Re: [Finale] system height issue

[Jari Williamsson]

Whittall, Geoff wrote:
 It seems that at time, Finale 2004 will not let me reduce the height of 
a system, even if there is lots of "head space". If I try to drag the 
system margin box in the top left corner, down, Finale just pops it back 
up again. Is there a way around this? 
Haven't seen this behaviour, but have you tested to use "Edit System 
Margin" instead and change the "Top" value there?

Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Fin2005b

[Jari Williamsson]

Simon Troup wrote:
The guitar tab copy and paste remains TOTALLY broken - I still
> can't believe such a ridiculous bug made it through beta let
alone not get incorporated in the 2nd maintenance release,
even though it's confirmed in the bug database.
Are you talking about the problem when TAB to TAB copies aren't copied 
to the identical strings with mass copy? If that's the case, I don't see 
your point.

Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] FinMac2005b Bug

[Jari Williamsson]

A-NO-NE Music wrote:
When selecting Text Block Handle, the font name and size (probably style,
too) does not updated in the menu after change.
Has always worked like that.
But I would say it's a UI flaw that it's possible to select the text 
attributes when only the text handle is selected.

Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] FinMac2005b Bug

[A-NO-NE Music]

Can anyone confirm this?
FinMac2005b/OSX10.3.7, 

When selecting Text Block Handle, the font name and size (probably style,
too) does not updated in the menu after change.

Steps to reproduce.
1) Select a text block by its handle
2) Change its size and/or font
3) Open the Font menu to see what is selected

The old size/font is still selected so you won't be able to verify what
you changed to.  I don't remember it was like this ever before.

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Darcy James Argue]

Self-refuting arguments, Exhibit A:
On 06 Feb 2005, at 6:33 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Feb 2005 at 16:11, Andrew Stiller wrote:

You are making the common error of confusing the function of a
behavior with the subjective experience of the one behaving. . . .
Birds don't make or appreciate music.
And...
. . . If you
accept that birdsong is a conscious act, then birds do it because they
enjoy doing so. . . .
Ah, so you have the brain of a bird, and that's how you know this?
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Darcy James Argue]

On 06 Feb 2005, at 6:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
There is nothing important in music that comes from science.
That's like saying "There is nothing important in basketball that comes 
from physics."

On the one hand, Lebron Lames doesn't actually need to know the first 
thing about Isaac Newton or his theories in order to reliably put the 
ball in the hoop.

On the other hand...
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] Lyrics problem ps

[Crystal Premo]

Are they present in the Edit Lyrics window?

Crystal Premo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: [Finale] Lyrics problem ps
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:25:07 EST
The problem of the hyphens entered by Finale only occurs in page view - the
hyphens are not there in scroll view.  They are there when the page is
printed.
Thanks again,
Lawrence
"þaes  ofereode - þisses swa  maeg"
http://lawrenceyates.co.uk

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Fin2005b

[Simon Troup]

> Would you mind giving us a little more detail about what you mean
> when you say, "..occasional problem when pasting to older files"?

It's all here ...
http://downloads.makemusic.com/finale/2005/NewInFinale2005b.pdf

I'm glad the big bug Jari mentions is fixed. The guitar tab copy and paste 
remains TOTALLY broken - I still can't believe such a ridiculous bug made it 
through beta let alone not get incorporated in the 2nd maintenance release, 
even though it's confirmed in the bug database.

Bahh!
-- 
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

-
Finale IRC channel
server: irc.chatspike.net
port: 6667
channel: #Finale
-

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Owain Sutton]

David W. Fenton wrote:
To those who assert that music is a purely cultural phenomenon, I
would point out that this idea has been put to the test, quite
rigorously, by John Cage, who insisted that any sounds or combination
of sounds could be construed as music if one merely had the will to do
so, and spent 40 years of his life composing music on precisely that
principle. Was this music as successful (moving, exciting, attractive)
as other musics? Could other music, composed on the same principle, be
more successful?
No, and no.

You have scientific proof that Cage was wrong?
I think there's been a thorough misunderstanding of Cage, here (and not 
on David's part) - we are indoctrinated into tonality virtually from 
birth.  We are surrounded by one type of music, to the almost complete 
exclusion of others.  What we go through from our earliest experiences 
parallels what Cage describes.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Feb 2005 at 16:11, Andrew Stiller wrote:

> Jerry:
> 
> >   Birds don't make music -- they use sound for function.
> 
> Music has no function?

Logical misdirection.

Sounds can have function without being music.

Animals don't make music, though they do make sounds.

> >Bird song is not produced for joy but for vigilance.
> 
> You are making the common error of confusing the function of a 
> behavior with the subjective experience of the one behaving. . . .

Birds don't make or appreciate music.

> . . . If you
> accept that birdsong is a conscious act, then birds do it because they
> enjoy doing so. . . .

Ah, so you have the brain of a bird, and that's how you know this?

Remarkable what you've accomplished in life with such a small amount 
of gray matter, then.

> . . . This has the *effect* of attracting a mate or warning
> off rivals or alarming the flock or alerting them to a food supply
> (far more than mere vigilance, NB), but the bird does not consciously
> sing *for those purposes.* . . .

Nor does the bird sing for esthetic purposes (i.e., music).

It's like the difference between prose and poetry.

> . . . I don't think that any thoughtful person can deny any longer that huge
> chunks of human behavior (conventional wisdom says ~50%) are
> biologically determined. The question of whether, and to what extent,
> musical response is to be considered part of our biological heritage
> clearly has a number of folks on this list quite exercised--to the
> point of constructing straw men and intuition pumps.

Biology may dictate possibilities. It does not control anything 
important in the level of musical expression. It may explain certain 
basic underlying uncomplicated aspects of reaction to psycho-acoustic 
phenomena, but it doesn't explain the history of Western music, where 
there has been a constant march *away* from using merely the "pure" 
aspects of the acoustics.

If the pentatonic scale were important in the way that the biological 
determinists seem to want it to be, then why would any culture create 
music that is nothing but pentatonic?

> To those who assert that music is a purely cultural phenomenon, I
> would point out that this idea has been put to the test, quite
> rigorously, by John Cage, who insisted that any sounds or combination
> of sounds could be construed as music if one merely had the will to do
> so, and spent 40 years of his life composing music on precisely that
> principle. Was this music as successful (moving, exciting, attractive)
> as other musics? Could other music, composed on the same principle, be
> more successful?
> 
> No, and no.

You have scientific proof that Cage was wrong?

I actually don't think much of Cage's work as music per se, but he 
had a lot of good ideas.

Music in all its *significant* aspects is a culturally constructed 
phenomena. All the psycho-acoustic underpinnings are of no importance 
whatsoever to actual musical expression.

Claiming otherwise is a debasement of both genetics and of music.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Lyrics problem ps

[YATESLAWRENCE]

The problem of the hyphens entered by Finale only occurs in page view - the 
hyphens are not there in scroll view.  They are there when the page is 
printed.
 
Thanks again,
 
Lawrence
 
"þaes 
ofereode - þisses swa 
maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.uk
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Feb 2005 at 15:26, Andrew Stiller wrote:

> >And when you eliminate the concept of dissonance in the musical text
> >(i.e., the dissonances are never resolved), --
> David W. Fenton
> 
> I'm sorry, but this literally makes no sense as formulated, and there
> have clearly been several logical steps omitted.
> 
> Let's do it this way: I deny what you say. Now prove it.

That's a standard debating tactic when you have no argument: to 
pretend that someone *else* has introduced the conflict to the 
discussion.

*You* started this, not me. You prove *your* assertion that, in 
effect, consonance can exist in music in which "dissonance" is never 
resolved.

I've no interest in playing your childish debating games.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Feb 2005 at 13:17, Don B. Robertson wrote:

> Owain Sutton wrote:
> This is a good explanation of the situation - unfortunately it's
> beyond the distance that even musicians are prepared to go to question
> whether their understanding of music is inate or acquired.  I do find
> is scary, that people can react so vociferously against any suggestion
> that the major/minor tonality that *feels* natural to them is actually
> not something inherent or natural.  They wouldn't react the same way
> if I told them that English wasn't the 'natural' language, or that
> base-10 wasn't 'natural' maths (assuming we got that far in the maths
> class :p ) 
>But I find the defensiveness that surrounds western tonality quite
> scary, and very puzzling.
> 
> Me: The Western musical scale, be it tempered, pathagorian, mean or
> whatever, closely follows a VERY natural phenomena, and similarities
> in musical scales can be found in all major musical cultures. . . .

Scales are not music. Scales are not tonality.

Many radically different pieces are built from the same collection of 
basic notes, so pointing out that many musical traditions may boil 
down to a reduction of notes that happens to be the same says more 
about the "boiling down" process than it does about the content of 
the music that is being represented by the scale.

> . . . The
> octave and the overtone series IS what music and sound is all about.

I'll bet Mozart and Bach and Beethoven and any number of non-Western 
musical geniuses (whose names I don't know) would vehemently disagree 
with you. These things are the *least* important part of *music*.

> . . . Schoenberg's idea was
> simply a product of his own personal agenda; his own studies in
> harmonic theory should have shown him that. . . .

Do you know Schoenberg's theories of tonality? They are actually 
pretty sound.

But he was trying to invent a different kind of tonality, 12-tone 
tonality. Thus, whatever psycho-acoustic underpinnings traditional 
tonality might have were irrelevant to his endeavor.

> . . . I think it is time we
> start to realize that there is something besides culture and tradition
> involved in musical harmony/concordance. It's called science. . . 

There is nothing important in music that comes from science.

> . . . If
> people are defensive, what is so scary about that? If that is scarry,
> then perhaps it could be considered equally scary that people have
> swallowed Shoenberg's theory of the equality of intervals.

I think those who continually harp on the importance of acoustics as 
"fundamental" to music are missing all the music. As Schoenberg in 
effect said of Schencker's analysis "but all my favorite parts are in 
the little notes, the ones that get left out."

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Phil Daley]

At 04:11 PM 2/6/2005, Andrew Stiller wrote:
 
>To those who assert that music is a purely cultural phenomenon, I

>would point out that this idea has been put to the test, quite 
>rigorously, by John Cage, who insisted that any sounds or combination

>of sounds could be construed as music if one merely had the will to

>do so, and spent 40 years of his life composing music on precisely

>that principle. Was this music as successful (moving, exciting, 

>attractive) as other musics? Could other music, composed on the same

>principle, be more successful?
>
>No, and no.
Absolutely.  I actually did a graduate report on Cage's music and
came up with the same conclusion.

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


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Fin2005b

[JohnBlane]

In a message dated 2/6/05 4:00:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



Fin2005b is available. Main fix is probably the occasional problem when
pasting to older files.



Thanks for this info, Jari. Would you mind giving us a little more detail about what you mean when you say, "..occasional problem when pasting to older files"? I was hoping for a fix involving staff lists and such. Having just tried it, this, apparently, is not what you meant.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] lyrics problem

[YATESLAWRENCE]

I am engraving a piece for choir and strings.  I entered the lyrics 
directly into the score.  At the end the piece Finale seems to have 
inserted word extension dashes through the next syllables. It only does this on 
one movement of the piece and only in the last 8 bars.
 
I am using Finale 2002b for Windows
 
Any ideas please?
 
Thanks,
 
Lawrence
 
"þaes 
ofereode - þisses swa 
maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.uk
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] system height issue

[Whittall, Geoff]

Title: system height issue






 It seems that at time, Finale 2004 will not let me reduce the height of a system, even if there is lots of "head space". If I try to drag the system margin box in the top left corner, down, Finale just pops it back up again. Is there a way around this? Is the only way to fool the system to go into scroll view, and drag the staff box upwards on the screen, to be able to change the apparent overhead height of the system?
Thanks in advance,
Geoff





___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] more on PDFs

[Jari Williamsson]

d. collins wrote:
Even if that were the case (which I don't think - I think the two main 
differences between TT and PS fonts are the types of curves and the 
hinting system), why would one be better for laser and the other for 
inkjet?
Because inkjets generally aren't as accurate on high resolutions? Speed 
issues?

Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Chuck Israels]

Of course, Andrew.  I do know that.  I must not have couched my hypothetical question in the best way.

What I meant to consider may be better expressed this way: since the human hardware is subject to the same principles of physics that govern the resonant behavior of those materials that produce musical sound, might we not be more inclined to respond in an analogous way to stimuli which excite our hardware/software receivers.  In other words, if the stimulating vibrations and resonances "line up" in ways that reinforce each other, might we not be "programmed" to respond to those stimuli differently than those that set up "interfering" resonances?  I don't, for a moment, discount the role of cultural acclimatization in changing and expanding human response to outside stimuli.  I am just trying to consider whether or not there might be something to be gained by examining the fact that our hardware too, is constrained by observable physical behavior.

Beyond that - the whole consonance/dissonance issue, and its effect on the perception of musical drama and movement through time is a big "question" and is clearly subject to cultural biases.  There are those who perceive Phillip Glass's music as moving and dramatic in some way.  I don't, but that's because of deeply ingrained "Western" expectations.  I like my expectations, and believe in them for me.  Others clearly differ.

I speak and hear a certain kind of musical language - with a fairly broad range of possibilities, but I don't respond equally to all music.  I don't know many who claim that they do.  A lot of that is cultural, but I wonder about the long term durability of systems which eschew commonly perceived musical responses - those which purposely avoid them.  In my experience, they miss things which have a kind of "normal" (to me) communicative power, and are therefore in some way less effective.  Strict 12 tone music seems to me to be an intellectual construction that discounts (purposefully, I understand) some basic elements of the way I perceive and process music.  It's a choice, but it is one that does not arise from the same impulses and social processes (loosely controlled, or perhaps even uncontrolled consensus) that create and govern verbal language.  Esperanto is a similarly controlled language environment.  Where are the Esperanto poets?

Anyway - my 2c.

Chuck


On Feb 6, 2005, at 1:19 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:

Maybe an interesting hypothetical question: does our "hardware" (inner ear bones etc.) react to outside stimuli that bear some relationship to the physical laws that govern the resonant behavior of the bones themselves?  Just an idle thought.  I'm in no position to explore this.

Chuck


The auditory ossicles transmit incoming sounds, more or less unmodified, from the eardrum to the cochlea. The cochlea is lined with hair cells of different sizes, neatly lined up in size order. Hair cells of different sizes vibrate in response to different frequencies. When a cell is triggered, it sends an impulse up the auditory branch of the VIII cranial nerve, which impulse is eventually processed by the brain. Everything we have been arguing about here has to do with what the brain does--the rest is simple physics.

-- 
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press

http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
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
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Fin2005b

[Jari Williamsson]

Hello!
Fin2005b is available. Main fix is probably the occasional problem when 
pasting to older files.

(Btw, it contains more HP fixes than what's listed in the readme file.)
Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] more on PDFs

[Jari Williamsson]

d. collins wrote:
I was also surprised by this recommendation, and have yet to understand 
what's behind it.
Can't it be that the PS versions has more control points in the glyphs 
than the TT versions? I don't have a PS font editor, so I can't check...

Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Andrew Stiller]

  Why was musical education considered (apparently) so important for 
the girls and young women who studied with Vivaldi at the Ospedali? 
One presumes that since orphans don't have dowries, they were being 
prepared for employment.  Was music a positive factor in that? 
Never have seen anything written about it.

John
This is discussed at length in the wonderful new book _The Birth of 
the Orchestra_ by Neal Zaslaw and John Spitzer.

1) They weren't all orphans. The ospedali were such prestigious 
institutions that many girls from intact families were sent 
there--and paid tuition. A girl could also get in by audition. The 
ospedali, that is to say, were more conservatories than orphanages.

2) There were more ospedali in Venice than just Vivaldi's. I think 
there were four? Six? Anyway, some of them admitted boys as well as 
girls--but only the girls got music training!

3) There were similar institutions in other Italian cities as well, 
but those of Venice were the most famous.

4) The ospedali were a major tourist attraction, and the Venetians knew it.
5) Part of the attraction was sexual. Jokes about Tony Vivaldi and 
his All Girl Orchestra are not far off the mark.

6) The girls were definitely *not* being prepared for employment. 
Women orchestra musicians were extremely rare throughout Europe at 
the time, and would have enjoyed about the same reputation as 
actresses--i.e., little above prostitutes. I believe graduates were 
provided with dowries by the ospedale--they certainly were considered 
eminently marriageable.

--
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Andrew Stiller]

Maybe an interesting hypothetical question: does our "hardware" 
(inner ear bones etc.) react to outside stimuli that bear some 
relationship to the physical laws that govern the resonant behavior 
of the bones themselves?  Just an idle thought.  I'm in no position 
to explore this.

Chuck
The auditory ossicles transmit incoming sounds, more or less 
unmodified, from the eardrum to the cochlea. The cochlea is lined 
with hair cells of different sizes, neatly lined up in size order. 
Hair cells of different sizes vibrate in response to different 
frequencies. When a cell is triggered, it sends an impulse up the 
auditory branch of the VIII cranial nerve, which impulse is 
eventually processed by the brain. Everything we have been arguing 
about here has to do with what the brain does--the rest is simple 
physics.

--
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Andrew Stiller]

Jerry:
  Birds don't make music -- they use sound for function.
Music has no function?
Bird song is not produced for joy but for vigilance.
You are making the common error of confusing the function of a 
behavior with the subjective experience of the one behaving. If you 
accept that birdsong is a conscious act, then birds do it because 
they enjoy doing so. This has the *effect* of attracting a mate or 
warning off rivals or alarming the flock or alerting them to a food 
supply (far more than mere vigilance, NB), but the bird does not 
consciously sing *for those purposes.* Similarly, a cat doesn't chase 
mice because it needs to kill one for food--it chases them because 
(as any cat owner will have observed) cats have a passion for chasing 
(and grabbing, and mauling) small, erratically moving objects 
regardless of edibility. The passion was naturally selected in them, 
because the most enthusiastic hunters eat best and are thererfore 
more likely to survive and reproduce--but the cat doesn't know that!

I don't think that any thoughtful person can deny any longer that 
huge chunks of human behavior (conventional wisdom says ~50%) are 
biologically determined. The question of whether, and to what extent, 
musical response is to be considered part of our biological heritage 
clearly has a number of folks on this list quite exercised--to the 
point of constructing straw men and intuition pumps.

To those who assert that music is a purely cultural phenomenon, I 
would point out that this idea has been put to the test, quite 
rigorously, by John Cage, who insisted that any sounds or combination 
of sounds could be construed as music if one merely had the will to 
do so, and spent 40 years of his life composing music on precisely 
that principle. Was this music as successful (moving, exciting, 
attractive) as other musics? Could other music, composed on the same 
principle, be more successful?

No, and no.
--
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Andrew Stiller]

And when you eliminate the concept of dissonance in the musical text
(i.e., the dissonances are never resolved),
--
David W. Fenton
I'm sorry, but this literally makes no sense as formulated, and there 
have clearly been several logical steps omitted.

Let's do it this way: I deny what you say. Now prove it.
--
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] more on PDFs

[dhbailey]

d. collins wrote:
Lee Actor écrit:
Apparently not, which surprised me.  Sure enough, I'm using the TrueType
version of Maestro in Finale.  I don't suppose this is an option for you?

Well, the TT version of Maestro is an option (though Finale recommends 
using the PS version with laser printers, and the TT version with 
inkjets: but does anyone follow this recommendation?), but all my other 
fonts are PS, and I wouldn't want to give them up. I can't imagine using 
Times New Roman or Arial...

Dennis
I don't recall if you are on Mac or Windows, but Windows comes with 
Times New Roman and Arial as truetype fonts.

I'm not sure why they would recommend PS fonts over TT fonts for laser 
printers - not all laser printers come with PS capabilities.

Personally, I have tried the PS fonts and the TT fonts on my laser 
printer (which does have PS capability) and I can't see a difference in 
output.  The printer is the HP Laserjet 2100M.  Both font types look 
terrific.

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

RE: [Finale] more on PDFs

[Lee Actor]

> I tried pdfFactory with the default settings, and indeed it gives regular
> staff lines and good looking PDFs. But it doesn't seem to support
> PS fonts
> (type 1), so there's no music on the said staff lines, and no lyrics, and
> no title: staff lines, slurs, stems only. Too bad. Do you know if it's
> possible to use PS fonts with PDFF?
>
> Dennis
>

Apparently not, which surprised me.  Sure enough, I'm using the TrueType
version of Maestro in Finale.  I don't suppose this is an option for you?

-Lee


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Don B. Robertson]

Owain Sutton wrote:
This is a good explanation of the situation - unfortunately it's beyond 
the distance that even musicians are prepared to go to question whether 
their understanding of music is inate or acquired.  I do find is scary, 
that people can react so vociferously against any suggestion that the 
major/minor tonality that *feels* natural to them is actually not 
something inherent or natural.  They wouldn't react the same way if I 
told them that English wasn't the 'natural' language, or that base-10 
wasn't 'natural' maths (assuming we got that far in the maths class :p ) 
   But I find the defensiveness that surrounds western tonality quite 
scary, and very puzzling.

Me: The Western musical scale, be it tempered, pathagorian, mean or
whatever, closely follows a VERY natural phenomena, and similarities in
musical scales can be found in all major musical cultures. The octave and
the overtone series IS what music and sound is all about. The interval of an
octave contains an AC-like "duty cycle" that begins with a pitch and ends
with the other pitch an octave higher. The tri-tone separates the + part of
the cycle from the -. As a second interval moves away from a unision the
tension between the second interval the the orignal fixed interval decreases
and a harmonic concordance is found around the third or sixth. Schoenberg's
idea was simply a product of his own personal agenda; his own studies in
harmonic theory should have shown him that. I think it is time we start to
realize that there is something besides culture and tradition involved in
musical harmony/concordance. It's called science. If people are defensive,
what is so scary about that? If that is scarry, then perhaps it could be
considered equally scary that people have swallowed Shoenberg's theory of
the equality of intervals.

Don Robertson
www.dovesong.com


<>___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT Schoenberg

[Dean M. Estabrook]

Dunno ... I have not heard that one.
Dean
On Feb 5, 2005, at 9:29 PM, David McKay wrote:
huperchuensis
I know what public school music has done for me. I have witnessed the 
journey it has provided  my daughter and hundreds of other students I 
have been fortunate enough to teach. I am both amazed and outraged that 
there are those who would knowingly disenfranchise generations of 
humans by excising the practice and inculcation of an entire heritage  
from  our children’s curricula.

Dean M. Estabrook
Retired Church Musician
Composer, Arranger
Adjudicator
Amateur Golfer

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Darcy James Argue]

On 06 Feb 2005, at 11:34 AM, Gerald Berg wrote:
Well I believe by now  Chomsky is seen as being wrong -- to learn 
language requires a teacher or at least something to mimic early in 
life otherwise it won't happen at all.
No, Jerry, that is absolute nonsense.  I'm afraid you couldn't possibly 
be more wrong.

Moreover, Chomsky is to modern linguistics what Darwin is to modern 
biology.  You can't do linguistics without Chomsky.

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

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff - is music inate?

[Raymond Horton]

Going back a few messages on this thread, there absolutely is a 
correlation between the overtone series and the scale - but it is the 
pentatonic scale.  The pentatonic scale developed separately, 
independently, on each continent, obviously from the overtone series.  
From the middle of  the overtone series - partials 5,6, (6 generally 
adapted downward) 7,8,9,10 you have the pentatonic scale that is the 
basis for folk music nearly everywhere.  The major triad developing from 
7, 9, 10 of same is obvious, the minor less so, but it is there.  (The 
minor triad is found in 6,7,9, with the 6th degree adaptation downward.)

The pentatonic scale is worldwide, but the six and seven-note, etc. 
scales vary tremendously.

Raymond Horton
Gerald Berg wrote:
Well I believe by now  Chomsky is seen as being wrong -- to learn 
language requires a teacher or at least something to mimic early in 
life otherwise it won't happen at all.  But I'm no expert merely a 
mimic on the subject.

Our tempered tonality is fake  -- it is entirely abstract - it has no 
basis in external reality.  Birds don't make music -- they use sound 
for function.  Bird song is not produced for joy but for vigilance.
What I find extraordinary is that tonality can be seen as plain or 
routine.  That particular sound patterns elicit emotion is entirely 
cultural.  But this is what makes it so wonderful and useful.
As a composer I can predict a listener's (albeit a perfect listener) 
state along a continuum.  This folds a tremendous amount of expressive 
power into tonality.  Without these cultural reference points there is 
no way to predict the state of your listener and no way to bring them 
back once flown except by reverting to a 'cultural reference' of some 
sort.  There isn't a vigilant quota to music.  It is not a prerequisite.
I am reminded of the other topic that makes it's yearly round (maybe 
this was in O-list most recently) of high art over the entertainment 
arts.  While often bemoaning the lack of artist merit in most pop 
confections one rarely hears about the lack of entertainment in art 
(except by virtue of an absence of audience which paradoxically 
engenders the topic in the first place).  What's with this?  Po-mo 
Puritanism?

Flying solo here -- our brain is earth's most perfect mimicry 
machine.  If we see it we will mimic it -- from flying birds to 
mini-suns.  Eventually, we will find our way to a relationship with 
it.  Our humanity comes from recognizing that there is no moral force 
to our mimicry and that's why we are fearful.

Jerry
On 5-Feb-05, at 7:54 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
That's a straw man, Owain.  Of course English isn't "natural" (read: 
innate), but the common fundamental grammar (Chomsky's "universal 
grammar") that makes human language possible in the first place is 
clearly innate, and, like the man says, universal.

No one is arguing that the Western system of functional harmony is 
"natural" or innate.  Only that there might well be some innateness 
to more general concepts of "consonance" and "dissonance."

- Darcy
-
David W. Fenton wrote:
And when you eliminate the concept of dissonance in the musical 
text (i.e., the dissonances are never resolved), then you no longer 
have a distinction between the two types of intervals beyond the 
culturally defined meanings the listeners bring to the table.
On 05 Feb 2005, at 7:20 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:

This is a good explanation of the situation - unfortunately it's 
beyond the distance that even musicians are prepared to go to 
question whether their understanding of music is inate or acquired.  
I do find is scary, that people can react so vociferously against 
any suggestion that the major/minor tonality that *feels* natural to 
them is actually not something inherent or natural.  They wouldn't 
react the same way if I told them that English wasn't the 'natural' 
language, or that base-10 wasn't 'natural' maths (assuming we got 
that far in the maths class :p )   But I find the defensiveness that 
surrounds western tonality quite scary, and very puzzling.
___

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Gerald Berg]

John
Technically I don't believe this is correct anymore.  In fact we share 
genomes with living coral reef that are not shared with lab rats 
cousins -- no explanation as of yet.
But what it does seem to imply ( I mimicry) is that it is less a 
function of genomes than the program with which they unfurl themselves. 
 Proteins are our future.

Jerry
On 6-Feb-05, at 10:29 AM, John Howell wrote:
What is it that the human genome project seems to have found?  That 
the genetic difference between us and lab rats amounts to something 
like only 2% of the total genome?  Well, that 2% sure does make 
possible a lot of stuff, including the appreciation of barbershop 
harmony and the ability to discuss atonality, consonance, and the 
whichness of the why.

John
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Gerald Berg]

Well I believe by now  Chomsky is seen as being wrong -- to learn 
language requires a teacher or at least something to mimic early in 
life otherwise it won't happen at all.  But I'm no expert merely a 
mimic on the subject.

Our tempered tonality is fake  -- it is entirely abstract - it has no 
basis in external reality.  Birds don't make music -- they use sound 
for function.  Bird song is not produced for joy but for vigilance.
What I find extraordinary is that tonality can be seen as plain or 
routine.  That particular sound patterns elicit emotion is entirely 
cultural.  But this is what makes it so wonderful and useful.
As a composer I can predict a listener's (albeit a perfect listener) 
state along a continuum.  This folds a tremendous amount of expressive 
power into tonality.  Without these cultural reference points there is 
no way to predict the state of your listener and no way to bring them 
back once flown except by reverting to a 'cultural reference' of some 
sort.  There isn't a vigilant quota to music.  It is not a 
prerequisite.
I am reminded of the other topic that makes it's yearly round (maybe 
this was in O-list most recently) of high art over the entertainment 
arts.  While often bemoaning the lack of artist merit in most pop 
confections one rarely hears about the lack of entertainment in art 
(except by virtue of an absence of audience which paradoxically 
engenders the topic in the first place).  What's with this?  Po-mo 
Puritanism?

Flying solo here -- our brain is earth's most perfect mimicry machine.  
If we see it we will mimic it -- from flying birds to mini-suns.  
Eventually, we will find our way to a relationship with it.  Our 
humanity comes from recognizing that there is no moral force to our 
mimicry and that's why we are fearful.

Jerry

On 5-Feb-05, at 7:54 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
That's a straw man, Owain.  Of course English isn't "natural" (read: 
innate), but the common fundamental grammar (Chomsky's "universal 
grammar") that makes human language possible in the first place is 
clearly innate, and, like the man says, universal.

No one is arguing that the Western system of functional harmony is 
"natural" or innate.  Only that there might well be some innateness to 
more general concepts of "consonance" and "dissonance."

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 05 Feb 2005, at 7:20 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:

David W. Fenton wrote:
And when you eliminate the concept of dissonance in the musical text 
(i.e., the dissonances are never resolved), then you no longer have 
a distinction between the two types of intervals beyond the 
culturally defined meanings the listeners bring to the table.
This is a good explanation of the situation - unfortunately it's 
beyond the distance that even musicians are prepared to go to 
question whether their understanding of music is inate or acquired.  
I do find is scary, that people can react so vociferously against any 
suggestion that the major/minor tonality that *feels* natural to them 
is actually not something inherent or natural.  They wouldn't react 
the same way if I told them that English wasn't the 'natural' 
language, or that base-10 wasn't 'natural' maths (assuming we got 
that far in the maths class :p )   But I find the defensiveness that 
surrounds western tonality quite scary, and very puzzling.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Gerald Berg
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[John Howell]

At 7:11 AM -0500 2/6/05, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Feb 5, 2005, at 8:34 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hi Chuck,
Well, clearly, we cannot perceive frequencies beyond those that our 
hardware is capable of conveying to our brains.  Other animals with 
different hardware perceive a different range of frequencies.  Some 
animals (e.g., bats) even have auditory perceptual abilities we can 
only replicate with the aid of advanced technology.

Depends on what you mean by "percieve". Bass frequencies below what 
we are supposed to be able to hear raise our blood pressure, pulse, 
and adrenaline levels, kind of like a scary movie would.

I don't know if that's quite what you meant, though.
- Darcy
He might be referring to the studies that found that hearing perfect 
intervals raised endorphin levels by a miniscule amount in the 
subjects, which supports the theory that we are "hard-wired" to 
perceive music in a certain way.
Hey, Darcy and Christopher, thanks for turning this opinion-fest into 
a useful discussion!  A number of years ago a quotation was going 
around from a couple of Temple University professors to the effect 
that the normal human brain IS hard-wired for music, although the 
KIND of music is culturally determined.  Certainly is true for 
language.  These questions regarding perception have been studied for 
over a century, and the work of von Bekesy and others at Muppet Labs 
... oops, that should be Bell Labs ... in the first half of the 20th 
century showed how well basic research can be and has been applied to 
practical engineering.

I like the hardware/software analogy, although technically it should 
be wetware because it is constantly changing, and not just because 
the physical brain changes as a child grows.  The "software" really 
DOES change the wetware, and we call those changes "learning."  But 
the wetware either permits or does not permit us to do certain 
things.  The best example that comes to mind is absolute pitch.  I 
don't have the wetware designed for it, but I've known enough people 
who do to accept that it does exist, and some studies (badly 
controlled, unfortunately) associate it with a very specific part of 
the brain.  And high/low frequency perception probably falls unto the 
same category.

Traditional educational methodology assumes that we best learn by 
perfecting one thing at a time.  That definitely applies to the 
Suzuki approach to music, and to the teaching of foreign language 
through studying rules of grammar and memorizing lists of vocabulary 
words.  But that is not how the young human actually learns.  A baby 
is surrounded by sensory input, what the Gestalt psychologists would 
call a "rich" environment, but has (or develops) the ability to focus 
on specific things within that environment--the shifting 
foreground/background phenomenon--and learns at an awe-inspiring rate.

And there's also the fact of readiness periods, which have been 
linked to physical developments in the wetware.  A newborn does not 
have all the mylein sheathing (I take full credit for all 
misspellings of words I haven't seen or thought about for years!!) 
complete on all the nerves, and once that happens there are specific 
learning periods for language, music, and many other things during 
which the wetware is ready and able to learn at a truly amazing rate 
that will never, if those periods are missed, be possible as that 
child gets older.  Four-year-olds can learn to read easily, but not 
if there are no books in the home.  The buzz lately seems to be that 
the judgement functions of the wetware are not fully functional until 
something like age 20, which if true certainly explains teenagers!!

What is it that the human genome project seems to have found?  That 
the genetic difference between us and lab rats amounts to something 
like only 2% of the total genome?  Well, that 2% sure does make 
possible a lot of stuff, including the appreciation of barbershop 
harmony and the ability to discuss atonality, consonance, and the 
whichness of the why.

John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411  Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Title pages & Text block manager

[Jari Williamsson]

d. collins wrote:
My idea, to make things easier, was to insert all the elements into a 
unique text block, so I'd have only one block to copy. But I notice that 
the Text block manager doesn't seem to copy the attributes correctly if 
they are different inside one text block. (In my case, the composer's 
name is reduced for instance from 24 pt to 18 pt.) Am I doing something 
wrong?
No, there's currently a bug there when attributes are mixed in the text 
block (this bug was introduced when I tried to fix some 2004 text block 
issues).

For now, the workaround is to right-click on the text block in TBM and 
use "Copy to other document...", available in the 0.18 betas. This can 
copy the text block directly to other opened documents (without going 
though the TBM Clipboard).

Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Christopher Smith]

On Feb 5, 2005, at 8:34 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hi Chuck,
Well, clearly, we cannot perceive frequencies beyond those that our 
hardware is capable of conveying to our brains.  Other animals with 
different hardware perceive a different range of frequencies.  Some 
animals (e.g., bats) even have auditory perceptual abilities we can 
only replicate with the aid of advanced technology.

Depends on what you mean by "percieve". Bass frequencies below what we 
are supposed to be able to hear raise our blood pressure, pulse, and 
adrenaline levels, kind of like a scary movie would.


I don't know if that's quite what you meant, though.
- Darcy
He might be referring to the studies that found that hearing perfect 
intervals raised endorphin levels by a miniscule amount in the 
subjects, which supports the theory that we are "hard-wired" to 
perceive music in a certain way.

Christopher
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Garritan and other stuff

[Christopher Smith]

On Feb 5, 2005, at 8:15 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 05 Feb 2005, at 7:51 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
But there is more and more evidence pointing to a combination of 
nature and nurture, rather than just one of those things, to explain 
more and more of human culture.
Not to split hairs, but the whole nature vs. nurture thing is a crappy 
metaphor.  Hardware vs. software is actually much better.


 I bow to the superior analogy. 8-)
Christopher
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale