Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
On Friday, Sep 27, 2002, at 12:02 US/Pacific, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > At 02:24 PM 9/27/02 -0400, ÉQ==ric Dussault wrote: >> It makes me wonder why would someone use scroll view nowadays unless >> for... > Never for me as a composer. I hate page view and only use it for the > very, very, very, very, very final stage. Music is vertical and > horizontal, but not paginated. It doesn't have paragraphs and > sentences as text does, but lines that cross and merge. Scroll view is > much more natural from that perspective. Well, I don't hate page view but I don't conceive music in pages either. Metered phrases is a little closer. Sometimes just timbre. Sometimes abstract relationships. Sometimes wit woids and sometimes widout. And speaking of horizontal and vertical, sometimes I'd just like to tunnel into a note to get the sound dimension. Like some direct toggle to Midi view of the whole score. > It would be great if Finale's whole relationship between page view and > scroll view were more intelligent. Then I wouldn't ever have to look > at page view except for pagination items -- titles and page numbers, > mostly. My long standing wish is that system breaks would be represented in scroll view. Some adjustable amount of space between the affected measures so that I could handle stuff like broken slurs right then and there. Cheers, Philip Aker http://www.aker.ca ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
At 8:29 PM -0400 9/28/02, David W. Fenton wrote: >On 27 Sep 2002 at 8:35, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > >> At 8:22 PM -0400 9/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: >> >On 26 Sep 2002 at 20:05, David H. Bailey wrote: >> > >> >> I, for one, like the way it is implemented and have no confusion working >> >> with it. >> > >> >You like seeing 1:23 go to 2:1 and then 2:31 going to 3:1 and then >> >3:89 going to 90 and then 3:121 (which is displayed only as "121") >> >going to 4:1, etc.? >> >> >> Yep. That way it tallies with the measure numbers of the piece of >> paper I am most probably working from. Although I admit that 3:121 >> would probably be more clear to me than simply 121. > >But that is my whole point. There is no utility in that context to >there being no 3: with measure 121. > >That was all I was saying. Ah. I thought you were saying you didn't like 1:23 going to 2:1 either (along with all the other behaviours), since it was all part of the same complaint. Sorry. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
On 27 Sep 2002 at 13:39, Mark D. Lew wrote: > At 12:48 PM 09/27/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > > >Frankly, I'm beginning to conclude that many of the regular users of > >Finale on this list are victims of the Stockholm syndrome, because > >they seem unable to do anything but rationalize many of Finale's > >obvious failings. > > If we apply your reasoning to the universe at large, I suppose you could > say that anyone who is happy in life and glad to exist in this imperfect > world of ours is a victim of the Stockholm syndrome, because surely anyone > with a conscience would have to be perpetually enraged at the world's many > injustices and furious at the incompetent creator who designed such a > world. I would only make that argument if the person in question repeatedly makes special rationalizations to justify the imperfections, rather than recognizing them as things that ought to be fixed. -- 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] Measure number regions
On 27 Sep 2002 at 15:20, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > At 12:48 PM -0400 9/27/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > >Frankly, I'm beginning to conclude that many of the regular users of > >Finale on this list are victims of the Stockholm syndrome, because > >they seem unable to do anything but rationalize many of Finale's > >obvious failings. > > > >I'm coming at it as a long-time but sporadic Finale user who has just > >upgraded from an older version to the latest version. Coda has fixed > >many important aspects of the program, but they have also introduced > >a number of new counterintuitive aspects to the program, > > Introduced new issues? Most of the ones you are complaining about are > old ones, we all supposed you had just run across them recently. In regard to spacing of hidden items, the behavior is different in WinFin2003 than it was in WinFin97, which is the version I upgraded from. For me, that makes it a new issue. In light of the long history of Finale (I've been using it since 1990, WinFin2.01), that's still relatively "new," even if others encountered the issue a couple of years ago when staff styles were introduced. I truly don't think that the advancements in Finale since WinFin97 are nearly as great as everyone on the list led me to believe they were, what with the constant harping on "of course you have these kinds of problems because you're using an old, old version," something I heard a lot. Yes, I like lots of things about WinFin2003, truly. But it's still got just about the same number of extraordinarily annoying default behaviors that it always did -- they've just been moved to different places. -- 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] Measure number regions
On 27 Sep 2002 at 8:35, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > At 8:22 PM -0400 9/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > >On 26 Sep 2002 at 20:05, David H. Bailey wrote: > > > >> I, for one, like the way it is implemented and have no confusion working > >> with it. > > > >You like seeing 1:23 go to 2:1 and then 2:31 going to 3:1 and then > >3:89 going to 90 and then 3:121 (which is displayed only as "121") > >going to 4:1, etc.? > > > Yep. That way it tallies with the measure numbers of the piece of > paper I am most probably working from. Although I admit that 3:121 > would probably be more clear to me than simply 121. But that is my whole point. There is no utility in that context to there being no 3: with measure 121. That was all I was saying. -- 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] Measure number regions
>I usually don't switch to page view until all notes, > articulations, and expressions are entered and I'm ready specifically to > tweak the page layout. Aaron. This is how I work with one exception: I put in expressions only in page view as I have not found their exact placement to translate accurately from scroll to page. Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
le 9/27/02 5:39 PM, Mark D. Lew à [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : I didn't want to judge anyone who use scroll view, was just curious. I see that most of you do love scroll view. I am not a composer and love page view because I see everything as it will be printed. > At 2:24 PM 09/27/02, Éric Dussault wrote: > >> It makes me wonder why would someone use scroll view nowadays [...] > > Wow. > > Me, I love scroll view. I think of it as the "normal" view, and I do all of > my note entry and most of my marking up (articulations, slurs, etc) there. > In my mind, the music exists as music and the page layout is a separate > function. I want to see measure 13 follow immediately to the right of > measure 12, regardless of whether in a particular layout it appears at the > top of the next page instead. > > It seems very odd to me to never use scroll view at all, but if that's what > works for you, great. Just so long as you don't start arguing that scroll > view needs to be eliminated from the program altogether because even > preserving it as an option fails to eliminate the disorganized thinking, > and those of us who prefer it are only reflexively clinging to an old > system that was wrongly implemented in the first place. > > mdl > > > ___ > 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] Measure number regions
At 12:48 PM 09/27/02, David W. Fenton wrote: >Frankly, I'm beginning to conclude that many of the regular users of >Finale on this list are victims of the Stockholm syndrome, because >they seem unable to do anything but rationalize many of Finale's >obvious failings. If we apply your reasoning to the universe at large, I suppose you could say that anyone who is happy in life and glad to exist in this imperfect world of ours is a victim of the Stockholm syndrome, because surely anyone with a conscience would have to be perpetually enraged at the world's many injustices and furious at the incompetent creator who designed such a world. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
At 2:24 PM 09/27/02, Éric Dussault wrote: >It makes me wonder why would someone use scroll view nowadays [...] Wow. Me, I love scroll view. I think of it as the "normal" view, and I do all of my note entry and most of my marking up (articulations, slurs, etc) there. In my mind, the music exists as music and the page layout is a separate function. I want to see measure 13 follow immediately to the right of measure 12, regardless of whether in a particular layout it appears at the top of the next page instead. It seems very odd to me to never use scroll view at all, but if that's what works for you, great. Just so long as you don't start arguing that scroll view needs to be eliminated from the program altogether because even preserving it as an option fails to eliminate the disorganized thinking, and those of us who prefer it are only reflexively clinging to an old system that was wrongly implemented in the first place. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
le 9/27/02 3:45 PM, David W. Fenton à [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : David, I think it is time now to stop bothering people on the list because you think that if something is totally logical, then you must be more right than the others. You should now write to Coda at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and explain to them why they are totally wrong in their logical approach of that problem, because there is no one on the list that will change this behavior anyway. We all criticize Finale and suggest from time to time things that should be improved to Coda. You should do the same. It not a matter of who is right or more logical, and the thread is not going anywhere anymore. > On 27 Sep 2002 at 15:13, David H. Bailey wrote: > >> No, I never suggested that your criticisms of Finale is inconsistent >> with using and liking the program. It is just your assertion that the >> manner in which YOU think things should work should be the default. > > I have given logical reasons for why this is so, rather than just > arbitrarily concluding things should be done the way I want them. > >> I even supported your suggestion that Finale allow an option to show >> measure numbers ALWAYS with the region indicated. But you insist that >> your view should be the default view and I disagree with that. > > There is no utility in having the region number there only some of > the time in multi-region pieces > >> Because of that you insist I have some mental illness. > > ??? > >> And your assertion that all who can work with Finale with a minimum of >> frustration and a maximum of ease and who aren't afraid to say so in the >> face of criticism of the program have Stockholm Syndrome (I didn't know >> you were a licensed psychotherapist, too!) is indefensible. > > People who defend clearly described shortcomings of a program seem to > me to be sympathizing with those who implemented the shortcomings. > > I'm a programmer. I understand how these things happen. > > But Finale is a mature product, and instead of getting easier to use, > it is getting more complex. The document settings dialog in > WinFin2003 is wonderful, since it organizes everything in one very > easy-to-use location. But, nonetheless, some of the things that are > in document settings really ought to be elsewhere. Changing the UI > (or adding a user preference) does not alter the underlying > disorganization. > >> You have a hard time with certain aspects of Finale. Fine. Raising >> objections to them, sending messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is >> fine. I have never said that I thought people shouldn't criticize Finale. >> >> What I object to is your assertion that the Fenton way is the ONLY way >> and that anybody who disagrees is wrong. > > I have never asserted such as thing without also providing logical > reasons why I believe it to be the case. Had I arbitrarily asserted > that my way was "correct" without explaining why the Finale way was > flawed, you would have a point. As that is not the case, I don not > understand your vehemence. > >> So perhaps, since we are all playing psychoanalysts today, we should >> coin a new syndrome: Fenton Syndrome -- the syndrome of thinking that >> your way is the only way and all who don't agree are sick. > > That would be slanderous, as you are making things up out of whole > cloth. > >> I admitted that my way of being able to deal with the measure number >> display may well not be the only way and I have been willing to admit >> that other options should be allowed. >> >> Why are you not so flexible? > > Flexibility is not always a good way to do things. > > I could tell you I think murder is OK and then ask you why you're not > flexible, since murdering someone is a personal choice (we'll ignore > the flaw in my basic analogy that murder has an impact on another > person). Some things can be objectively reasoned out and it can be > shown that one way is really superior to others. > > My point is that making a user preference to get around a flaw in the > program is not really improving the program. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
On 9/27/02 3:45 PM or thereabouts, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> intoned: > My point is that making a user preference to get around a flaw in the > program is not really improving the program. David, Some of us have clearly, rationally explained why we feel that having the region number display in the box only when it's needed is *not* a flaw in the program. Many of us prefer the current behavior for good solid reasons. In some cases you have ignored the arguments being made, and in others you have misunderstood them, e.g., you comment that the measure number box is "wide enough" to display the region number, always. That's not the point -- the point is that the measure number box becomes more cluttered and more difficult to read if the region number is always appended to the measure number. And that displaying the region number is not very useful in cases where the only ambiguity is between, e.g., the pickup measure and the first full measure. And that these instances are far more common than instances where *always* displaying the region number would be useful. Rather than address these arguments, you have simply accused us of having sympathy for the existing way of doing things because we have literally been held hostage by Finale's UI. Can you not accept that on points like this, reasonable people might reasonably disagree? I'm not saying you can't have your "Always display region" checkbox (though I will certainly be leaving it off). You, on the other hand, are saying that anyone who *doesn't* want that behavior from Finale installed as a non-configurable default is simply deluded. - Darcy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston, MA ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
At 02:24 PM 09/27/02, Éric Dussault wrote: >It makes me wonder why would someone use scroll view nowadays unless for >very specific reasons (slur that crosses page or cresc. etc.). I understand >that someone who has a very old computer would do it and also know that it >has been design years ago to make it possible to have a snappier reaction >from the computer. I first started with Finale 97 on a PC and could see a >difference between page view and scroll view. Finale 2003 is a bit less >snappier but isn't it more comfortable to work in page view? All of these things are personal choices, but I can't imagine doing most of my Finale work in anything but scroll view. If I'm moving around in the score to look at things, copy things, etc., I don't want to have to worry about figuring out what page to go to and then moving around on that page. I don't want to see Finale attempting to do page layout while I'm working -- although I'm glad that they introduced automatic music spacing a few versions back. I usually don't switch to page view until all notes, articulations, and expressions are entered and I'm ready specifically to tweak the page layout. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
At 12:48 PM -0400 9/27/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > >Frankly, I'm beginning to conclude that many of the regular users of >Finale on this list are victims of the Stockholm syndrome, because >they seem unable to do anything but rationalize many of Finale's >obvious failings. > >I'm coming at it as a long-time but sporadic Finale user who has just >upgraded from an older version to the latest version. Coda has fixed >many important aspects of the program, but they have also introduced >a number of new counterintuitive aspects to the program, Introduced new issues? Most of the ones you are complaining about are old ones, we all supposed you had just run across them recently. Actually, aside from the provocative tone of some of your messages, I found most of your complaints to be justified. We are just all so used to the behaviour that we are eager to tell everyone how we work with it. Some things I wouldn't like changed, (like I would like still to be able to tell Finale to take hidden items into account when spacing, and not remove the choice altogether) but by and large, you remind me of the frustration felt when I was first confronted with the Finale way of looking at things. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
On 27 Sep 2002 at 15:13, David H. Bailey wrote: > No, I never suggested that your criticisms of Finale is inconsistent > with using and liking the program. It is just your assertion that the > manner in which YOU think things should work should be the default. I have given logical reasons for why this is so, rather than just arbitrarily concluding things should be done the way I want them. > I even supported your suggestion that Finale allow an option to show > measure numbers ALWAYS with the region indicated. But you insist that > your view should be the default view and I disagree with that. There is no utility in having the region number there only some of the time in multi-region pieces > Because of that you insist I have some mental illness. ??? > And your assertion that all who can work with Finale with a minimum of > frustration and a maximum of ease and who aren't afraid to say so in the > face of criticism of the program have Stockholm Syndrome (I didn't know > you were a licensed psychotherapist, too!) is indefensible. People who defend clearly described shortcomings of a program seem to me to be sympathizing with those who implemented the shortcomings. I'm a programmer. I understand how these things happen. But Finale is a mature product, and instead of getting easier to use, it is getting more complex. The document settings dialog in WinFin2003 is wonderful, since it organizes everything in one very easy-to-use location. But, nonetheless, some of the things that are in document settings really ought to be elsewhere. Changing the UI (or adding a user preference) does not alter the underlying disorganization. > You have a hard time with certain aspects of Finale. Fine. Raising > objections to them, sending messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is > fine. I have never said that I thought people shouldn't criticize Finale. > > What I object to is your assertion that the Fenton way is the ONLY way > and that anybody who disagrees is wrong. I have never asserted such as thing without also providing logical reasons why I believe it to be the case. Had I arbitrarily asserted that my way was "correct" without explaining why the Finale way was flawed, you would have a point. As that is not the case, I don not understand your vehemence. > So perhaps, since we are all playing psychoanalysts today, we should > coin a new syndrome: Fenton Syndrome -- the syndrome of thinking that > your way is the only way and all who don't agree are sick. That would be slanderous, as you are making things up out of whole cloth. > I admitted that my way of being able to deal with the measure number > display may well not be the only way and I have been willing to admit > that other options should be allowed. > > Why are you not so flexible? Flexibility is not always a good way to do things. I could tell you I think murder is OK and then ask you why you're not flexible, since murdering someone is a personal choice (we'll ignore the flaw in my basic analogy that murder has an impact on another person). Some things can be objectively reasoned out and it can be shown that one way is really superior to others. My point is that making a user preference to get around a flaw in the program is not really improving the program. -- 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] Measure number regions
At 03:13 PM 9/27/02 -0400, David H. Bailey wrote: >we should >coin a new syndrome: Fenton Syndrome -- the syndrome of thinking that >your way is the only way and all who don't agree are sick. Sorry, it's taken. That's the Bathory-Kitsz syndrome of which you speak. Of course. What else could it be? Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
No, I never suggested that your criticisms of Finale is inconsistent with using and liking the program. It is just your assertion that the manner in which YOU think things should work should be the default. I even supported your suggestion that Finale allow an option to show measure numbers ALWAYS with the region indicated. But you insist that your view should be the default view and I disagree with that. Because of that you insist I have some mental illness. And your assertion that all who can work with Finale with a minimum of frustration and a maximum of ease and who aren't afraid to say so in the face of criticism of the program have Stockholm Syndrome (I didn't know you were a licensed psychotherapist, too!) is indefensible. You have a hard time with certain aspects of Finale. Fine. Raising objections to them, sending messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is fine. I have never said that I thought people shouldn't criticize Finale. What I object to is your assertion that the Fenton way is the ONLY way and that anybody who disagrees is wrong. So perhaps, since we are all playing psychoanalysts today, we should coin a new syndrome: Fenton Syndrome -- the syndrome of thinking that your way is the only way and all who don't agree are sick. I admitted that my way of being able to deal with the measure number display may well not be the only way and I have been willing to admit that other options should be allowed. Why are you not so flexible? David W. Fenton wrote: > On 27 Sep 2002 at 14:15, David H. Bailey wrote: > > >>Okay, you're right, David, Finale sucks big-time. Why are you using it >>then? > > > Thank you, David Bailey, for providing a perfect example of exactly > what I was suggesting. > > To you, criticism of Finale is seen as somehow inconsistent with > using and liking the program. That is an irrational point of view. > > [] > > >>But you can take your Stockholm syndrome and shove it. > > > And you think you're somehow disputing my point with things like > that? > > Why the emotional investment in telling me to shut the hell up? > > Why tell me that in the first place? > I thought you might want to know that we don't all appreciate your Fenton-is-God attitude. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
At 02:24 PM 9/27/02 -0400, ÉQ==ric Dussault wrote: >It makes me wonder why would someone use scroll view nowadays unless for >very specific reasons (slur that crosses page or cresc. etc.). I understand >that someone who has a very old computer would do it and also know that it >has been design years ago to make it possible to have a snappier reaction >from the computer. I first started with Finale 97 on a PC and could see a >difference between page view and scroll view. Finale 2003 is a bit less >snappier but isn't it more comfortable to work in page view? Never for me as a composer. I hate page view and only use it for the very, very, very, very, very final stage. Music is vertical and horizontal, but not paginated. It doesn't have paragraphs and sentences as text does, but lines that cross and merge. Scroll view is much more natural from that perspective. Page view is clumsy, you can't see where the music has come and gone, phrases are broken up, and the line is broken across systems and pages. Yes, it's normal for performance -- though I've seen a wonderful contraption that scrolls printed music with a footpedal and motor -- and the best means of reading easily, so the result is "converted" to page view. Whenever I edit and revise, I got back to scroll view and recast everything in page view later. The only time I have had to work in page view is for scores whose content is critically graphical, and even then, it's full scrolled out first to make sure everything can be put in place, and then converted to page view. It would be great if Finale's whole relationship between page view and scroll view were more intelligent. Then I wouldn't ever have to look at page view except for pagination items -- titles and page numbers, mostly. But because the scroll/page relationship is as a whole broken (slurs, smart shapes, repeat brackets, etc., etc.), it's a lot of additional work to subsequently break up the score into page-size pieces. I look forward to the day when every music stand is a gently glowing flat display, and paper and pages are gone from the scene! Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
I work in scroll view for basic note entry, articulation and expression entry and lyrics entry. Then I switch to page view to deal with page layout issues. I think one of the greatest assets of Finale is that there are so many different ways to accomplish a lot things that MOST of us can find some way that suits us best. Éric Dussault wrote: > le 9/27/02 2:00 PM, David W. Fenton à [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > > >>I'm not talking about the measure numbers in the score, just the >>numbers in the measure number textbox in the Finale status bar while >>in scroll view. It's plenty wide enough to include this. > > > It makes me wonder why would someone use scroll view nowadays unless for > very specific reasons (slur that crosses page or cresc. etc.). I understand > that someone who has a very old computer would do it and also know that it > has been design years ago to make it possible to have a snappier reaction > from the computer. I first started with Finale 97 on a PC and could see a > difference between page view and scroll view. Finale 2003 is a bit less > snappier but isn't it more comfortable to work in page view? > > I now have an "old" G4 400 MHz (the first generation in 1999) and it is > still more than enough to work 100% of the time in page view. > > Eric > > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
On 27 Sep 2002 at 14:15, David H. Bailey wrote: > Okay, you're right, David, Finale sucks big-time. Why are you using it > then? Thank you, David Bailey, for providing a perfect example of exactly what I was suggesting. To you, criticism of Finale is seen as somehow inconsistent with using and liking the program. That is an irrational point of view. [] > But you can take your Stockholm syndrome and shove it. And you think you're somehow disputing my point with things like that? Why the emotional investment in telling me to shut the hell up? Why tell me that 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] Measure number regions
le 9/27/02 2:00 PM, David W. Fenton à [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > I'm not talking about the measure numbers in the score, just the > numbers in the measure number textbox in the Finale status bar while > in scroll view. It's plenty wide enough to include this. It makes me wonder why would someone use scroll view nowadays unless for very specific reasons (slur that crosses page or cresc. etc.). I understand that someone who has a very old computer would do it and also know that it has been design years ago to make it possible to have a snappier reaction from the computer. I first started with Finale 97 on a PC and could see a difference between page view and scroll view. Finale 2003 is a bit less snappier but isn't it more comfortable to work in page view? I now have an "old" G4 400 MHz (the first generation in 1999) and it is still more than enough to work 100% of the time in page view. Eric ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
David W. Fenton wrote: Okay, you're right, David, Finale sucks big-time. Why are you using it then? It is like ALL computer software I have every seen (I started on Commodore 64 and switched to PCs around the time of DOS 2.2) -- Nothing ever works the way I think it should. So I learned early on to either be flexible enough to change my way of thinking to whatever software gives me the outut I want, or search for a piece of software that works more like I think it should, or write my own. Since I lacked the time or inclination to do the latter (learn to program every application I could want so it would work as I wanted it to) and since I do a lot of research before purchasing an application so I don't have to purchase one application after another until finally finding one that worked somewhat closely to what I thought, that leaves me with having to deal with the first choice -- having found the application that produces the output I want, I simply learn to work with it. It really isn't that big a deal -- instead of whining about how it doesn't work as you think it should you could spend that time figuring out how to work with it and get the results you want. Or not. Purchase Sibelius so you can start bitching about how that doesn't work the way you think it should. But you can take your Stockholm syndrome and shove it. [snip] > Obviously I'm in a minority here, as everyone seems, once again, to > reflexively defend Finale's default behaviors. > > Frankly, I'm beginning to conclude that many of the regular users of > Finale on this list are victims of the Stockholm syndrome, because > they seem unable to do anything but rationalize many of Finale's > obvious failings. > > I'm coming at it as a long-time but sporadic Finale user who has just > upgraded from an older version to the latest version. Coda has fixed > many important aspects of the program, but they have also introduced > a number of new counterintuitive aspects to the program, very much > consistent with all the things we've complained about for years. This > seems to me to suggest that the problems with Finale are not so much > legacy issues as they are failure of imagination on Coda's part. > > If that's so, Sibelius will win after all. > -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
On 27 Sep 2002 at 13:18, Éric Dussault wrote: > le 9/27/02 12:48 PM, David W. Fenton à [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > > > Obviously I'm in a minority here, as everyone seems, once again, to > > reflexively defend Finale's default behaviors. > > > > Frankly, I'm beginning to conclude that many of the regular users of > > Finale on this list are victims of the Stockholm syndrome, because > > they seem unable to do anything but rationalize many of Finale's > > obvious failings > > So you assume the superiority of your opinions against the rest of the > list... Not impressive at all... No, nothing of the sort. When I first posted about the lyrics copying fiasco, there was great resistance to my assertion that there were things badly wrong with not just the default (and unchangeable) mirroring of lyrics with a drag copy, but there was extreme resistance from some quarters to my assertion that there was anything significantly wrong with the way lyrics work. The default stance is to defend the way Finale works or to acquiesce to it and just say "that's the way it is," rather than to figure out how it *should* work. Finale is just as much a hodgepodge of inconsistencies now as it ever has been. And it doesn't even take particularly complex projects to make those inconsistencies come to the fore. -- 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] Measure number regions
On 27 Sep 2002 at 11:03, Jari Williamsson wrote: > David W. Fenton writes: > > > You like seeing 1:23 go to 2:1 and then 2:31 going to 3:1 and then > > 3:89 going to 90 and then 3:121 (which is displayed only as "121") > > going to 4:1, etc.? > > For your example, how about changing the program option to "Display > Actual Measure Numbers" instead? A useless suggestion, as it then makes it substantially harder to refer back to an original source. > > You seem to not have considered that my lone measure 90 falls in the > > middle of the piece, in section 3 of a piece with 7 measure number > > regions. > > And you seem to not have considered people using stuff like prefix/suffix > for the measure numbers. Should these users get all measure numbers > displayed even wider than they now get, just because you've decided that > everyone needs to see the region reference all the time (even for > situations where there is one single measure of ambiguity in the whole > piece)? ??? I'm not talking about the measure numbers in the score, just the numbers in the measure number textbox in the Finale status bar while in scroll view. It's plenty wide enough to include this. -- 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] Measure number regions
le 9/27/02 12:48 PM, David W. Fenton à [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > Obviously I'm in a minority here, as everyone seems, once again, to > reflexively defend Finale's default behaviors. > > Frankly, I'm beginning to conclude that many of the regular users of > Finale on this list are victims of the Stockholm syndrome, because > they seem unable to do anything but rationalize many of Finale's > obvious failings So you assume the superiority of your opinions against the rest of the list... Not impressive at all... Eric Dussault ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
On 27 Sep 2002 at 8:35, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > At 8:22 PM -0400 9/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > >On 26 Sep 2002 at 20:05, David H. Bailey wrote: > > > >> I, for one, like the way it is implemented and have no confusion working > >> with it. > > > >You like seeing 1:23 go to 2:1 and then 2:31 going to 3:1 and then > >3:89 going to 90 and then 3:121 (which is displayed only as "121") > >going to 4:1, etc.? > > Yep. That way it tallies with the measure numbers of the piece of > paper I am most probably working from. Although I admit that 3:121 > would probably be more clear to me than simply 121. ??? Sounds to me like you are agreeing with me that the present way makes little sense for circumstances in which measure numbers are used in more than one section. I certainly would not find the real measure numbers useful at all, as some someone else suggested, as it makes working with the source more difficult (since you have to translate from "real" measure numbers to the printed measure numbers). Obviously I'm in a minority here, as everyone seems, once again, to reflexively defend Finale's default behaviors. Frankly, I'm beginning to conclude that many of the regular users of Finale on this list are victims of the Stockholm syndrome, because they seem unable to do anything but rationalize many of Finale's obvious failings. I'm coming at it as a long-time but sporadic Finale user who has just upgraded from an older version to the latest version. Coda has fixed many important aspects of the program, but they have also introduced a number of new counterintuitive aspects to the program, very much consistent with all the things we've complained about for years. This seems to me to suggest that the problems with Finale are not so much legacy issues as they are failure of imagination on Coda's part. If that's so, Sibelius will win after all. -- 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] Measure number regions
At 8:22 PM -0400 9/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: >On 26 Sep 2002 at 20:05, David H. Bailey wrote: > >> I, for one, like the way it is implemented and have no confusion working >> with it. > >You like seeing 1:23 go to 2:1 and then 2:31 going to 3:1 and then >3:89 going to 90 and then 3:121 (which is displayed only as "121") >going to 4:1, etc.? Yep. That way it tallies with the measure numbers of the piece of paper I am most probably working from. Although I admit that 3:121 would probably be more clear to me than simply 121. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
David W. Fenton writes: > You like seeing 1:23 go to 2:1 and then 2:31 going to 3:1 and then > 3:89 going to 90 and then 3:121 (which is displayed only as "121") > going to 4:1, etc.? For your example, how about changing the program option to "Display Actual Measure Numbers" instead? > You seem to not have considered that my lone measure 90 falls in the > middle of the piece, in section 3 of a piece with 7 measure number > regions. And you seem to not have considered people using stuff like prefix/suffix for the measure numbers. Should these users get all measure numbers displayed even wider than they now get, just because you've decided that everyone needs to see the region reference all the time (even for situations where there is one single measure of ambiguity in the whole piece)? Best regards, Jari Williamsson ICQ #: 78036563 ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
On 9/26/02 8:22 PM or thereabouts, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> intoned: > Because making it an option does not address the underlying usability > issue. You claim you like the feature because it allows navigation to > unique measure numbers without specifying the region. I think that's > a good thing, too. But it is completely orthagonal to the original > issue, the *display* of the measure number. Surely the most common use of multiple measure number regions, by far, is having a region that starts in measure 2 when measure 1 is a pickup? This is the only instance in which I regularly need multiple measure number regions. Apart from the pickup measure (1:1) vs the first full measure (2:1), there is no further ambiguity in the piece w/r/t measure numbers, and so I emphatically do *not* want to see a "2:" displayed in the current measure box, in front of every measure in the piece. It's cluttered and redundant and more difficult to read at a glance and confusing to newbies. I have no objection to adding a "Always display measure number region" checkbox, but I most strenuously object to "fixing" the current behavior by exorcising it from the program. - Darcy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston, MA ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
On 26 Sep 2002 at 20:05, David H. Bailey wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > [snip] > > I don't think it should be a program option -- making things user > > settings does not take away the basic disorganized thinking that > > leads to implementing it in that way. > > > > So now we have to do things your way? At least if you want to be able > to do things your way let those of who can't understand your inability > to know that your measure 91 is in the 3rd region of the piece you are > working on continue to work as we like. Why should things change just > for you? > > If you want to go to measure 91, you simply type 91 in the box and the > program will jump to that measure. Why should you want to have to type > 3: in addition, since there is only one measure 91 in your work? The > program knows where to go to find it, even if you don't. I'm not talking about what happens when you type something in the box to jump to it. I'm only talking about what is displayed. > I, for one, like the way it is implemented and have no confusion working > with it. You like seeing 1:23 go to 2:1 and then 2:31 going to 3:1 and then 3:89 going to 90 and then 3:121 (which is displayed only as "121") going to 4:1, etc.? You seem to not have considered that my lone measure 90 falls in the middle of the piece, in section 3 of a piece with 7 measure number regions. > But I would certainly have no problem with what you are asking for being > a program option so you could use it as you think suits you best. Why > would you not want to accord me (and the others who have no problem with > it) the same privilege? Because making it an option does not address the underlying usability issue. You claim you like the feature because it allows navigation to unique measure numbers without specifying the region. I think that's a good thing, too. But it is completely orthagonal to the original issue, the *display* of the measure number. -- 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] Measure number regions
David W. Fenton wrote: [snip] > I don't think it should be a program option -- making things user > settings does not take away the basic disorganized thinking that > leads to implementing it in that way. > So now we have to do things your way? At least if you want to be able to do things your way let those of who can't understand your inability to know that your measure 91 is in the 3rd region of the piece you are working on continue to work as we like. Why should things change just for you? If you want to go to measure 91, you simply type 91 in the box and the program will jump to that measure. Why should you want to have to type 3: in addition, since there is only one measure 91 in your work? The program knows where to go to find it, even if you don't. I, for one, like the way it is implemented and have no confusion working with it. But I would certainly have no problem with what you are asking for being a program option so you could use it as you think suits you best. Why would you not want to accord me (and the others who have no problem with it) the same privilege? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
On 26 Sep 2002 at 14:56, Mark D. Lew wrote: > At 1:12 PM 09/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > > >I don't see any utility at all in omitting the section number for > >measures that fall within a measure number region. > > Well, if your entire piece is numbered normally, then every measure falls > within a measure number region. > > I think the "utility" is the idea that some newbie will see "1:2" and go > "Huh? what does that mean?" The "2" alone is far less likely to confuse, > so the program is designed to avoid the double number as much as possible. Well, if there's only one region, show no region number. If there is more than one region, *show* the region number, always. I just don't see the utility in knowing that I am looking at measure numbers that are unique across regions. Oops, just thought of something -- non-everlapping numbers. I guess that's what you meant. So, if there's no overlap of *any* numbers, show them without the region. If there's any overlap of numbers, show the region. I just can't imagine a reason, other than ease of programming to allow for the non-overlapping numbering, that would justify not showing the region number in the case of a file with multiple regions with the same numbers. > Anyway, I think it must be extremely easy to offer it as a program option > to always display the region number with the measure number. Then everyone > could be happy. Make it a feature request. This is the kind of thing that most users, who are not as ornery as me, would simply not worry about and just say, "ho hum -- that's the way it is" and not try to figure out why. But to me, it's just messy and inconvenient. I don't think it should be a program option -- making things user settings does not take away the basic disorganized thinking that leads to implementing it in that way. -- 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] Measure number regions
At 1:12 PM 09/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: >I don't see any utility at all in omitting the section number for >measures that fall within a measure number region. Well, if your entire piece is numbered normally, then every measure falls within a measure number region. I think the "utility" is the idea that some newbie will see "1:2" and go "Huh? what does that mean?" The "2" alone is far less likely to confuse, so the program is designed to avoid the double number as much as possible. Anyway, I think it must be extremely easy to offer it as a program option to always display the region number with the measure number. Then everyone could be happy. Make it a feature request. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Measure number regions
Finale only shows the ":" qualifier if there is an ambiguity (where regions overlap). Randy > -Original Message- > From: Tobias Giesen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 9:28 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Finale] Measure number regions > > > Hi, > > you're right, I confused page & measure numbers. > > If you're positive that your measure number regions don't overlap, I > guess that's just slightly erratic behavior of Finale. > > Cheers, > Tobias > > ___ > 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] Measure number regions
On 26 Sep 2002 at 9:44, Jari Williamsson wrote: > David W. Fenton writes: > > > To me, Finale assumes wrong -- I *don't* know that at all, because > > who has time to keep track of how many measures there are in each > > section? Who cares? Of what use is that information? > > You don't need to keep track of the numbers of measures in each section. > Finale will not display the region number when there are no ambiguities > where the displayed measure number is. But you can still _enter_ the > region number, even when Finale will not display it in the box for the > specific measure. Or you can enter the physical measure number using > the '#' character. But the information about which section I'm in is useful as a display. Users of my programs would kill me if I displayed something different to them than what they had to enter to *get* to that place, or if what displayed was different (even if equivalent) from what they entered to get there. I don't see any utility at all in omitting the section number for measures that fall within a measure number region. -- 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] Measure number regions
David W. Fenton writes: > To me, Finale assumes wrong -- I *don't* know that at all, because > who has time to keep track of how many measures there are in each > section? Who cares? Of what use is that information? You don't need to keep track of the numbers of measures in each section. Finale will not display the region number when there are no ambiguities where the displayed measure number is. But you can still _enter_ the region number, even when Finale will not display it in the box for the specific measure. Or you can enter the physical measure number using the '#' character. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ICQ #: 78036563 ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure number regions
On 25 Sep 2002 at 22:26, David H. Bailey wrote: > Finale only displays the region number if there are more than one region > with the same measure numbers in them. Thank you. It is true that there are no other sections of that length in the piece. But it *is* very confusing to me. [] > In your example, apparently in region 1 or 2 (or both) there are also > measures 1-90, but region 3 is the only region with measures 91 and > higher. Finale assumes you know that, so it doesn't remind you which > region you are in, since with measure 91 you can't possibly be in any > other region. To me, Finale assumes wrong -- I *don't* know that at all, because who has time to keep track of how many measures there are in each section? Who cares? Of what use is that information? I think it would be more straightforward for the region number to be displayed, as long as one is within a defined region. -- 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] Measure number regions
Finale only displays the region number if there are more than one region with the same measure numbers in them. For instance, if your region 1 has measure numbers 1-20, and your region 2 has measures 1-25, then Finale will display 1:1 or 2:1 and 1:2 or 2:2 all the way up through 1:20 and 2:20, but beginning with 2:21, there is no need to show the region because there isn't any other measure number 21 so it assumes you are smart enough to realize that this must be region 2. In your example, apparently in region 1 or 2 (or both) there are also measures 1-90, but region 3 is the only region with measures 91 and higher. Finale assumes you know that, so it doesn't remind you which region you are in, since with measure 91 you can't possibly be in any other region. David W. Fenton wrote: > I have a slight problem, more annoying than anything else, with > measure number regions in a file. For whatever reason, the display of > the measure number in the lower left of the Finale status bar stops > showing the region in region 3 after measure 90, despite the fact > that the region extends and 40 measures or so. If I type in 3:100, it > goes to the right place, but it just doesn't display things properly. > > Would anyone have an idea why? I did start out this file with 3 parts > with measure number regions, and then inserted two new parts and two > new regions. Would that have something to do with it, even though the > measure numbers do display entirely correctly? > -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Measure number regions
Hi, you're right, I confused page & measure numbers. If you're positive that your measure number regions don't overlap, I guess that's just slightly erratic behavior of Finale. Cheers, Tobias ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Measure number regions
On 26 Sep 2002 at 1:55, Tobias Giesen wrote: > > but it just doesn't display things properly. > > Display where? . . . In the measure textbox in the lower left of the Finale status bar, as I said in my original post. Obviously, that means scroll view, of course. If I start in measure 3:1, and then go one screen at a time to the right, the measure number continues to appear correctly, 3:10, 3:19, 3:27, etc., until I pass measure measure 89. That is, if I got to 3:80, and then move one measure to the right, the text box now says "90" instead of the more useful "3:90." > . . . If on the document pages, then the "Frame Attributes" of > the page text blocks are responsible. Eh? On pages where do measure numbers appear that would include the section number? -- 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] Measure number regions
> but it just doesn't display things properly. Display where? If on the document pages, then the "Frame Attributes" of the page text blocks are responsible. Cheers, Tobias ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
