Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
David W. Fenton wrote: [snip] > > 1. to make it easy for people who use chord symbols (they need do > nothing extra). > > 2. for backward compatibility with a feature that always worked > illogically in the past. > > At some point the programmers made the decision that backward > compatibility was better than fixing it in a fundamental way, and > moved the *correct* default behavior to a user preference. I would > argue that it's better, once you have the capability of supporting > all requirements (visible and non-visible attachments to invisible > notes), then you should change the default to the most logical method > and make easy-to-use provisions for the users who will need the other > method (displaying attachments to non-visible notes). > > Arguing otherwise is simply rationalizing the aspects of the program > that never worked right in the first place. It's arguing to keep your > pet workarounds for problems that shouldn't have existed in the first > place. > I'm not trying to justify Coda's behavior in this regard -- I find that most of the staff styles I use I have to either create or modify to work as I want them to anyway, so the defaults are merely beginning points for me. But I would like to say that we really have no clue about the true breadth and depth of Coda's user-base, nor do we know the industrial strongholds which have thousands of installations of Finale in use daily. I would bet that the staff styles which leave chords showing while hiding is a default staff style because Warner Brothers is a finale-only publisher these days, and they would be able to petition Coda and get what they want far better than you or I. And since they produce a raft of pop music books and single sheets each year they would want the easiest default behavior for their many staff users. The behavior you are looking for is one that would make the most sense to a classically-oriented Finale user, but your assertion that it should be the default assumes that the vast majority of Finale users are classically oriented while I would bet that a true polling of ALL Finale user would find the balance more towards the pop/rock/jazz world where leaving the chords visible while hiding the notation is a preferred default behavior. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 12:26 AM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > Um, yeah, but if I have used the Tempo expression from the Setup > Wizard, it, too gets repeated 999 times, and if I have ever set any > double bars, entered rehearsal marks, or any other measure-specific > items, they too get repeated, or else erased by the duplication > procedure. I suppose what i SHOULD do is do that first, but I usually > only get to the rhythm parts last. My bad... No, no, no, this is not necessary. Simply set Mass Mover to copy all entry items (or just the entries, it doesn't matter but it's easier to just select everything) and just Staff Styles, from the Measure items menu. This is, granted, a minor annoyance (unless you set it to a QuicKeys macro, as I have), but it's still MUCH faster than putting in all the rests one by one. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston MA ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
At 8:56 PM -0400 9/28/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > >But why should I have to do *anything* to get things attached to >nonvisible notes to be invisible? Isn't it more logical that the >default should be that invisible notes and objects attached to them >are, by default, invisible? No, not to me and my colleagues, as the main reason we insert hidden items at all is to attach things to them that WILL show up. >The usability of a computer program is greatly affected by the choice >of defaults. Many users will never change the defaults, so it's best >to have logical defaults in the first place. In this case, the >default behavior seems to have been chosen for two reasons: > >1. to make it easy for people who use chord symbols (they need do >nothing extra). > >2. for backward compatibility with a feature that always worked >illogically in the past. It wasn't illogical for me, nor for most of the people I work with. Sorry, no dice here. >At some point the programmers made the decision that backward >compatibility was better than fixing it in a fundamental way, and >moved the *correct* default behavior to a user preference. Nah, you're blowing smoke now. Staff styles always worked the way they do now. What they COULD do, though, is provide another blank notation staff style that ALSO hides the attached items, so that people could choose between both types without having to edit the style. But you could do that yourself... I would also like a usable chord library that is consistent to the style I like. But I don't think Coda is going to provide that, either, so I'll just have to do it myself, too. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
At 4:07 PM -0400 9/27/02, Darcy James Argue wrote: >On 9/27/02 3:37 PM or thereabouts, Christopher BJ Smith ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> intoned: > >> I'm starting to come over to your way of thinking - if I change ALL >> the regular notation to Layer 4, then I don't have to do it more than >> once. Then I can put in bars and bars of quarter rests in Layer 1 by >> holding down the 5 key, convert it to blank notation in one fell >> swoop, and type my chords in merrily without worrying about switching >> layers. Neat. > >Even easier -- do one bar of quarter rests in Layer 1. Apply Blank >Notation. Select "Display Only Active Layer." Make sure Staff Styles are >set in the "Items to Copy" dialog, then copy that one measure 999 times. Um, yeah, but if I have used the Tempo expression from the Setup Wizard, it, too gets repeated 999 times, and if I have ever set any double bars, entered rehearsal marks, or any other measure-specific items, they too get repeated, or else erased by the duplication procedure. I suppose what i SHOULD do is do that first, but I usually only get to the rhythm parts last. My bad... ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On 27 Sep 2002 at 14:57, Mark D. Lew wrote: > At 2:51 PM 09/27/02, Darcy James Argue wrote: > > > If that ever happens, I won't object to having blank notation set up > >to hide items attached to notes by default -- but honestly, I suspect lots > >of others will. > > I think it's worth noting here that the "default" we're talking about is a > choice made in a staff style provided in the default document. It's not > some sort of default program behavior. Because of the non-cascading nature of Finale documents (i.e., once the document is spawned from the template, it is completely disconnected from it), I would argue that settings in the default documents that come with a version of Finale are de facto program behavior. Why? Because absent the non-free plugin (that is not included with Finale) to transfer settings between documents, there is no easy way to migrate settings to existing documents. This is why it is inadequate to me to simply claim that it is completely under use control because it is a document option. Some have suggested on this list in recent memory that it is a good idea to take the time to recreate all your templates from scratch with each new version of Finale that you use. While I understand the reasoning behind that suggestion and the utility to be gained from it, it is a terribly inefficient aspect of Finale. Of course, I've been arguing for cascading templates in Finale as long as I've been on this list. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On 27 Sep 2002 at 13:39, Mark D. Lew wrote: > At 1:58 PM 09/27/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > > >Would it not make more sense to add a property to chord symbols that > >allows them to display when attached invisible notes, rather than > >mucking up blank notation for everyone else? > > It doesn't muck up blank notation for everyone else. > > The default for any staff is that notes AND attached items appear. As an > option, you can blank out the notes, or you can blank out the attached > items, or you can blank out both. Evidently, you want to blank out both, > and you can do so, either as an attribute for the staff throughout the > piece, or as a staff style to be applied measure by measure. But why should I have to do *anything* to get things attached to nonvisible notes to be invisible? Isn't it more logical that the default should be that invisible notes and objects attached to them are, by default, invisible? Finale has never done it that way, and it has always been an annoyance for me. > In its templates, Coda provides pre-made staff styles which you can use. > Two of the three styles named "blank notation" entail blanking out the > notes but not the attached items, presumably because they were designed > with chord-symbols users in mind. (The one that blanks out all layers > blanks out attached items as well.) Yes, and I think blanking out the notes and leaving attached items visible is problematic for everyone who isn't using chord symbols attached to invisible notes. In my original posting on the subject of the non-invisible expressions, I described exactly the kinds of problems encountered, especially with positioning of articulations, which is caused by the automatic beam flipping when notes are found in multiple layers. > The point of the templates is to give a generic style which will satisfy as > many users as possible. . . . My argument is that more people would be satisfied by the more straightforward "if it's attached to something invisible, you have to take special action to make the attached item visible" as opposed to the current situation. > . . . Nobody expects that every user will like every > detail. Nobody expects that the collection of staff styles provided will > satisfy all of your needs, any more than the provided collection of > expressions will. If you don't like the staff style as it is defined in the > template, you can change it, or you can make a new one. The usability of a computer program is greatly affected by the choice of defaults. Many users will never change the defaults, so it's best to have logical defaults in the first place. In this case, the default behavior seems to have been chosen for two reasons: 1. to make it easy for people who use chord symbols (they need do nothing extra). 2. for backward compatibility with a feature that always worked illogically in the past. At some point the programmers made the decision that backward compatibility was better than fixing it in a fundamental way, and moved the *correct* default behavior to a user preference. I would argue that it's better, once you have the capability of supporting all requirements (visible and non-visible attachments to invisible notes), then you should change the default to the most logical method and make easy-to-use provisions for the users who will need the other method (displaying attachments to non-visible notes). Arguing otherwise is simply rationalizing the aspects of the program that never worked right in the first place. It's arguing to keep your pet workarounds for problems that shouldn't have existed in the first place. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
At 3:37 PM 09/27/02, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: [answering Darcy] >>Ah. This doesn't work for Layer 1 -- pressing "O" to hide the entries also >>hides anything attached to them, including chord symbols. I don't use chord symbols on a regular basis, but when I tried this as an experiment just now, I am unable to duplicate your result. When I use "O" to hide entries in layer 1, the chord symbols remain, exactly as they do in any other layer. >That's strange! I never noticed that before, although I must say I >never tried it. Well, I for one am glad that my Layer 2 chord symbols >still show up... I consider it very strange that layers 1 and 2 behave differently. In my experience, typing "O" makes notes and articulations disappear while chord symbols, lyrics and note expressions remain. This is the same regardless of which layer is used. Is anyone else finding that "O" hides chord symbols in one layer but not in another? I can't get "O" to hide chord symbols (or lyrics) at all. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
At 2:51 PM 09/27/02, Darcy James Argue wrote: > If that ever happens, I won't object to having blank notation set up >to hide items attached to notes by default -- but honestly, I suspect lots >of others will. I think it's worth noting here that the "default" we're talking about is a choice made in a staff style provided in the default document. It's not some sort of default program behavior. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
At 1:58 PM 09/27/02, David W. Fenton wrote: >Would it not make more sense to add a property to chord symbols that >allows them to display when attached invisible notes, rather than >mucking up blank notation for everyone else? It doesn't muck up blank notation for everyone else. The default for any staff is that notes AND attached items appear. As an option, you can blank out the notes, or you can blank out the attached items, or you can blank out both. Evidently, you want to blank out both, and you can do so, either as an attribute for the staff throughout the piece, or as a staff style to be applied measure by measure. In its templates, Coda provides pre-made staff styles which you can use. Two of the three styles named "blank notation" entail blanking out the notes but not the attached items, presumably because they were designed with chord-symbols users in mind. (The one that blanks out all layers blanks out attached items as well.) The point of the templates is to give a generic style which will satisfy as many users as possible. Nobody expects that every user will like every detail. Nobody expects that the collection of staff styles provided will satisfy all of your needs, any more than the provided collection of expressions will. If you don't like the staff style as it is defined in the template, you can change it, or you can make a new one. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On 9/27/02 3:37 PM or thereabouts, Christopher BJ Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> intoned: > I'm starting to come over to your way of thinking - if I change ALL > the regular notation to Layer 4, then I don't have to do it more than > once. Then I can put in bars and bars of quarter rests in Layer 1 by > holding down the 5 key, convert it to blank notation in one fell > swoop, and type my chords in merrily without worrying about switching > layers. Neat. Even easier -- do one bar of quarter rests in Layer 1. Apply Blank Notation. Select "Display Only Active Layer." Make sure Staff Styles are set in the "Items to Copy" dialog, then copy that one measure 999 times. > Hmm. For similarly tight passages I re-set music spacing to avoid > collisions with chords, then respace only that measure. Man, I would > like to have this option readily available, rather than buried inside > menus... Since I don't get good results even with the "avoid collisions" box selected, I just manually widen the measure (if necessary) and hand-tweak the chords. I am also (deliberately) sloppy about chord placement and alignment. I move them up and down, in front of the beat or behind it -- so long as the intent is clear, they go wherever there's room. Sure, under ideal conditions, it's nice to have them all nicely aligned 24 points above the staff -- but how often is that actually feasible when you have to accommodate notes, not just slash marks? - Darcy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston, MA ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
At 1:28 PM -0400 9/27/02, Darcy James Argue wrote: >On 9/27/02 8:42 AM or thereabouts, Christopher BJ Smith ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> intoned: > >> Hmm, I usually accomplish the same thing by hiding Layer 2 entries >> using "O" and attaching the chord symbols to the hidden Layer 2 >> entries. > >Ah. This doesn't work for Layer 1 -- pressing "O" to hide the entries also >hides anything attached to them, including chord symbols. That's strange! I never noticed that before, although I must say I never tried it. Well, I for one am glad that my Layer 2 chord symbols still show up... > > That way I don't mess up my displayed notation because it's >> using layer options from some other layer. I suppose if you reserved >> Layer 4 for chord symbols and hid them using Blank Notation for layer >> 4, this would be more consistent. > >In fact I use the opposite! I usually move the *music* to Layer 4 (which I >have set up to never adjust for notes in other layers) and put the chords in >Layer 1, then apply blank notation. I'm starting to come over to your way of thinking - if I change ALL the regular notation to Layer 4, then I don't have to do it more than once. Then I can put in bars and bars of quarter rests in Layer 1 by holding down the 5 key, convert it to blank notation in one fell swoop, and type my chords in merrily without worrying about switching layers. Neat. > > But it is an enormous pain when >> entering chords to have to switch layers for ONE measure, then switch >> back, only to have to do it again a measure later... > >Exactly. Chords frequently need to be manually adjusted, especially when >spacing is tight (and when you have 4 chords in a measure that otherwise >only has a whole note in it, spacing will be tight). Hmm. For similarly tight passages I re-set music spacing to avoid collisions with chords, then respace only that measure. Man, I would like to have this option readily available, rather than buried inside menus... ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On 9/27/02 2:13 PM or thereabouts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> intoned: > Are you sure about this Darcy? I do not have this problem. When I put > something in Layer 1 and press "O" all articulation and note attachments > disappear but lyrics and chord symbols remain. Well, you're probably right. I haven't tried this in years, as hitting "O" *used* to hide attached chord symbols, and I assumed this behavior hadn't been changed. Anyway, at this point I'm so used to using blank notation that I probably wouldn't switch to this, but it's nice that there's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat, here. - Darcy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston, MA ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On 9/27/02 1:58 PM or thereabouts, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> intoned: > Would it not make more sense to add a property to chord symbols that > allows them to display when attached invisible notes, rather than > mucking up blank notation for everyone else? Well, the current arrangement does not "muck up" blank notation at all, as it's simply a matter of changing one variable in your default file (or Staff Style library), once, and that's it. But yes, I agree that the current kludge to display chord symbols without corresponding entries is a pain and would like to be able to attach chord symbols to *beats* as well as entries. (Perhaps as a toggle? Both are needed, so you'd want to be able to easily switch back and forth between "Attach to entries" mode and "Attach to beats" mode. If that ever happens, I won't object to having blank notation set up to hide items attached to notes by default -- but honestly, I suspect lots of others will. I do think a principled argument can be made for the current default behavior, *and* the fact that it has always worked this way is not inconsequential. - Darcy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston, MA ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
> From: Darcy James Argue > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:28 PM > > On 9/27/02 8:42 AM or thereabouts, Christopher BJ Smith > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> intoned: > > > Hmm, I usually accomplish the same thing by hiding Layer 2 entries > > using "O" and attaching the chord symbols to the hidden Layer 2 > > entries. > > Ah. This doesn't work for Layer 1 -- pressing "O" to hide the entries > also > hides anything attached to them, including chord symbols. > > Sorry to but in... > Are you sure about this Darcy? I do not have this problem. When I put something in Layer 1 and press "O" all articulation and note attachments disappear but lyrics and chord symbols remain. > Steve Fiskum ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On 26 Sep 2002 at 19:34, Mark D. Lew wrote: > At 7:49 PM 09/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > > >To be honest, I've never been thrilled with the way expressions and > >articulations in the blank notation layer still show up. I just don't > >think that's right [...] If the > >articulations in the playback layer (i.e., invisible) were also > >invisible, this simply wouldn't be an issue [...] > > I didn't follow all the details of your example, but you can define the > style so that articulations don't show up on the invisible layer. Try > this: > > 1. Choose "Define Staff Styles" from the Staff menu. > > 2. Under "Available Styles", select the "Blank Notation" style that you're > using. > > 3. Click the "Select" button under "Alternate Notation" > > 4. Uncheck "Show Items Attached to Notes". > > 5. Click "OK" twice to make the change. > > I think this will accomplish what you want. If it does, you can set it on > your templates and never have to worry about it again. I'll have to try it. Seems a remarkably backwards way to do things, unless you're trying to maintain compatibility with the old *wrong* way of doing things. > (Optional step 6: Complain that it wasn't set that way by default) I'll be firing off a note to WinSupport. On 27 Sep 2002 at 2:04, Darcy James Argue wrote: > Blank notation is set up to "Show Items Attached to Notes" by default > for a very important reason -- it is the *only* way to show chord > symbols on beats without a corresponding note (or in empty measures). > If, for instance, you want four chord symbols in a measure containing > only a whole note, you have to: > > 1) Transfer the whole note to some other layer. > > 2) Enter four quarter rests in Layer 1. > > 3) Attach the four chord symbols to the four quarter rests. > > 4) Hide Layer 1 using Blank Notation. > > I would bet dollars to donuts that this is the most frequently used > application for the Blank Notation staff style (by far), so it makes > sense that the default settings are set up for this. Would it not make more sense to add a property to chord symbols that allows them to display when attached invisible notes, rather than mucking up blank notation for everyone else? I never use chord symbols and have no need for this functionality. I use blank notation all the time. If the visibility of the items attached to invisible items becomes a property of the item itself the problem is moved out of the realm of staff styles and into the characteristics of the specific items that need to be displayed when attached to invisible notes. Again, it seems to me that Coda has not thought things out very carefully here, that they are maintaining backward compatibility with a feature that was previously wrongly implemented in the first place. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On 9/27/02 8:42 AM or thereabouts, Christopher BJ Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> intoned: > Hmm, I usually accomplish the same thing by hiding Layer 2 entries > using "O" and attaching the chord symbols to the hidden Layer 2 > entries. Ah. This doesn't work for Layer 1 -- pressing "O" to hide the entries also hides anything attached to them, including chord symbols. > That way I don't mess up my displayed notation because it's > using layer options from some other layer. I suppose if you reserved > Layer 4 for chord symbols and hid them using Blank Notation for layer > 4, this would be more consistent. In fact I use the opposite! I usually move the *music* to Layer 4 (which I have set up to never adjust for notes in other layers) and put the chords in Layer 1, then apply blank notation. I admit that this is partly a holdover from the days where blank notation *only* worked on Layer 1 and could not be customized, but there are other advantages -- see below... > But it is an enormous pain when > entering chords to have to switch layers for ONE measure, then switch > back, only to have to do it again a measure later... Exactly. Chords frequently need to be manually adjusted, especially when spacing is tight (and when you have 4 chords in a measure that otherwise only has a whole note in it, spacing will be tight). I'd rather not muck about changing layers all the time to edit chords -- I want them all in the same layer. It's less important that music all be in the same layer, since it doesn't require the same degree of micromanagement as chord symbols do. - Darcy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston, MA ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
At 7:49 PM -0400 9/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: >On 26 Sep 2002 at 19:16, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > > > At 1:23 PM -0400 9/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > >I don't see why. When would anyone want hidden or blank notation to >> >effect spacing? I don't even see the utility in having it as an >> >*option*, let alone having this useless option turned on by default. >> >> One might want it to affect spacing (one can only effect spacing by >> pressing top-row 4 in Mass Mover) if one has chord symbols or other >> note-attached items attached to the invisible entries. > >Well, in that case, the expressions are not invisible, are they? So, >they should have an effect on spacing. I usually turn OFF accounting for collisions between expresions of all sorts, because of the way it destroys proper spacing when the expression is longer than a couple of characters. Making a measure containing a whole note space as if it contained two half notes is a convenient way to make chord symbols space right to my eye. >To be honest, I've never been thrilled with the way expressions and >articulations in the blank notation layer still show up. I just don't >think that's right, and it means that I have to put the non-playback- >effecting articulations in the displayed layer, and the playback- >effecting articulations/expressions in the blank layer. Then turn off letting expressions in blank notation appear. In the Staff Tool, select Define Staff Styles. A dialogue box opens. In the top bar, select the kind of Blank Notation you want to edit. Below that you see a box checked called Alternate Notation. Just under that there is a button called Select. Click it. When this box opens, you see a check box called "Show Items Attached to Notes" and it is probably checked. Uncheck it, OK your way out of the dialogue boxes, and Bob's your uncle. Repeat for any other kind of staff style you don't want expressions to appear in. Need I add that you should change this in your Default File? If you hide things using the "O" key in Speedy Entry, then lyrics still show up, but other expressions (articulations, note-attached expressions) get hidden, with no way that I know of to force them to appear. >That means that often your articulations don't space themselves >correctly, even when you flip the stems in the invisible layer, and >you end up having to place them manually, one at a time. If the >articulations in the playback layer (i.e., invisible) were also >invisible, this simply wouldn't be an issue -- you'd put the >articulations in both layers (in the visible for display, in the >invisible to fix the playback). I hope my advice has fixed this problem for you. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
At 2:04 AM -0400 9/27/02, Darcy James Argue wrote: >On 9/26/02 11:34 PM or thereabouts, Mark D. Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >intoned: > >> (Optional step 6: Complain that it wasn't set that way by default) > >Blank notation is set up to "Show Items Attached to Notes" by default for a >very important reason -- it is the *only* way to show chord symbols on beats >without a corresponding note (or in empty measures). If, for instance, you >want four chord symbols in a measure containing only a whole note, you have >to: > >1) Transfer the whole note to some other layer. > >2) Enter four quarter rests in Layer 1. > >3) Attach the four chord symbols to the four quarter rests. > >4) Hide Layer 1 using Blank Notation. > >I would bet dollars to donuts that this is the most frequently used >application for the Blank Notation staff style (by far), so it makes sense >that the default settings are set up for this. > >- Darcy Hmm, I usually accomplish the same thing by hiding Layer 2 entries using "O" and attaching the chord symbols to the hidden Layer 2 entries. That way I don't mess up my displayed notation because it's using layer options from some other layer. I suppose if you reserved Layer 4 for chord symbols and hid them using Blank Notation for layer 4, this would be more consistent. But it is an enormous pain when entering chords to have to switch layers for ONE measure, then switch back, only to have to do it again a measure later... Christopher ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On 9/26/02 11:34 PM or thereabouts, Mark D. Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> intoned: > (Optional step 6: Complain that it wasn't set that way by default) Blank notation is set up to "Show Items Attached to Notes" by default for a very important reason -- it is the *only* way to show chord symbols on beats without a corresponding note (or in empty measures). If, for instance, you want four chord symbols in a measure containing only a whole note, you have to: 1) Transfer the whole note to some other layer. 2) Enter four quarter rests in Layer 1. 3) Attach the four chord symbols to the four quarter rests. 4) Hide Layer 1 using Blank Notation. I would bet dollars to donuts that this is the most frequently used application for the Blank Notation staff style (by far), so it makes sense that the default settings are set up for this. - Darcy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston, MA ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
At 7:49 PM 09/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: >To be honest, I've never been thrilled with the way expressions and >articulations in the blank notation layer still show up. I just don't >think that's right [...] If the >articulations in the playback layer (i.e., invisible) were also >invisible, this simply wouldn't be an issue [...] I didn't follow all the details of your example, but you can define the style so that articulations don't show up on the invisible layer. Try this: 1. Choose "Define Staff Styles" from the Staff menu. 2. Under "Available Styles", select the "Blank Notation" style that you're using. 3. Click the "Select" button under "Alternate Notation" 4. Uncheck "Show Items Attached to Notes". 5. Click "OK" twice to make the change. I think this will accomplish what you want. If it does, you can set it on your templates and never have to worry about it again. (Optional step 6: Complain that it wasn't set that way by default) mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On 26 Sep 2002 at 19:16, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > At 1:23 PM -0400 9/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > >On 26 Sep 2002 at 1:50, Mark D. Lew wrote: > > > >> I think this would be more convenient if it were a check box in the > >> Alternate Notation section of Staff Style definitions (and turned on by > >> default on the Blank staff styles that Coda provides). > > > >I don't see why. When would anyone want hidden or blank notation to > >effect spacing? I don't even see the utility in having it as an > >*option*, let alone having this useless option turned on by default. > > One might want it to affect spacing (one can only effect spacing by > pressing top-row 4 in Mass Mover) if one has chord symbols or other > note-attached items attached to the invisible entries. Well, in that case, the expressions are not invisible, are they? So, they should have an effect on spacing. To be honest, I've never been thrilled with the way expressions and articulations in the blank notation layer still show up. I just don't think that's right, and it means that I have to put the non-playback- effecting articulations in the displayed layer, and the playback- effecting articulations/expressions in the blank layer. That means that often your articulations don't space themselves correctly, even when you flip the stems in the invisible layer, and you end up having to place them manually, one at a time. If the articulations in the playback layer (i.e., invisible) were also invisible, this simply wouldn't be an issue -- you'd put the articulations in both layers (in the visible for display, in the invisible to fix the playback). -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
At 1:23 PM -0400 9/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: >On 26 Sep 2002 at 1:50, Mark D. Lew wrote: > >> I think this would be more convenient if it were a check box in the >> Alternate Notation section of Staff Style definitions (and turned on by >> default on the Blank staff styles that Coda provides). > >I don't see why. When would anyone want hidden or blank notation to >effect spacing? I don't even see the utility in having it as an >*option*, let alone having this useless option turned on by default. One might want it to affect spacing (one can only effect spacing by pressing top-row 4 in Mass Mover) if one has chord symbols or other note-attached items attached to the invisible entries. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
At 2:03 PM 09/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: >Can anyone come up with a scenario in which that is even a >*marginally* useful option? Marginally useful, yes. If you find yourself in a situation where you want Finale to consistently give you an extra bit of space between two particular notes (perhaps you've got a wide text expression that need to appear above it, but checking note expressions in the Music Spacing Options causes other problems), you can copy the music of that measure to another layer, add an extraneous accidental or two to create the needed space, and make it invisible. Obviously there are numerous ways to tweak spacing, and we've all used many of them. An advantage I see in this one is that it will continue to be in place no matter how many times you adjust and respace the music, and although it's weird and kludgy, it's relatively quick to do. I doubt I'd do it often, but I can see keeping it in my mental bag of tricks for an occasion when it was the most efficient fix for an unusual situation. The larger issue here, I think, is that with Layer Options, you're forced to make layer 4 your invisible layer throughout the piece. If you can adapt your habits around that, great. Others may have enjoyed the flexibility of using layers according to a different plan. I have occasionally encountered a situation where I really do need all four layers in the same bar. If I had my entire document set with layer 4 to be ignored in spacing, then that would have been problematic. Finale has a lot of options which you'll leave alone most of the time but can change for special occasions. For this feature to be more useful, you need to be able to turn it off and on on a measure-by-measure basis, and the logical way to incorporate that is in a staff style. In addition to just blanked-out measures, there could be times when you want to turn affects-spacing off for some visible measure. >From Randy's post, I gather that Coda agrees in principle, but backed off for practical reasons. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
I wrote: > I have now created a tiny plug-in (called "JW Spacing & Playback") that > you can download if you need it. This plug-in allows you to turn spacing > (or playback) ON or OFF for a selection (such as notes in a single layer), > without the need to modify the global layer options: > http://www.jwmusic.nu/freeplugins/ Off course I messed up the first version of that plug-in. Version 1.01 (now available for download) should actually work on the selected region... ;-) Best regards, Jari Williamsson ICQ #: 78036563 ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
>>And it doesn't change the fact that blank notation in *any* layer should not have an effect on spacing of visible notation. << I know of several experienced engravers who use blank notation specifically to hide a "spacing" layer -- that is, a series of notes designed to control the spacing. It would make sense to allow you to set "affects spacing" in Alternate Notation, and we were partly down that path last year when we ran into some design snags -- I don't recall offhand what they were. Randy ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On 9/26/02 2:03 PM, "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 26 Sep 2002 at 15:05, Jari Williamsson wrote: > >> The new method (Finale 2002 and above) is much more flexible. You can >> turn ON/OFF spacing on 3 different levels (layer/note entry/note). You can >> also turn playback ON/OFF on 4 different levels (instrument list/layer/note >> entry/note). Layer options are available in the document options, entry >> and note settings are available in the [not-so-easy-to-use] Edit Frame. >> >> I have now created a tiny plug-in (called "JW Spacing & Playback") that >> you can download if you need it. This plug-in allows you to turn spacing >> (or playback) ON or OFF for a selection (such as notes in a single layer), >> without the need to modify the global layer options: >> http://www.jwmusic.nu/freeplugins/ > > While your plugin is a wonderful thing, I am OK with turning off the > check in Layer Options, as I can't conceive of a situation in which I > would want invisible notes to be accounted for in spacing the visible > notation. > > Can anyone come up with a scenario in which that is even a > *marginally* useful option? Perhaps there might come a time when I want to create unusual spacing--say, a visual speeding up of the same note values, or something like that--and can most easily accomplish that for multiple staves by putting some divided note values in an invisible layer somewhere that are subject to note spacing. I know there are other ways to accomplish this, but I see it as another example of Finale's flexibility... Tim ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On 26 Sep 2002 at 13:27, Aaron Sherber wrote: > At 01:12 PM 09/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > >Sorry, but I looked high and low on the menus and in the OLD, but > >cannot find any setting to clear manual spacing. Where is it? > >Obviously, I'm just not looking in the right place. > > Document Options | Music Spacing. Manual Positioning = Ignore | Clear | > Incorporate. I think that what I want is to us INCORPORATE on a normal basis, as I certainly don't want to lose manual spacing when doing a global re- spacing. But what I really want is a way to clear manual spacing for a selection without having to change this option to CLEAR and then back to my preferred setting. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On 26 Sep 2002 at 15:05, Jari Williamsson wrote: > The new method (Finale 2002 and above) is much more flexible. You can > turn ON/OFF spacing on 3 different levels (layer/note entry/note). You can > also turn playback ON/OFF on 4 different levels (instrument list/layer/note > entry/note). Layer options are available in the document options, entry > and note settings are available in the [not-so-easy-to-use] Edit Frame. > > I have now created a tiny plug-in (called "JW Spacing & Playback") that > you can download if you need it. This plug-in allows you to turn spacing > (or playback) ON or OFF for a selection (such as notes in a single layer), > without the need to modify the global layer options: > http://www.jwmusic.nu/freeplugins/ While your plugin is a wonderful thing, I am OK with turning off the check in Layer Options, as I can't conceive of a situation in which I would want invisible notes to be accounted for in spacing the visible notation. Can anyone come up with a scenario in which that is even a *marginally* useful option? -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
At 01:12 PM 09/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: >Sorry, but I looked high and low on the menus and in the OLD, but >cannot find any setting to clear manual spacing. Where is it? >Obviously, I'm just not looking in the right place. Document Options | Music Spacing. Manual Positioning = Ignore | Clear | Incorporate. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On 26 Sep 2002 at 1:50, Mark D. Lew wrote: > At 9:11 AM 09/26/02, Michael Cook wrote: > > [...] If layer 4 is only used for playback, you can also set it not > >to affect music spacing (in Document Options - Layers). > > Aha, THERE it is! I knew there was a way to tell Finale to ignore the > music for spacing, but I looked for it in the Staff Style definition and in > Music Spacing Options, and not Layer Options. I'm so glad you replied to this, Mark, because I didn't understand what he was referring to! This setting ought to take care of the problem. Seems to me this should be off by default. > I think this would be more convenient if it were a check box in the > Alternate Notation section of Staff Style definitions (and turned on by > default on the Blank staff styles that Coda provides). I don't see why. When would anyone want hidden or blank notation to effect spacing? I don't even see the utility in having it as an *option*, let alone having this useless option turned on by default. > The problem with Layer Options is that it affects that layer for the entire > piece, so if you want that layer visible elsewhere, you're out of luck. I > suppose you can just get into the habit of making layer 4 always be the > invisible one, but wouldn't that be awkward for playback? I don't usually > do much playback, but I would think you'd want the main layer that you use > for the voice to match the heard-but-not-seen layer, not the > seen-but-not-heard one. Well, I use layer 1 for the principle notation and layers 2 and 3 have always been sufficient for any extra layers I need (which is generally very seldom, as I used voice 2 whenever I can), and it has never been a hardship to sacrifice playback of layer 4. In short, I've never encounterd a situation where I needed music in all 4 layers and also needed to define something for playback that was different from the display on top of that. I guess if you had 3 layers with an ornament in them, you'd run into a problem, but that might be doable in a single layer. Possibly. > I'm sure there must be a way around this, though. Isn't that what the > "easy tremolos" plug-in does? > > On the occasions when I've needed to fix grace notes to play back as > appoggiaturas, I've used the MIDI tool, not an invisible layer. I always use an invisible layer because it is far more intuitive to me to say "play this as a quarter followed by a half" instead of having to figure out how many [whatever] units I have to delay the two notes by. And the music I work with has plenty of appoggiaturas, so I deal with it a lot. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
On 26 Sep 2002 at 9:11, Michael Cook wrote: > I'm not sure why blank notation affects spacing. I expect there are > situations where this is desirable - does anyone make use of this? > > For your problem with playback of ornaments you could try this: leave > the printed music in layer 1 and apply blank notation to layer 4 > (this wasn't possible in older versions of Finale). As far as I can > tell, it always seems to be the layer 4 notes that get pushed to the > right. If layer 4 is only used for playback, you can also set it not > to affect music spacing (in Document Options - Layers). Well, yes, that would avoid the immediate problem, but it causes a whole bunch of others. My whole setup is based on the fact that I have no instrument defined for playback of layer 4, and all the sounding notation in layer 1, visible or not. If I move the invisible (sounding) notation to a different layer and leave the visible notation in layer 1, notation that shouldn't be heard, I then have to turn off playback for that measure, and back on when it's done. That's obviously not acceptable, so it basically means moving the sounding notation to the bottom layer, #4, and putting any non-sounding notation in a higher layer. While that will work consistently, it would be inconvenient to have layer 4 be your main notation layer, just because Finale opens with layer 1 active. A small thing, but it shows that the workaround is not satisfactory. And it doesn't change the fact that blank notation in *any* layer should not have an effect on spacing of visible notation. > By the way, if you do need to respace seconds so that the notes > coincide instead of avoiding each other, uncheck collision of seconds > AND set manual positioning to "clear", then apply music spacing. Sorry, but I looked high and low on the menus and in the OLD, but cannot find any setting to clear manual spacing. Where is it? Obviously, I'm just not looking in the right place. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
David W. Fenton writes: > In this particular piece, I have no need at all for other layers > except for playback of ornaments, so I can turn off second collision > without a problem, but isn't it a bug that the blank notation is > being used in spacing calculations? It didn't used to be so in > Finale97 and earlier, and I think that's preferable. The new method (Finale 2002 and above) is much more flexible. You can turn ON/OFF spacing on 3 different levels (layer/note entry/note). You can also turn playback ON/OFF on 4 different levels (instrument list/layer/note entry/note). Layer options are available in the document options, entry and note settings are available in the [not-so-easy-to-use] Edit Frame. I have now created a tiny plug-in (called "JW Spacing & Playback") that you can download if you need it. This plug-in allows you to turn spacing (or playback) ON or OFF for a selection (such as notes in a single layer), without the need to modify the global layer options: http://www.jwmusic.nu/freeplugins/ Docs available at: http://www.jwmusic.nu/freeplugins/jwspacingplayback.html Best regards, Jari Williamsson ICQ #: 78036563 ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
At 9:11 AM 09/26/02, Michael Cook wrote: >I'm not sure why blank notation affects spacing. I expect there are >situations where this is desirable - does anyone make use of this? Now that I'm aware of it, I can think of some times when it would be useful as a kludge, but on the whole this strikes me as very UN-desirable It seems to me that blank notation should not affect spacing, and I was surprised to discover it otherwise when I tried out David's example. > [...] If layer 4 is only used for playback, you can also set it not >to affect music spacing (in Document Options - Layers). Aha, THERE it is! I knew there was a way to tell Finale to ignore the music for spacing, but I looked for it in the Staff Style definition and in Music Spacing Options, and not Layer Options. I think this would be more convenient if it were a check box in the Alternate Notation section of Staff Style definitions (and turned on by default on the Blank staff styles that Coda provides). The problem with Layer Options is that it affects that layer for the entire piece, so if you want that layer visible elsewhere, you're out of luck. I suppose you can just get into the habit of making layer 4 always be the invisible one, but wouldn't that be awkward for playback? I don't usually do much playback, but I would think you'd want the main layer that you use for the voice to match the heard-but-not-seen layer, not the seen-but-not-heard one. I'm sure there must be a way around this, though. Isn't that what the "easy tremolos" plug-in does? On the occasions when I've needed to fix grace notes to play back as appoggiaturas, I've used the MIDI tool, not an invisible layer. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Collision of 2nds between layers & Blank Notation
I'm not sure why blank notation affects spacing. I expect there are situations where this is desirable - does anyone make use of this? For your problem with playback of ornaments you could try this: leave the printed music in layer 1 and apply blank notation to layer 4 (this wasn't possible in older versions of Finale). As far as I can tell, it always seems to be the layer 4 notes that get pushed to the right. If layer 4 is only used for playback, you can also set it not to affect music spacing (in Document Options - Layers). By the way, if you do need to respace seconds so that the notes coincide instead of avoiding each other, uncheck collision of seconds AND set manual positioning to "clear", then apply music spacing. Best wishes, Michael Cook At 18:39 -0400 25/09/2002, David W. Fenton wrote: >I have been in the habit since Finale 3.52 or so of using Layer 1 and >4 to implement playback of ornaments. That is, the printed notation >goes into layer 4, and the playback into layer 1. Until I upgraded to >WinFin2003, I'd set the measure to BLANK NOTATION (which applies only >to Layer 1), and with WinFin2003 I use the BLANK staff style. > >So far so good. > >But now I've got cases where the displayed notation is being skewed >off of proper alignment because it seems that the music in layer 4 is >being moved to the right to avoid collision with the notes in layer >1. That would be great if the notes in layer 1 were *visible*, but >they aren't, so they should be ignored in collision calculations. > >To reproduce it, try this: > >In a new blank document with two staves, insert a quarter note grace >note and a half note main note. > >In the second staff, insert a half note. > >Move the top staff's music to layer 4. > >In layer 1, put in two quarter notes. > >Now, apply BLANK staff style to the top staff. > >Space the music. > >You'll see that the displayed half note in the top staff (layer 4) is >displaced to the right to avoid collision with the note in layer 1 >that is not visible in the first place. > >This is *very* bad. > >I have tried going into document settings and unchecking collision of >seconds, but it seems to make no difference whatsoever. > >Well, it makes a difference for entries made (and spaced) *after* the >2nd collision is turned off, but I can't seem to find any way (short >of deleting the notes and re-entering) the undo the erroneous spacing >(other than using special tools to move the notes manually). > >In this particular piece, I have no need at all for other layers >except for playback of ornaments, so I can turn off second collision >without a problem, but isn't it a bug that the blank notation is >being used in spacing calculations? It didn't used to be so in >Finale97 and earlier, and I think that's preferable. > >-- >David W. Fenton | >http://www.bway.net/~dfenton >David Fenton Associates | >http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc > >___ >Finale mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
