Re: [Finale] RE: orchestral MIDI
>Sorry it came across as snippy, but Harold came across *to me* as >colossally arrogant and condescending. > >So, I brought my own baggage, too. > >Duly noted. > >But I assume the readers of my posts are sufficiently attentive to be >able to judge for themselves whether what I've said is credible or not. >If my rhetorical style puts some people off, so be it. > David, as a long time lurker on this list, I find your comment quite interesting. Reading all your posts over the year(s), you have always come across to me as arrogant and condescending. Since I know that was not my intent, and people who know me would be quite confused by such a characterization, I will assume that I have not perceived many of your comments correctly. I hope you can do the same for me. Without that spoken voice as an aide, it seems my written words have been interpreted by you and some others in a way not expected or intended by me. Believe me, if you could hear the tone in my voice, the grin on my face, and the look in my eyes, the perception would be different. I will try to remember this and work on my writing style to better convey the meaning and intentions of my thoughts. Harold ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: orchestral MIDI
Colin, I do admit my comment was a great generalization, that even I don't completely agree with. And this all started with with my opinion that Coda should spend most of their resources improving the notational problems that still exist rather than added midi capabilities. I can't write without checking things at the piano and where my feeble piano skills fail me it is nice to have a midi playback verify that the parts are fitting together as I expected. But this is for pitch and rhythmic integrity and I usually leave it with a piano patch. I can certainly interpolate what it will sound like with other instruments. If when writing, you can't imagine what the line will sound like with the combination of flute and clarinet, then why was that decision made? Is it totally arbitrary and wishful thinking? And if you don't know what that combination will sound like, I don't think a midi implementation is really going to answer that for you. That's when a budding composer/arranger needs to get some buddies together and hear what the actual acoustic instruments sound like together. I imagine if you have some high end samplers and already have a perception - let me repeat - already have a perception of what it should sound like you can probably get a reasonable midi playback. But to get it right, you do have to already know what you want it to sound like. What set me off, was my perceived insistence of others who feel, in the composing process, that a complete midi playback with every element accounted for is needed for their proofing purposes. Colin, surely you do not need to hear a line played back in midi with a crescendo to verify that you want that crescendo. Not to sound cruel, but if composer doesn't have the imagination to hear thinks like that, how will he/she have the imagination to write any music? Now on the other hand, if a realistic as possible midi representation is needed for others in a decision making process, then that is a real need. While the composer/arranger should be able to hear and understand what those differences will be, we can't expect the other listeners to have that same understanding. But again, to get that level of midi playback, you have to already know what it should like to get all the tweaking right. With all the variables involved to get that level of playback, no set of defaults will work in all situations. If you need that level of playback, isn't it time to dump the Finale midi data to a program better suited to that purpose? Finale is a music notation program that can do midi. It's strength is notation. When you want fine detail over notation, use Finale. Logic is an example of a music sequencing program that can do notation. It's strength is sequencing. When you want fine detail over midi (and digital audio) playback, use Logic. Use the right tool for the job. Harold >There is so much wrong with this generalisation, I don't know where to >begin. > >The fact that a composer/arranger does or does not compose using piano, or >does or does not compose using computer, says nothing at all, i repeat: >nothing at all about their skill as a composer, or lack thereof. Like >anything else, it's just a tool which, in the hands of one person will >produce wonderful results while in the hands of another, won't. > >As to how I work, I compose using Finale, playing back bits and pieces >constantly. I know fine well that that's not how a cello really sounds or >that a particular brass chord will sound much brighter than MIDI in reality, >but that doesn't stop me checking the pitches, rhythm and general pacing of >a piece. Before I did this I used to compose at the piano (about a year >ago) then handwrite the score, then put it into Finale. The tool was >different, but the process was pretty much the same, with the addition of >also handwriting the score. The process of composing straight into Finale >is for me generally a considerably quicker one, as the composing and the >notation are taking place at exactly the same time, not one before the >other, and so I am able to remove one extra stage. Furthermore, I have >enough control over my craft to not let my compositional decisions be overly >influenced by the technology. It says nothing about my skill at all - it's >just another way of working. > >Regards, > >Colin. >- --- > >Colin Broom, composer >e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >www.inventionensemble.com >- --- > > > > > > > > > > > >If >> they don't already know what it will sound like, how do they >> determine what to write in the first place? > > > > > > > > >___ >Finale mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > ___ Finale maili
Re: [Finale] FinMac 2003
Having purchased every upgrade since 1.0, I sure wish I could skip this one because of it's lack of OSX support. But alas, I have a FinWin 2003 file from a client to work on, so Coda is forcing me to upgrade if I want to continue working. Harold On Tuesday, July 16, 2002 7:59 PM, John Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>OK, one more time -- why do I not want to buy this version? >> >>Jerry > >Because Coda dropped the ball and it will not run on OS X. > >John > > > >John & Susie Howell >Virginia Tech Department of Music >Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 >Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 >(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) >http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html > > >___ >Finale mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: orchestral MIDI - maybe too long
You are right Stu. I was being quite simplistic and a little flippant in my comment.
However, the best of midi playback still does not give you an honest representation of
what real human beings, playing a real acoustic instruments will sound like.
One simplistic example may be flutes. Sure they can easily play C1 and C4 and you can
write the flute to play 4 beats of eigth note alternating between the two. Midi will
certainly execute that musch better than most flute players.
I often find with real acoustic instruments the richness of overtones and perhaps some
sympathetic vibrations, I may faintly hear another note which is not written. For
example, in a simple minor triad with acoustic instruments, I can often hear a faint
9th that is not being played by anyone. I've never heard that from a midi instrument.
I also find that tight harmonies with acoustic instruments often sound very good, but
on an electronic module, no matter what the patch, can sound quite muddy.
So midi playback while writing may be a helpful tool, but it is not always a truthful
tool. A good composer/arranger will still need a good inner sense to guide him/her
through amidi mine field of sound.
Harold
On Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:18 PM, Stu McIntire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here's how: by trying multiple options and selecting the one(s) they like
>best for further manipulation, like Stravinsky did.
>
>People who work like this have a feedback loop between what they
>conceptualize based on what they know, and what they see, what they hear,
>and even what they feel (as in what the hands reach for on the keyboard,
>because the body has its ways of knowing, too.) What is perceived in these
>different ways is synthesized, options are compared and contrasted, a
>million little decisions are made, and the tinker's cart rolls on until the
>work is done.
>This statement below is an old saw that's an ideal that does not map to the
>real world, in particular today's world, when the option of creating notated
>music is open to a far greater percentage of the population than it was when
>attitudes like this evolved. There are composers and arrangers who have not
>developed their inner ear to the extent that they need no help hearing their
>work product as it unfolds who are nevertheless very creative and skilled.
>There are composers and arrangers who have terrific ears, need no such help,
>and turn out lifeless, derivative music. Quality of final product, however
>it might me measured, is not necessarily related to or dependent on this
>skill being developed to a high degree. It helps, it saves time, but you
>don't pack it in if this skill ain't there.
>
>This ability is not absolute, either; as musicians work on this skill, their
>upper threshold of complexity gets higher. However, at some level of
>complexity - number of voices, density, speed, level of chromaticism, etc. -
>everyone maxes out. Babbitt and Carter do not "hear" what they are creating
>in total. Many other capable people cannot "hear" three independent lines,
>or cannot hear ad hoc simultaneities beyond a certain number of notes ("ad
>hoc" meaning those that aren't "canned" and already known from experience,
>like a jazz arranger would "hear" a m13b9 chord). This emphatically does not
>mean they should stay within what they can hear in their inner ear as they
>compose.
>
>Haydn famously played works in progress for the group under his control, and
>used the feedback to modify and keep developing his music. I think this
>skill became highly valued more for the practical aspects of it - most
>composers do not have the luxury of hearing their music as it unfolds if
>they are writing for instruments they don't play (or can't play
>simultaneously!), and this skill allows one to work faster and therefore
>presumably make a better living.
>
>Stu
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Harold Steinhardt
>Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:22 PM
>To: David H. Bailey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: finale list
>Subject: Re: [Finale] RE: orchestral MIDI
>
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:43 PM, David H. Bailey
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Finale is NOT just a page-layout program for engravers, it is
>also a
>
>>tool used by arrangers and composers who want to hear how what they
>are
>>working on sounds
>>
>
>If an arranger or a composer does not know what it will sound like
>BEFORE notating it, then they do not know their art/craft very well. If
>they don't already know what it will sound like, how do they
>determine what to write in the first place?
>
>Finale: The Art Of Music Notation.
>
>
>Harold
>
>___
>Finale mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: orchestral MIDI
Yes Tim, I think I can agree with you here. My objection to this thread, is I believe many people were wanting it to become more of a full-fledged sequencer on the order of Performer and Logic. However, better implementation of what it does provide would not be a horrible thing. But please everyone, Finale has always been the big gun for notation and that's where Coda should continue to spend most of its focus. When you want the big gun in sequencers, that's provided by other programs. Finale: The Art Of Music Notation. Harold On Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:05 PM, Tim Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Harold, > >I do and don't agree with you. When I want to make a nice MIDI demo of a >piece I notated in Finale, I certainly export the MIDI into Digital >Performer, or some other sequencer and do it there. And, likewise, I don't >use Performer for notation. > >However, Finale _already has_ a thorough MIDI implementation that is useful >to many people (including myself) for a variety of reasons--most of which >involve playback of the score while it is in process. The problem is that >it is buggy and not always easy to use. If the interface for modification >of MIDI data were simpler and more reliable, then I suspect all of >us--including those whose focus is on notation output--would make better use >of it. > > ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Orchestral efficiency
Bravo, Linda! Well said and I agree with every word. Harold On Friday, July 12, 2002 11:38 AM, Linda Worsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >This whole subject of parts extraction has interested me greatly, and >I can't resist throwing my 2 cents in. > >My view is that: > >* Scores should be as compact as possible, so that they don't have >to be printed in ant-sized type for the conductor to try to read. In >other words, I pair winds on the same staff, even when it requires >two layers for very independent parts. The exception is when, say, >two clarinet parts are SO independent that they become confusing or >marginally legible when placed on the same staff... in which case I >add an extra staff and optimize in order to keep the score >consistently compact. BUT: > >* Parts should ALWAYS be individual. Every horn, every flute, etc. >should have their own single line, one instrument part. > >Now, the problem is, I sometimes have to do a little WORK (gasp) to >make this possible. Having spent the early years of my career >copying everything by hand, I am amazed at the amount of kvetching >about parts extraction from a few on this list. > >So it takes a little more work to create two parts from one It >sure ain't the time and effort it used to take copying those parts by >hand. There are a dozen different quite easy and usually rather >quick ways in Finale to create two parts from one when you "extract >parts" and get combined parts (two instruments on one staff). It's >just not that hard. Or maybe my early years of having to hand >extract have made me grateful for the fact that at least I'm not >introducing new errors by doing it by hand. And I don't have to start >over when I discover that something has been left out, or transposed >incorrectly, or whatever. Those were the bad old days. > >Call me cranky, but I find all this whining just another example of >technology causing otherwise exemplary people to become so dependent >on "push the button and voila" that they can't stand the idea that >they have to go to a little effort. > >Sure, it would be great if the machines could read our minds or >automatically, somehow, understand that the "flutes 1 and 2" part >should be made into two individual pages, with the correct instrument >label, all the "a2"s and "solo"s etc. intact, perfect cues, and so >on. Probably that will come as the programs get smarter. Will they >also create perfect page turns? Space everything perfectly? >Probably, someday. Meanwhile, I don't understand the problem of >having to tweak a bit and make parts really readable, beautiful, and >correct. I actually don't mind this process, and (probably because I >am not a fanatic about every little spacing ratio and articulation >position, as long as it's crystal clear for the player or singer) it >just isn't that hard. While it's sometimes a challenge to get it just >the way I want it, I grew up knowing that this was part of the work, >so I might as well enjoy it. > >Linda Worsley > > > > > >-- >Hear the music at: >http://www.ganymuse.com/ >___ >Finale mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Orchestral efficiency
Bravo, Linda! Well said and I agree with every word. Harold On Friday, July 12, 2002 11:38 AM, Linda Worsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >This whole subject of parts extraction has interested me greatly, and >I can't resist throwing my 2 cents in. > >My view is that: > >* Scores should be as compact as possible, so that they don't have >to be printed in ant-sized type for the conductor to try to read. In >other words, I pair winds on the same staff, even when it requires >two layers for very independent parts. The exception is when, say, >two clarinet parts are SO independent that they become confusing or >marginally legible when placed on the same staff... in which case I >add an extra staff and optimize in order to keep the score >consistently compact. BUT: > >* Parts should ALWAYS be individual. Every horn, every flute, etc. >should have their own single line, one instrument part. > >Now, the problem is, I sometimes have to do a little WORK (gasp) to >make this possible. Having spent the early years of my career >copying everything by hand, I am amazed at the amount of kvetching >about parts extraction from a few on this list. > >So it takes a little more work to create two parts from one It >sure ain't the time and effort it used to take copying those parts by >hand. There are a dozen different quite easy and usually rather >quick ways in Finale to create two parts from one when you "extract >parts" and get combined parts (two instruments on one staff). It's >just not that hard. Or maybe my early years of having to hand >extract have made me grateful for the fact that at least I'm not >introducing new errors by doing it by hand. And I don't have to start >over when I discover that something has been left out, or transposed >incorrectly, or whatever. Those were the bad old days. > >Call me cranky, but I find all this whining just another example of >technology causing otherwise exemplary people to become so dependent >on "push the button and voila" that they can't stand the idea that >they have to go to a little effort. > >Sure, it would be great if the machines could read our minds or >automatically, somehow, understand that the "flutes 1 and 2" part >should be made into two individual pages, with the correct instrument >label, all the "a2"s and "solo"s etc. intact, perfect cues, and so >on. Probably that will come as the programs get smarter. Will they >also create perfect page turns? Space everything perfectly? >Probably, someday. Meanwhile, I don't understand the problem of >having to tweak a bit and make parts really readable, beautiful, and >correct. I actually don't mind this process, and (probably because I >am not a fanatic about every little spacing ratio and articulation >position, as long as it's crystal clear for the player or singer) it >just isn't that hard. While it's sometimes a challenge to get it just >the way I want it, I grew up knowing that this was part of the work, >so I might as well enjoy it. > >Linda Worsley > > > > > >-- >Hear the music at: >http://www.ganymuse.com/ >___ >Finale mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: orchestral MIDI
On Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:43 PM, David H. Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Finale is NOT just a page-layout program for engravers, it is also a >tool used by arrangers and composers who want to hear how what they are >working on sounds > If an arranger or a composer does not know what it will sound like BEFORE notating it, then they do not know their art/craft very well. If they don't already know what it will sound like, how do they determine what to write in the first place? Finale: The Art Of Music Notation. Harold ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: orchestral MIDI
On Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:43 PM, David H. Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Finale is a music program -- not merely a word-processor for notation. >Finale is a lot more like a full-fledged page-layout program than it is >like Word in your analogy. Being deprived of being able to hear full, >accurate playback of all notation is like a page layout program putting >the word GRAPHIC inside a big box instead of letting you see the entire >page with ALL its contents. Okay, in a full-fledged page layout program you can can place graphics and do simple cropping and resizing. But if you want to do some minute altering of the graphic, you use a program designed for that use. So let's say that Finale midi is like a graphic in PageMaker. Gee, Finale is a music program - why can't it play my flute for me? > >Music is NOT just images on a page the way a magazine is. Music is >about SOUND as well, and I for one don't see why people have such a hard >time wanting to be able to HEAR the music from inside a music program as >well as SEE it. We do get to hear it and I would not want Finale to have no midi output. And I do use it for proof listening/reading to catch pitch or rhythm errors that my eyes missed. But if you want production quality midi use a full fledged sequencer - the right tool for the job. > >But if you don't think any more money should be spent in developing midi >in Finale, then why do you think it should be spent to get midi working >under OSX? Why is YOUR midi wish valid and those of others >less valid? > Because Finale in OSX (or running classic from within OSX) has zero midi capabilities. And to me the real problem is not playback (although, as I said basic playback is good and necessary tool), but midi can't be used for input either. Speedy entry from midi keyboard is a major input method, as is the transcription tool. I'm certainly not advocating no midi in Finale. It is needed for input and basic proofing. But if you want production/performance quality midi, there are other tools for that job. After you import the Finale midi data, you can tweak to your heart's content. Finale is first and foremost a music notation program. Or as Coda themselves put it, Finale: The Art Of Music Notation. Harold ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: orchestral MIDI
Exactly! Finale is a NOTATION program with rudimentary midi capabilities - it is not a sequencer. When you want minute detail over midi playback, dump the midi data to a program designed to do that, like Logic or Performer. Use the right tool for the right job. All this complaining about midi in Finale is like MS Word users complaining that they can't easily produce their magazine layout in Word. Please, Coda, do not waste your precious resources on added midi (except to get basic midi functioning in OSX). Keep improving the notational aspects of the program for which it was designed. Harold On Saturday, July 13, 2002 10:52 PM, John Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Finale is, in my opinion, the best music notation program currently >available. It's playback performance is limited: you can aurally >proof-read your work, and with a small amount of effort you can even >produce a modest demo. > >I believe that when Finale's notation capabilities are perfected is >the time to start concentrating on improving its playback >facilities. > >Regards >John >___ >Finale mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] PDF from Mac OSX
I've been using Finale since version 1.0 - when it was Mac only - one of the main reasons I went Mac. For that matter, Quicken when it was Apple II and Mac (no PC), AOL when it was only a Mac community, PageMaker when it was Mac or nothing. All these great programs (okay, maybe not AOL) that while still do write Mac versions, seem to have forgotten their roots and now treat us like orphans. Yes, Coda has known or should have known what was coming with OSX and should have been preparing for it long ago. I'm sure Logic will be running in OSX real soon, but because of Coda I still can't make the switch (on my main computer) because I use that daily, and can't be constantly rebooting to different systems. Dennis, if it's comforting to you, I feel recent versions of Finale for Mac have become a Windoze-port stepchild. Doug, until coda releases an OSX version, I don't think we can have an answer to your pdf question. At this point I would be happy with a version that ran well (ie midi) in classic mode without needing to reboot to OS 9. I'm also tired of Finale's staggered release of upgrades with lack of backwards compatability. A client sent me a FinWin2k3 file to work on - I'm sitting here with my thumb up my ass waiting for Coda to ship the Mac upgrade so I can complete this job. At this moment, Finale is not cross platform! I have bought every upgrade since 1.0. I thought I was going to skip this one and wait for an OSX version. But since I work on files for others, and Coda keeps changing the file format - losing any backwards compatability - I guess I'm stuck like chuck. FWIW, my number 2 computer (the one at home) has been running OSX 24/7 for about 3 months - no crashes - no rebooting. Okay, I'm done venting. Harold On Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:56 PM, Philip Aker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thursday, July 11, 2002, at 04:48 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz >wrote: > >>> I hope Coda has finally decided to stop discriminating against >>> it's long time Macintosh user base in this regard. > >> We Windows users had to slog through *four* versions of Finale >> to get one that didn't act like a Mac-port stepchild. > > > >You're talking about something that might have been relevant 5 >years ago but not longer has any meaning. Which is to say >"balderdash". I think you're not well informed about what's >_not_ been happening to the Macintosh version because in all >likelyhood you're not familiar with what's been going on under >the hood with the MacOS for the last five years and how these >changes have been manifesting themselves in other applications. >These things are apparent to someone like Darcy Argue (who has a >broad experience on Mac platforms). > >The point is that just like everyone else, Coda has known since >late 1996 that changes were coming and since late 1997, >opportunity to stage in a Carbon port. Nobody on the face of the >planet can tell be otherwise because I released plugins in 1998 >which used calls only available from the CarbonAccessors.o >library (i.e. Carbon Jr.) and which required users to install >the Appearance and Navigation Manager extensions. > >That's 4 years we've been waiting for Mac-specific upgrades, not >a couple of months. > >FinWin 2003 is compatible with WindowsXP but FinMac 2003 will >not be with MacOS X. Yet MacOS X was released well before >copycat XP. > >That's out and out platform bigotry. > > > > >Philip > > >mailto:philip@vcn. ;b >c.ca > >___ >Finale mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT mysterious computer wake up
Years and years ago I had the same problem. My Mac would restart on it's own shortly after shutting down, the it would restart whenever it felt like it. Allen's response about UPS jarred my memory. Replacing the power supply in the Mac fixed the problem for me. Harold On Sunday, June 30, 2002 1:02 AM, Fisher, Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Chuck, > >I used to have a PC with this particular problem until I realized my >Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) was surging just enough to make the >computer think I hit the power button. Any chance that you have a UPS that >needs it's battery fixed. > >Hope this helps, > >Allen ___ >Finale mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale >___ >Finale mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Plea for help TAN
The 6/9 chord was very common for this style of music. I believe this to be Db69. Harold On Tuesday, May 21, 2002, at 08:36 PM, Chuck Israels wrote: > At 8:34 PM -0400 5/21/02, David H. Bailey wrote: >> Looks to me more like a Bbm7add4 in first inversion. >> > > Dear David, > > It may look like that to you; I don't dispute that. But to musicians > who are conversant with mid to late 20th Century American popular music > and jazz conventions, this is unquestionably recognized as a 69 chord. > > Calling it something else (for the community described above) is less > descriptive. > > Chuck > > > > > >> ___ >> Finale mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > > -- Chuck Israels > 230 North Garden Terrace > Bellingham WA 98225-5836 > (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Finale digest, Vol 1 #72 - 3 msgs
Sorry I have to disagree here. I receive the list in digest form. The idea is to receive just one (possibly 2) e-mails a day with the day's activity. We are now receiving dozens of digests each day. Many of the have only 2 or 3 messages. This defeats the purpose of receiving a list submissions in digest form. Harold >Funny thing. I was just sitting here thinking how few messages there have been in the last couple of days, After the Flood. Also that everyone seems to have mastered the "Reply All" concept quite well, continuing to post their comments to the list at large, even the comments that don't need to be sent to the list at large. And now that we have the bracketed [Finale] at the beginning of each Subject: line, it's so easy to delete messages that are irrelevant to me. I hope that doesn't sound unsympathetic. All in all, I think the list is doing very well at the moment. Jon > ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
