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: an eighth note 
followed by a sixteenth note, tied to a triplet consisting of: a 
sixteenth note followed by an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter rest.

This would correctly show beat 3 of the measure.  But in this case, I 
think the above notation (with the tie) is actually much more difficult 
to read than a single eighth-note triplet starting on beat 2.5.

What say you all?

- Darcy

-

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn NY
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
.

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Triplet question

[Mr. Liudas Motekaitis]

I think you can simply write the second eighth of the eighth note triplet as
a sixteenth tied to another sixteenth, and the second sixteenth will fall on
beat 3. Looks weird, but less weird than what you were suggesting.

Liudas


- Original Message -
From: "Darcy James Argue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 3:06 PM
Subject: [Finale] Triplet question


> Okay,
>
> In 4/4, one normally "shows" beat 3 of a measure when it contains
> eighth note values or smaller.
>
> However, I've run into a situation where my source has the following
> rhythm:
>
> quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: two eighth notes
> followed an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter rest
>
> In other words, an eighth-note triplet starting on the "and" of two.
>
> I guess the "correct" way to write this would be to split the eighth
> note triplet into two groups of sixteenth note triplets, like this:
>
> quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: an eighth note
> followed by a sixteenth note, tied to a triplet consisting of: a
> sixteenth note followed by an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter rest.
>
> This would correctly show beat 3 of the measure.  But in this case, I
> think the above notation (with the tie) is actually much more difficult
> to read than a single eighth-note triplet starting on beat 2.5.
>
> What say you all?
>
> - Darcy
>
> -
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Brooklyn NY
>
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Triplet question

[Darcy James Argue]

Okay,

In 4/4, one normally "shows" beat 3 of a measure when it contains 
eighth note values or smaller.

However, I've run into a situation where my source has the following 
rhythm:

quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: two eighth notes 
followed an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter rest

In other words, an eighth-note triplet starting on the "and" of two.

I guess the "correct" way to write this would be to split the eighth 
note triplet into two groups of sixteenth note triplets, like this:

quarter rest - eighth rest - a triplet consisting of: an eighth note 
followed by a sixteenth note, tied to a triplet consisting of: a 
sixteenth note followed by an eighth rest - eighth rest - quarter rest.

This would correctly show beat 3 of the measure.  But in this case, I 
think the above notation (with the tie) is actually much more difficult 
to read than a single eighth-note triplet starting on beat 2.5.

What say you all?

- Darcy

-

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn NY
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius

[David H. Bailey]

Finale has out and out lied, if you think that advertising a feature 
that doesn't work very well constitutes a lie (I do.)

Scanning, for instance -- Yes, it is possible to scan a perfectly 
printed version of Mary Had a Little Lamb (as melody only) into Finale, 
using its built-in scanning capability.  However for any serious 
scanning of, say, a complex piano score for arranging as a chamber work, 
it won't work at all.  That seems to be an out and out lie, when they 
advertised that we could scan in music and work with it in Finale.  Coda 
knows that most users who use Finale are not working on Mary Had a 
Little Lamb.

MicNotator, for another instance: Play or sing your music into Finale? 
C'mon!  That was another out-and-out lie -- has ANYBODY gotten that to work?

Importing of Midi files?  Another lie, if you're working with midi files 
of any great complexity.  Hyperscribe is a partner in this travesty -- 
playing of complex music does not result in exact notation, rendering 
the feature useless for most advanced music entry.

There's actually FOUR kinds of lies, to paraphrase Mark Twain (I think 
he originated it): 1) Lies, 2) Damn Lies, 3) Statistics and
4) Marketing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying either company is worse in this 
regard -- I'm just saying that Coda has done its share of 
misrepresenting its product, too.  Sibelius certainly does have a 
chip-on-the-shoulder attitude in it's aggressive claims!  It is a young 
product still and they are gradually addressing complaints and bugs and 
deficiencies.  Admittedly with an attitude, it seems.

But Sibelius has loosened up its overly rigid licensing so that both 
Sibelius and Finale are equivalent in that regard for the latest version 
 -- both have call/response software registration and both allow 
installation on two machines simultaneously without violating the 
license agreement.

David H. Bailey



Darcy James Argue wrote:

On 08 Feb 2004, at 05:27 AM, William Roberts wrote:

If some of us on this list seem a little bit bitter about
Sibelius, it is because when they burst on the scene, they made
extravagant claims about the superiority of their software -- claims
that turned out to be completely untrue.


I can see how that might be frustrating, but isn't that just 
marketing? I don't believe Coda's claims about each new version of 
Finale any more than I would claims about the new version of Finale.


Well, there's marketing, and then there's marketing.  Obviously, both 
companies engage in their fair share of hype, but to my knowledge Coda 
have never out-and-out lied about Finale's capabilities, nor have they 
lied about Sibelius's deficiencies.  Sibelius has done both of these 
things pretty blatantly.  In my opinion, they crossed the line from hype 
to outright dishonesty.  I realize that that doesn't have anything to do 
with the merits of the software itself, but it does color my opinion of 
the company.

[snip]

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Rest in 6/2

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 09.02.2004 1:23 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote

>> Well, I don't know the piece in question, but you couldn't normally
>> notate a 6/8 piece in 3/8 either. The two are fundamentally different.
> 
> Yes, but the question is one of whether or not the music can be
> conveyed in the modern meter in a fashion that will be performed well
> without lots of extra practice. There is no issue with 6/8 in terms
> of what musicians are accustomed to reading, so there's no point in
> comparing it to the Dennis's situation.

You completely missed the point here. Sorry, but it's not worth continuing
this.


Johannes
-- 
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale