Re: [Finale] Ties
Hi Jane, Experiment and see what you think is appropriate; you'll probably choose a value higher than your default document's standard one. Cheers, Klaas de Jong > From: Jane Frasier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 15:29:53 -0600 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Finale] Ties > > Do you have a suggestion for what a good setting for that would be? > > Jane > > On Sep 6, 2004, at 1:28 PM, Klaas de Jong wrote: > >> And: forgot to mention this: options/doc. opt./music spacing/minimum >> distance between tied notes... >> cheers. >> kdj >> >>> From: Klaas de Jong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 20:44:18 +0200 >>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Subject: Re: [Finale] Ties >>> >>> Hello Jane, >>> >>> I would make the measures a bit larger, apart from: document/tie >>> options, >>> mass edit/change ties and/or special tools/tie tool. >>> From: Jane Frasier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:19:14 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Finale] Ties Thanks for the ideas. The first suggestion about music spacing options didn't make any difference. I tried a few things with the tie options but didn't get any better results. Here are links to a couple examples. If anyone has any ideas I would appreciate it. http://janefrasier.com/misc/example1.pdf and http://janefrasier.com/misc/example2.pdf. Thanks. Jane On Sep 3, 2004, at 10:46 PM, Mark D Lew wrote: > > On Sep 3, 2004, at 7:26 PM, Jane Frasier wrote: > >> I am using Finale 2004 on Mac, OS 10.3.5. It seems like ties in >> the >> piece I am working on look awful. If I have chord of 3 notes tied, >> the middle tie is way too narrow. Also if a chord with 4 notes, >> with >> the interval of a second in the middle, the middle ties are >> misplaced. Has any one else seen this? Is there a cure? > > For the middle tie being too short, the setting you need to change > is > under Music Spacing Options (Options > Document Settings > Music > Spacing Options*. Change the value for "Minimum Distance Between > Notes with Ties" to something larger. The tie is going to squeeze > itself into whatever space there is, but this value makes sure that > when the music is spaced it leaves enough room for a longer tie. > > The rest of the settings you want are under Options > Document > Settings > Tie Options*. I've been using my own Tie Option settings > for so long that I don't even remember what values are set in the > default templates, but I vaguely recall being dissatisfied with > them. > > I'm not sure what you mean by the middle ties being misplaced. If > you're unhappy with the choices of over vs under, try a different > selection under Tie Direction > Chords. The three options are three > different algorithms for determining up or down for the ties in the > middle of the chord. Perhaps the rule you consider correct is not > the > same one you have selected. > > Lots of other tie settings you twiddle with there. Even when you > get > the settings you like best, there will still be cases where you have > to adjust them manually to get it just right. > > mdl > > * I'm on Fin Mac 2k2s. The menu locations may be a little different > in > whatever version you're on, but the same panels will be there > somewhere. > > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale >>> >>> ___ >>> Finale mailing list >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale >> >> ___ >> Finale mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale >> > > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: Spacing problem WinFin2k3
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 16:37:39 Michael Withers wrote: I'd be very grateful if anyone can find the time to take a quick look at this spacing example: http://www.michaelwithers.f2s.com/SpacingTest.gif I guess we're all fairly used to some of Finale's quirks in spacing accidentals in layers, but I'm at a loss to know what is causing the two problems in this example. In bar 4, the Layer 2 Bb is touching the second note in Layer 1. I would have expected the spacing algorithm to add some space there. The Layer 2 spacing in bar 5 is simply dreadful, and I cannot see what is causing it. The file was clean, and there are no extra layers or hidden layers. Is this just my system or can anyone else replicate it? (I've tried it on two PCs and it's exactly the same on each). If it's a genuine spacing problem in Finale, can anyone suggest a workaround that will provide a satisfactory spacing without the need to hand-tweak every occurrence? --- I'm on WinFin2k3a and, no, it's not your system. My attempt to write this example replicated the same spacing. Nasty. Regards, Rudi vB. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Spacing problem WinFin2k3
Many thanks to all who responded to my spacing problem. In a way I'm reassured that it isn't just me that has this problem - but concerned that something as ordinary as this can still produce such ugly results. The main answer seems to be to avoid having chords in layer 2. Re-doing the same bar with only a single note on the first beat in later 2 as Christopher Smith suggested puts the spacing exactly where it ought to be - many thanks. Maybe I'll have to upgrade after all! As always, the help provided by the members of this list is amazing! Many thanks. Michael Withers -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Klaas de Jong Sent: 06 September 2004 21:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Finale] Spacing problem WinFin2k3 Hello Michael, You should experiment with the values in: options/doc.options/music spacing/spacing widths. I could replicate your results in finmac2k3, when the the bottom button was activated and the reference value was 1024; making this smaller, 512 gave an acceptable result and also choosing the upper button in this dialog window was o.k. Apparently the values of these options work against an automatic broadening of your example measures in 6/8 time. Making the measures larger, making more room for everything, also works. hope this helps, klaas de jong. > From: "Michael Withers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 16:37:39 +0100 > To: "Finale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Finale] Spacing problem WinFin2k3 > > Dear list experts, > > I'd be very grateful if anyone can find the time to take a quick look > at this spacing example: > > http://www.michaelwithers.f2s.com/SpacingTest.gif > > I guess we're all fairly used to some of Finale's quirks in spacing > accidentals in layers, but I'm at a loss to know what is causing the > two problems in this example. > > In bar 4, the Layer 2 Bb is touching the second note in Layer 1. I > would have expected the spacing algorithm to add some space there. > > The Layer 2 spacing in bar 5 is simply dreadful, and I cannot see what > is causing it. The file was clean, and there are no extra layers or > hidden layers. > > Is this just my system or can anyone else replicate it? (I've tried it > on two PCs and it's exactly the same on each). If it's a genuine > spacing problem in Finale, can anyone suggest a workaround that will > provide a satisfactory spacing without the need to hand-tweak every > occurrence? > > Very grateful for any help. > > Thanks > > Michael Withers > > > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] new 2005 copying behavior
Hi folks, I received this reply form Ryan at macsupport today. It seems this is not a bug, but is rather a new behavior that requires using a different method for copying things to the clipboard. There's a reason for it, having to do with the transportability of staff lists. I can deal with this this way, and I suspect Lon can too. FYI: This is correct. Finale 2005 now copies Measure-Attached Expressions when copying to the clipboard and choosing "Replace Entries". This gives you the ability to copy and paste parts to other documents and maintain the Staff List assignments. If you wish to copy music without copying Measure-Attached Expressions, hold down the Shift key, go to the Edit menu, and choose "Copy and Filter...". Uncheck "Expressions and SmartShapes" and click Ok. This will still copy Note-Attached Expressions and other items attached to the entries. Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] new 2005 copying behavior
There's a piece of information left out of Ryan's description of the new method (see below). Ryan wrote: This is correct. Finale 2005 now copies Measure-Attached Expressions when copying to the clipboard and choosing "Replace Entries". This gives you the ability to copy and paste parts to other documents and maintain the Staff List assignments. If you wish to copy music without copying Measure-Attached Expressions, hold down the Shift key, go to the Edit menu, and choose "Copy and Filter...". Uncheck "Expressions and SmartShapes" and click Ok. This will still copy Note-Attached Expressions and other items attached to the entries. Me Again: The "Copy and Filter" dialog combines entries and measure attached Smart Shapes, so hairpins need to be left behind in the document you are using as a template. That means you cannot simply highlight the part with the Mass Mover and hit "clear". You must select "Clear Entries - All," leaving behind your hairpins and hoping that their placement will match the position of the notes when the new "Filtered" entries are inserted. If someone can explain the advantages of transportable staff lists (which this new behavior is designed to allow), perhaps I'll feel better about the difficulties of using this, to me, overly fussy method. I think it will slow down personal working habits that I had developed into a pretty slick method for dealing with certain repetitive layout issues. Anyone else think this is was something "not broke" that didn't need fixing? Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] new 2005 copying behavior
The loss of staff lists when copying to another document was a *huge* shortcoming. I was able to mitigate it considerably with the Mass Copy plugin. Without mitigation, though, the target document became an unsightly mess of expressions that did not belong on the staff. What happened was that all expressions copied to the target doc were converted to "show on all staves". Makemusic absolutely needed to fix the problem for moving expressions between documents. I can't comment on the impact of their "fix" to copying within a document. That wasn't particularly broken before, so perhaps they shouldn't have "fixed" it. > -Original Message- > From: Chuck Israels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > If someone can explain the advantages of transportable staff lists > (which this new behavior is designed to allow), perhaps I'll feel > better about the difficulties of using this, to me, overly fussy > method. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] new 2005 copying behavior
On Sep 7, 2004, at 9:10 AM, Robert Patterson wrote: The loss of staff lists when copying to another document was a *huge* shortcoming. I was able to mitigate it considerably with the Mass Copy plugin. Without mitigation, though, the target document became an unsightly mess of expressions that did not belong on the staff. What happened was that all expressions copied to the target doc were converted to "show on all staves". OK, I see that as a problem, but the "fix" is now making exactly that happen when you use what, to me, was a quite practical and "ordinary" method of copying and pasting of entries from one part into a template made from a similar part. So it is fixed in a place that didn't affect me (I acknowledge and respect the fact that it did affect others). Now it is (sort of) broken in a way that does affect me. Makemusic absolutely needed to fix the problem for moving expressions between documents. I can't comment on the impact of their "fix" to copying within a document. That wasn't particularly broken before, so perhaps they shouldn't have "fixed" it. I don't know if it is considered to be copying "within" a document when you are taking entries from one part of a score or extracted part and copying it into a separately extracted part "template." It doesn't seem to be "within" a document to my way of thinking, and the avoidance of the described shortcoming (above) creates the shortcoming you describe in this situation. This is irritating to me, and probably will prove equally annoying to anyone else who commonly uses this method to make multiple parts where the players have similar musical material but different pitches. Chuck -Original Message- From: Chuck Israels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If someone can explain the advantages of transportable staff lists (which this new behavior is designed to allow), perhaps I'll feel better about the difficulties of using this, to me, overly fussy method. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Enharmonic ties
Reviving a month-old topic: I can't cite any specific publications, but it seems to me that I've seen enharmonic ties handed in a way that hasn't been described yet in this thread. It might be objectionable on musicological purity grounds, but I think it's clearer for sightreading than any alternative yet mentioned, and it automatically solves the curved-tie problem. Using the example of an A#-to-Bb tie, the second note is expressed as a diminished second, both A# and Bb. The A# is the target of the tie, so the tie is flat as usual. One of the notes, I can't remember which, is reduced to cue-note size and in parentheses. The horizontal clutter of this approach dictates that it be used only for slow-moving passages, and never in dense chords. But it leaves no question that the player should maintain the same pitch, while also indicating the new harmonic context of that pitch. -- David Larrick, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://note8.com/ ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] icons
Listers, this is a minor, minor complaint about finale mac 05. I've been using Finale since the eighties, and the first incarnations. And I love it. But these old eyes aren't what they used to be, and the icons in 2005... those slick little, actually those slick BIG button icons are SO fancy, so hip, so obnoxious that I can't read the bloody things. Their plain old black and white chart used to be far superior in my opinion. These new buttons actually remind me of Encore (echhh!) and drive me nuts. And even though I have a pretty big, clear, brand new monitor, they take up too damned much space on the screen. I need them there, for the way I work, but is there any way to make them less...um... just LESS? And easier to identify for those of us with tired and ancient eyes? Linda Worsley ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] icons
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:00:15 -0700, Linda Worsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I need them there, for the way I work, but is there any way to make > them less...um... just LESS? And easier to identify for those of us > with tired and ancient eyes? You're talking about the icons on the toolbar buttons, right? You can change their appearance via Program Options > Pallettes and Backgrounds. There's a "Traditional" pallette style that looks pretty much like the tool set from Finale 2002; it's smaller than the others, too. You might want to check out the other available styles, too: I like "Cool Black" the best. -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Acrobat/Preview
The files themselves open fine in Preview, but need Acrobat if they to be are accessed through Finale, or if you want the cross-file links to work. David Froom > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:00:18 -0500 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Finale Digest, Vol 14, Issue 7 > > It's just that the Finale help files aren't compatible with Preview, > which is unfortunate, because it means I can't get rid of Adobe Reader > entirely. So I set *only* the Finale help files to open with Adobe > Acrobat 5.0 (the last usable version) -- everything else still opens > with Preview. > > - Darcy ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Spacing problem WinFin2k3
On Sep 7, 2004, at 2:11 AM, Michael Withers wrote: The main answer seems to be to avoid having chords in layer 2. Re-doing the same bar with only a single note on the first beat in later 2 as Christopher Smith suggested puts the spacing exactly where it ought to be - many thanks. Maybe I'll have to upgrade after all! Has this behavior changed in newer versions? I hadn't heard that. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Stem direction
To the wisdom of the list, FinWin 2004b. Full score for anthem with instrumental accompaniment. Question regards handling stems in the wind parts: Flutes 1 and 2, Clarinets 1 and 2, Horns 1 and 2. In each case 1 and 2 share the same staff. At the moment I have set two stems in opposing directions throughout in each staff. Using one stem where rhythms are identical is less busy and seems to offer added open space between staves. For each pair the rhythm is the same, except for several short rhythmically independent moments. Does common practice call for one stem for areas of identical rhythm, and opposing stems where rhythms do not match, or should I leave it as it is with opposing stems throughout? Hope this is clearly stated. Many thanks for your guidance and insight. Ken ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Stem direction
D. Keneth Fowler wrote: To the wisdom of the list, FinWin 2004b. Full score for anthem with instrumental accompaniment. Question regards handling stems in the wind parts: Flutes 1 and 2, Clarinets 1 and 2, Horns 1 and 2. In each case 1 and 2 share the same staff. At the moment I have set two stems in opposing directions throughout in each staff. Using one stem where rhythms are identical is less busy and seems to offer added open space between staves. For each pair the rhythm is the same, except for several short rhythmically independent moments. Does common practice call for one stem for areas of identical rhythm, and opposing stems where rhythms do not match, or should I leave it as it is with opposing stems throughout? My immediate reaction was to reply that split stems are typically used throughout. Luckily I looked through a few scores, and found free alteration of the kind you're describing. What seems to be common practise is to keep consistency within each individual bar, ie if just a couple of notes need split stems, then the whole bar acquires them. As a footnote, my personal preference is for separate staves for each part. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Stem direction
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:59:42 -0400, D. Keneth Fowler wrote: > Using one stem where rhythms are identical is less busy and seems to offer > added open space between staves. For each pair the rhythm is the same, > except for several short rhythmically independent moments. Does common > practice call for one stem for areas of identical rhythm, and opposing > stems where rhythms do not match, or should I leave it as it is with > opposing stems throughout? I always do as you suggest (same stem where possible, split stems where necessary) in both editing and engraving. Gardner Read suggests the same on page 342 of "Music Notation." However, I have established a few rules for myself regarding this practice. Firstly, I *never* include both joined and split stems in the same measure. If split stems are required only on beats 3 and 4, I will still split the stems for the entire bar. Secondly, I will *do my best* not to jump back and forth indiscriminately between split and joined stems. For example, if a staff generally has joined stems, and measures 33 and 35 both require split stems, I will split the stems in measure 34 as well to avoid changing styles four times in a row. This, of course, is my own system; feel free to disagree and/or modify to suit yourself, the piece, and the client (though not necessarily in that order). Oh, and as a side note: Vocal staves should never share stems (Stone, Music Notation in the Twentieth Century, p. 165). -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Stem direction
Oh, and as a side note: Vocal staves should never share stems (Stone, Music Notation in the Twentieth Century, p. 165). I wish this was also common practice for divisi string parts, to clearly distinguish them from double stops. Alas, it isn't the case, and things get played wrongly as a result. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Stem direction
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:15:44 +0100, Owain Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Oh, and as a side note: Vocal staves should never share stems (Stone, > > Music Notation in the Twentieth Century, p. 165). > > I wish this was also common practice for divisi string parts, to clearly > distinguish them from double stops. Alas, it isn't the case, and things > get played wrongly as a result. According to Stone, multiple notes are always to be played divisi, and there should be a square bracket preceding them if they are to be played as a double stop. Prolonged passages of multiple notes should be marked either "non div." or "div." to indicate the desired style. There seems to be a clear way of notating any possible outcome; perhaps this method is not held to very widely among composers? Or if it is, is it possible that string players themselves are not well-versed with the convention? Of course, Stone's book deals mainly with Twentieth-Century convention, and may not be applicable to every piece that is encountered. -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Stem direction
Brad Beyenhof wrote: On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:15:44 +0100, Owain Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Oh, and as a side note: Vocal staves should never share stems (Stone, Music Notation in the Twentieth Century, p. 165). I wish this was also common practice for divisi string parts, to clearly distinguish them from double stops. Alas, it isn't the case, and things get played wrongly as a result. According to Stone, multiple notes are always to be played divisi, and there should be a square bracket preceding them if they are to be played as a double stop. Prolonged passages of multiple notes should be marked either "non div." or "div." to indicate the desired style. There seems to be a clear way of notating any possible outcome; perhaps this method is not held to very widely among composers? Or if it is, is it possible that string players themselves are not well-versed with the convention? Of course, Stone's book deals mainly with Twentieth-Century convention, and may not be applicable to every piece that is encountered. That method is certainly unambiguous - but square-bracketing double stops is often horribly messy. And I very much dislike the idea that divisi should be seen as the 'default' method. In any case, there is no such convention - it seems that Stone is choosing one method as his prefered recommendation. Glancing through a Stravinsky score at random, some violin double stops are both scquare-bracketed and marked 'non div.', while others have neither. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] new 2005 copying behavior
On Sep 7, 2004, at 8:17 AM, Chuck Israels wrote: There's a piece of information left out of Ryan's description of the new method (see below). Ryan wrote: This is correct. Finale 2005 now copies Measure-Attached Expressions when copying to the clipboard and choosing "Replace Entries". This gives you the ability to copy and paste parts to other documents and maintain the Staff List assignments. If you wish to copy music without copying Measure-Attached Expressions, hold down the Shift key, go to the Edit menu, and choose "Copy and Filter...". Uncheck "Expressions and SmartShapes" and click Ok. This will still copy Note-Attached Expressions and other items attached to the entries. Me Again: The "Copy and Filter" dialog combines entries and measure attached Smart Shapes, so hairpins need to be left behind in the document you are using as a template. That means you cannot simply highlight the part with the Mass Mover and hit "clear". You must select "Clear Entries - All," leaving behind your hairpins and hoping that their placement will match the position of the notes when the new "Filtered" entries are inserted. If someone can explain the advantages of transportable staff lists (which this new behavior is designed to allow), perhaps I'll feel better about the difficulties of using this, to me, overly fussy method. I think it will slow down personal working habits that I had developed into a pretty slick method for dealing with certain repetitive layout issues. Anyone else think this is was something "not broke" that didn't need fixing? Chuck Yeah, there's something broke alright. Let me explain: I'm currently working on some small group charts, working from my template that contains all the staves I could possibly need, but don't always use--trumpet, alto, tenor, trombone, master rhythm, bass and drums. Most charts only require tenor and master rhythm parts, which is the case for the one I'm currently working on. In the score, I created a master rhythm part that was actually the right-hand piano part (for playback purposes), which I turned into chords and slashes using Staff Styles. When I extracted the part, the slashes were unevenly spaced, because of the note spacing in each measure. I don't really understand why that should be, but that's another issue. So I redid the part, replacing the right-hand piano part with quarter rests, so the slashes would space evenly. As an experiment, I copied and pasted the new MR part back into my score, using the method described by Ryan. When I re-extracted the part, I got two each of: "Fast Swing." "quarter=180," letter B, letter E, "To Coda," and the Coda sign. I had filtered out measure expressions and repeats, but they still got duplicated, although some of the measure expressions weren't duplicated (letters A, C and D). I'm not sure why that happened, as all measure expressions were set the same way in the score: a staff list that has the expression showing up in the top staff only in the score, and in every extracted part. So it seems that there's also some inconsistency in how this new "feature" "works." I personally don't find this helpful in the least, but a real nuisance instead. Lon Price, Los Angeles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Stem direction
At 12:29 PM 9/7/04 -0700, Brad Beyenhof wrote: >There seems to be a clear way of notating any possible outcome; >perhaps this method is not held to very widely among composers? Or if >it is, is it possible that string players themselves are not >well-versed with the convention? If my recent piece is any guide, they will change it from double-stops to divisi or divisi to double-stops anyway, just to be perverse. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] new 2005 copying behavior
On Sep 7, 2004, at 1:16 PM, Lon Price wrote: Yeah, there's something broke alright. Let me explain: I'm currently working on some small group charts, working from my template that contains all the staves I could possibly need, but don't always use--trumpet, alto, tenor, trombone, master rhythm, bass and drums. Most charts only require tenor and master rhythm parts, which is the case for the one I'm currently working on. In the score, I created a master rhythm part that was actually the right-hand piano part (for playback purposes), which I turned into chords and slashes using Staff Styles. When I extracted the part, the slashes were unevenly spaced, because of the note spacing in each measure. I don't really understand why that should be, but that's another issue. So I redid the part, replacing the right-hand piano part with quarter rests, so the slashes would space evenly. Lon, in my experience, you always have to have rests (or hidden quarter notes) behind the slashes in order to get even spacing. It's what Finale uses to judge the spacing. This is nothing new and, IMO, should be your default method. As an experiment, I copied and pasted the new MR part back into my score, using the method described by Ryan. When I re-extracted the part, I got two each of: "Fast Swing." "quarter=180," letter B, letter E, "To Coda," and the Coda sign. I had filtered out measure expressions and repeats, but they still got duplicated, although some of the measure expressions weren't duplicated (letters A, C and D). I'm not sure why that happened, as all measure expressions were set the same way in the score: a staff list that has the expression showing up in the top staff only in the score, and in every extracted part. So it seems that there's also some inconsistency in how this new "feature" "works." I personally don't find this helpful in the least, but a real nuisance instead. I can't get a real handle on this either. I don't understand it and find it perverse and complicated where it used to be simple and direct. Please communicate w/the support people on this. Calling them may bring up some other solutions. If you figure out anything, please continue to let me (and others) know. Thank you, Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] new 2005 copying behavior
Lon - I have no idea if this might be relevant, but several versions ago I found that converting my old template file to use in a newer version of Finale caused several weird and unexpected problems, notably one very peculiar bug concerning Percussion Maps :o). Like you, I couldn't figure out the logic of it. In the end, creating a new template from scratch using the updated version of the program was the only way to cure it. As a long shot - have you tried the same copying procedure with brand new files created from scratch with 2005? Peter ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Stem direction
Owain and Brad, Thank you for your replies. You both have been immensely helpful. There is no divisi in the strings and separate staves for SATB easily fit on the page. I never thought to check Gardner Read. And the book was right there on the shelf in plain sight. Where would I be without this list!? Ken Fowler A great piece is always better than any performance of it - André Previn at an award ceremony in his honor ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Stem direction
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 12:29 PM 9/7/04 -0700, Brad Beyenhof wrote: There seems to be a clear way of notating any possible outcome; perhaps this method is not held to very widely among composers? Or if it is, is it possible that string players themselves are not well-versed with the convention? If my recent piece is any guide, they will change it from double-stops to divisi or divisi to double-stops anyway, just to be perverse. Dennis Yes they will - a pet peeve of mine is string players' belief that they can overrule a composer's explicit indications at will. Quite how somebody interprets "sul G" as "sul G until you don't like it very much, or until you get above 4th position, and then do whatever you want" is beyond me. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Playback Controls - measure text box
I have a score with 6 staffs / system, optimize. In Playback controls has a text box with 1:1 befor begin playback and while playback is underway, it change to show my measure: 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 . I don't now what is first number 1, which never change ? Usually text box show only a number ( measure). finale 2004, WinXp Dragos ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Playback Controls - measure text box
On Sep 7, 2004, at 7:18 PM, Dragos Oltean wrote: I have a score with 6 staffs / system, optimize. In Playback controls has a text box with 1:1 befor begin playback and while playback is underway, it change to show my measure: 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 . I don't now what is first number 1, which never change ? Usually text box show only a number ( measure). finale 2004, WinXp The first one is the region number. You have the option to show either the REAL measure number, or the one set in the Measure Number region. If you have never added more regions, then the first number will never change. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Stem direction
To reopen an old can of worms, orchestral string sections divide nearly everything, even passages marked as double stops, to get maximum sound and best intonation. So, generally, don't sweat the notation to differentiate. The players don't. Even chamber groups will do this. I once observed a group rehearsing the Brahms Clarinet Quintet taking out double stops that were doubled. (That is, if both violins had the same two notes written, they would each play one of the two notes.) (And please remember - don't shoot the messenger!) Raymond Horton Bass Trombonist Louisville Orchestra Owain Sutton wrote: Oh, and as a side note: Vocal staves should never share stems (Stone, Music Notation in the Twentieth Century, p. 165). Brad Beyenhof wrote: I wish this was also common practice for divisi string parts, to clearly distinguish them from double stops. Alas, it isn't the case, and things get played wrongly as a result. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Stem direction
On Sep 7, 2004, at 11:39 AM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: Oh, and as a side note: Vocal staves should never share stems (Stone, Music Notation in the Twentieth Century, p. 165). Don't know what Stone means by "vocal staves", but if you're writing SATB on two staves in "hymnbook" style, sharing stems is common so long as the parts are homophonic. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Anthems (OT)
At 10:18 PM -0400 8/28/04, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 28 Aug 2004, at 10:05 PM, Crystal Premo wrote: and no one asked what I'd choose for our anthem), << What *would* you choose? No one asked me either, and I'm not even an American, but I somehow got to choose my, uh, host country's national anthem, it would be (hands down) the Ray Charles version of "America The Beautiful." Sorry, but "versions" don't count. "Performers" don't count. "Recordings" don't count. An anthem that represents the people has to COME from the people, and has to be singable by The People. It can't be imposed by a state legislature, like a state insect! Witness our miserable state of Virginia, which (legislatively) rejected James Bland's "Carry Me Back to Old Virginia" because his 19th century lyrics could offend some people. A state legislative committee was charged to find a new State Song. They have failed miserably. But they also established, in the process, how many bad songs are written by how many untalented people! Jimmy Dean (the sausage guy with one--count them: one--hit to his credit, lobbied like an actual politician to get his mediocre song adopted. One of the most popular submissions was a hit song from the early 1980s which could not remotely be sung by your average audience in anything like the version that was recorded. Just another terrible instance of the morphing of our culture from a muscially productive one to a musically spectator one. Sad. John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, VA 24061-0240 VOX (540) 231-8411; FAX (540) 231-5034 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Stem direction
Raymond Horton wrote: To reopen an old can of worms, orchestral string sections divide nearly everything, even passages marked as double stops, to get maximum sound and best intonation. So, generally, don't sweat the notation to differentiate. The players don't. I've never ever come across this - I wonder if there's an America/Europe difference in standard practice? ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
