Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[A-NO-NE Music]

I wrote:

>Not to mention Apple modified AU API two days before Panther
>release,

Sorry, I meant CA, CoreAudio, that was the trouble maker at Panther
release.  But the spec mess Apple created was in fact AU, AudioUnit.

Too bad that AU spec finally got settled with Panther, and we all are in
the happy place now, which doesn't seems to last long.


-- 

- Hiro

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


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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[A-NO-NE Music]

Darcy James Argue / 2005/06/06 / 11:58 PM wrote:

>However, if you are right -- if, a year from now when the first 
>MacIntels ship, Rosetta still doesn't support MIDI, then that's cause 
>for serious concern.

You might want to take a look at this:

Appendix A has Rosseta spec.

Rosseta is not like Apple is trying to invent something like CoreAudio
or CoreMIDI.  They are doing this transcoder for easy transition.  My
point is that it doesn't look Rosseta is something under development.

On the other hand, anything when it comes to assembly, it can be really
messy.  Who knows when Apple finishes MacTel CoreMIDI.  Vendors won't be
able to do anything until Apple finishes it.

Remember AudioUnit?  Apple never finished solid spec till Panther. 
Emagic had to jump on it since they were bought out by Apple, ended up
with creating AU standard which didn't meet the Apple's AU spec.  A big
mess.  Not to mention Apple modified AU API two days before Panther
release, which was after FC GM build was passed QA.  That caused a lot
of problems to us, DAW users.

I am not complaining.  Tiger and my G5 Dual-2.5 can do quite amazing stuff :-)

-- 

- Hiro

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


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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[Darcy James Argue]

Hi Hiro,

Who knows for sure?  The Rosetta spec will no doubt evolve over time.  
But apparently, as it stands now, it won't support unique G4 or G5 
code, nor AltiVec.  And everyone seems to think Classic is hosed, 
big-time.


I recommend this MacWorld editorial for more info:

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2005/06/intel/index.php

However, if you are right -- if, a year from now when the first 
MacIntels ship, Rosetta still doesn't support MIDI, then that's cause 
for serious concern.


If MacIntels won't run Classic (and right now, there are strong hints 
that they won't) then we will need to start planning ahead, converting 
and proofing older Finale files, etc.


If MacIntels can't(/won't) support MIDI in Fin2004-2005-2006, then we 
have a big problem.


If it takes Coda three years after the MacIntel launch to release a 
version of Finale that runs natively on the new machines -- and 
meanwhile, MIDI on old versions of Finale is broken -- then we have an 
even bigger problem.


Mac users have already suffered through a situation where Coda released 
a version of Finale that did not run natively on any currently shipping 
Mac at the time of its release (Fin2003), followed -- a year and a half 
later -- by the embarrassingly slow and bug-ridden MacFin2004.  I don't 
know of any other actively-developed commercial app that took longer 
releasing a native OS X version than Finale.  Worse, MacFin2005 did 
virtually nothing to address the major performance issues that have 
plagued the OS X version of Finale since its absurdly delayed initial 
release.  We are lucky that hardware improvements make running Fin2005 
on a 1.42 GHz G4 *almost* as snappy as running Fin2000 on a 266 MHz G3. 
 (Unless, of course, you need to nudge lyrics, or anything like that.  
Then it's like using Fin3.0 on a Mac LCIII.)


By the end of 2007, all shipping Macs will be MacIntels.  So Coda have 
by Fin2008 *at the absolute latest* to get their act together.  I hope 
they snapped up a few of those MacIntel developer kits, because they 
had better get cracking on this NOW.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


On 06 Jun 2005, at 11:17 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:


Darcy James Argue / 2005/06/06 / 09:30 PM wrote:


PowerPC apps that have not been recompiled for Intel will run in an
emulation layer on Mactels [sigh, not AGAIN] -- called, in this case,
"Rosetta".  Steve has assured us that it's "nothing like Classic" and
will be "completely invisible to the user" and "fast (enough)," but
honestly, who knows whether MIDI will even work under Rosetta?



It will not.  Rosetta won't run to kext, which MIDI use.


--

- Hiro

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


___
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] OT - Apple move to Intel

[A-NO-NE Music]

Darcy James Argue / 2005/06/06 / 09:30 PM wrote:

>PowerPC apps that have not been recompiled for Intel will run in an 
>emulation layer on Mactels [sigh, not AGAIN] -- called, in this case, 
>"Rosetta".  Steve has assured us that it's "nothing like Classic" and 
>will be "completely invisible to the user" and "fast (enough)," but 
>honestly, who knows whether MIDI will even work under Rosetta?


It will not.  Rosetta won't run to kext, which MIDI use.


-- 

- Hiro

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


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

[Finale] More on .eps Export/Import into Word

[Neal Gittleman]

Hey...

A couple of weeks ago I posted a query about a strange response I was 
getting pasting .eps files from FinMac 2k5b into WordMac 2k4 documents 
-- specifically getting a descriptive box rather than the music.  Some 
more experience and some more work on the same project and I think I've 
got an accurate description of what's actually going on, though I'm not 
sure if it's a "feature" or a "bug".


The problem happens ONLY under these conditions
	1.  I've successfully exported/imported the .eps file and successfully 
pasted it into Word with no problem in the on-screen preview.
	2.  I've noticed a mistake in the .eps insert (it may not be good 
on-screen quality, but it's good enough for me to proof-read!) and 
deleted it from the Word file.
	3.  I've gone back, made the corrections, re-exported the .eps file 
(choosing to replace the existing .eps file)

4.  I've imported the corrected .eps file back into the Word file.

Then -- and only then -- I get the descriptive box on-screen instead of 
the .eps preview.


The "solution" seems to be to manually delete the old .eps file AND 
EMPTY THE TRASH before trying to import the corrected file.  (Slightly 
annoying, since the system seems to think that the trashed file is 
"still in use", so I have to quite Word in order to get the trashed 
file to really be trashed.)


I suppose that makes it a bug, but it's a bizarre kind of a bug, and 
I'm not even sure if it's a Finale bug or an OSX bug.  (It'll be 
interesting to see if it's still there when I install Tiger...)  
Anyway, it's a good incentive to be more careful the first time!


ng

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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[Eric Dussault]

Given the Finale for OS X initial fiasco, I am wondering if they send  
developer(s) to these developer's conference at all. I really hope  
that there's someone there to get what the mac team needs to avoid  
extremely frustrating experiences for customers, like the port to  
Finale 2004 has been.
I don't want to hear anymore that MakeMusic is a small company that  
doesn't have the resources to get the work done. I guess that if  
there is no MM developer there, that nobody will tell it to us (MM  
folks on the list) for obvious reasons. On the other hand if they do,  
it can't hurt to just say it. Let's see.
But I want to stay optimistic and hope that everything will just be  
fine...


Éric Dussault

Le 05-06-06 à 21:30, Darcy James Argue a écrit :

I strongly suspect Finale OS X is still made with Metroworks, but  
perhaps someone from Coda would like to chime in?  [Given the  
complete fiasco of Coda's initial move to OS X, a little more  
transparency and honesty -- not to mention timeliness -- from Coda  
this time around would be most welcome.]



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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[Darcy James Argue]

Hey all,

Wow, that's a shocker.  It's been rumored for so long, but I never 
thought it would actually happen.  It's too bad, as I really like the 
technology behind the G5, but IBM just haven't been able to follow 
through on what initially seemed like a promising processor design.  I 
don't think Apple had much choice, though -- G5's were supposed to hit 
3 GHz a year ago and they are still stalled at 2.7.


I just got through watching the WWDC Keynote.  According to Steve, the 
transition to native Intel builds will be trivial for Cocoa apps ("a 
matter of days"), somewhat more complicated for Carbon apps made with 
Xcode ("weeks"), and flat-out impossible for Carbon apps made with 
Metroworks -- these apps must be moved to Xcode first.  I gather that's 
not something you do overnight.


I strongly suspect Finale OS X is still made with Metroworks, but 
perhaps someone from Coda would like to chime in?  [Given the complete 
fiasco of Coda's initial move to OS X, a little more transparency and 
honesty -- not to mention timeliness -- from Coda this time around 
would be most welcome.]


PowerPC apps that have not been recompiled for Intel will run in an 
emulation layer on Mactels [sigh, not AGAIN] -- called, in this case, 
"Rosetta".  Steve has assured us that it's "nothing like Classic" and 
will be "completely invisible to the user" and "fast (enough)," but 
honestly, who knows whether MIDI will even work under Rosetta?


In the long run, I suspect that this, like the move to OS X, will be 
good for Apple.  In fact, it's probably essential to its viability as a 
computer maker.  In the short run, I think we can only really be 
certain of one thing: that the transition to Intel Macs won't be 
anywhere near as seamless as Steve's keynote speech made it look.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


On 06 Jun 2005, at 2:28 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:

Of course since Steve Jobs ran his whole presentation on an OS X Intel 
box, and ran iPhoto, Safari, etc, etc, plus Adobe and other 
apps.


They are going to do the Fat binary thing again. I don't think it will 
be a problem as long as developers have been using the right tools. 
Hello Codamusic!!!


A-NO-NE Music wrote:


Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote:


Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple 
are

dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips.



Yup.  it's here:


But I really doubt Mac OSX is going to run on x86, not to mention bite
order differences besides RISC/CISC differences.





___
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] Expression positioning

[Chuck Israels]

Yes, the interface is identical (but isn't it the SECOND last one  
that does what you say?


Yes, I think that's what David meant.


I've never found a use for the last triangle.)





That may be the biggest mystery (for me) in my long experience with  
Finale!


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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[Eric Dannewitz]

Well, hopefully, MakeMusic has learned from their previous blunders, and 
has written Finale in something that would be easily ported


A-NO-NE Music wrote:


Darwin runs on x86 from day one.  Cocoa apps might be easily
recompiled.  The fact even MS game box as well as major game industry
users PowerPC, and Intel already announced x86 speed bump hit the wall,
all that suggest there may be something completely new coming.

The real question to us, Finale user, is that would MakeMusic! take a
long walk again, as did on OSX?

 




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

Re: [Finale] Expression positioning

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jun 2005 at 16:11, Christopher Smith wrote:

> On Jun 6, 2005, at 3:30 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> > I assume you have the same number of options with multiple triangles
> > that move the baseline in different contexts, as with lyrics, where
> > the last triangle moves the baseline for a single system in page
> > view?
> 
> Yes, the interface is identical (but isn't it the SECOND last one that
> does what you say? I've never found a use for the last triangle.)

You may be right -- I don't do lyrics often enough for that question 
to be something I can answer without trying it out. 

Doesn't the last triangle have an effect on the selected syllable?

> >> The drawback with this is that very low notes in the other staves
> >> will NOT have their dynamics automatically pushed down, as the
> >> default presently is. You will have to nudge or drag them manually.
> >
> > In most pieces, and in most staves, this would surely not be a
> > terrible problem. I foresee it as a moderate issue only with the
> > left hand of piano parts.
> 
> Depending on where you set your lower baseline, it is also a problem
> for clarinet, bass trombone, tuba, bassoon, and low trumpet parts. I
> like the auto avoidance myself, and would have no problem duplicating
> expressions and assigning the metatools to, say, the row of keys below
> the equivalents for the regular dynamics.

Well, as I said, I find the idea of duplicating 
expressions/articulations just for maintaining different default 
positioning definitions to be odious, as it leads to enormous long-
term maintenance problems for your libraries.

At least, for me.

Indeed, it's a situation that's very similar to something I posted 
about in an Access database newsgroup earlier today:

 One project I took over in 2000 had something like 60 or 70
 reports. I reduced that to 6 or 7 reports, because it was really
 just 6 or 7 identical reports tied to different data sets. This cost
 them a lot in development time, but in long-term maintenance it was
 a huge win, as, since that time, they would have added another 20*7
 reports if they'd continued doing it the old way, when all they do
 now is add a record to a data table in order to get the new set of
 reports. 

My proposal for sub-classing doesn't work exactly the same way, but 
it *does* have the same long-term maintenance benefit, as altering, 
say, the default velocity of a dynamic marking or the length of your 
staccato would be done in only one place instead of in all the 
multiple instances you've created to handle different situations.

This is not so much of a problem for expressions/articulations that 
have no effect on playback (such as bowing marks), but the UI for 
articulations, in particular, doesn't give much help to you with 
distinguishing them, unless there's been some change to the 
articulations dialog in 2004+ that is analogous to the addition of 
display descriptions for expressions.

-- 
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] OT - Apple move to Intel

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jun 2005 at 16:01, A-NO-NE Music wrote:

> Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 03:35 PM wrote:
> 
> >I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment
> >would be paid back by closer parallel development in future.
> 
> Hmmm, I don't know.  Can you name single app that makes user feel
> parallel dev benefits?  NI is obviously favor to Win.  I don't know
> about Finale.  I am doing one DAW beta testing that uses 8GB .dat
> file. The performance hit on Win is bad since it is encoded in Big
> Endian. 
> 
> I might have been dreaming but I just can't get away from thinking
> Finale wasn't this buggy before Win version was introduced :-(

Er, what?!??!

You'd be going back 15 years, as Finale came out on Windows before 
version 2.01, which is the first version of Finale I bought.

It was *very* difficult to use, as it was clearly a port from the Mac 
version, and had all sorts of assumptions about UI and behavior that 
were Mac-centric, and not in line with the expectations of a Windows 
user.

Of course, at that time, Mac OS was a much more mature and well-
designed GUI than Windows 3.0 (which is what WinFin 2.01 was designed 
for -- that was before TrueType was integrated into Windows, and non-
PostScript printing wasn't very good on Windows, though still decent 
in comparison to some of the other notation packages people were 
using, with the exception of the Cadillac of the time, Score).

Finale became a Windows program for me with the switch to Microsoft 
develompent tools made by Coda as part of their effort to create the 
32-bit version of Finale. That happened, so far as I remember, with 
WinFin97. At that point, the Mac version became the "port," if I'm 
remembering correctly what Randy Stokes told us.

But I believe Code did not make the same mistake Microsoft did with 
Word, and did not make the two programs identical -- they kept the 
Mac version Mac-like, and the Windows version Windows-like.

Coda seems to me to have made the transition from 16-bit Windows to 
32-bit Windows much more successfully than MakeMusic managed the 
transition from Mac OS to OS X. This may very well have been 
precisely because of the switch to MS development tools that made the 
Windows transition so easy (with the exception of MIDI, which was not 
successfully negotiated intil the second or third release of 32-bit 
Finale).

It may be that a Windows orientation in the code base complicated 
supporting OS X enormously. Or maybe it was just the requirements of 
maintaining a single codebase for two very different OS's that was 
the cause of the difficulties.

But it has only been recently that the Windows version of Finale was 
not a poor stepchild of the Mac version.

-- 
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] Expression positioning

[Christopher Smith]

On Jun 6, 2005, at 3:30 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


I assume you have the same number of options with multiple triangles
that move the baseline in different contexts, as with lyrics, where
the last triangle moves the baseline for a single system in page
view?




Yes, the interface is identical (but isn't it the SECOND last one that 
does what you say? I've never found a use for the last triangle.)




The drawback with this is that very low notes in the other staves will
NOT have their dynamics automatically pushed down, as the default
presently is. You will have to nudge or drag them manually.


In most pieces, and in most staves, this would surely not be a
terrible problem. I foresee it as a moderate issue only with the left
hand of piano parts.




Depending on where you set your lower baseline, it is also a problem 
for clarinet, bass trombone, tuba, bassoon, and low trumpet parts. I 
like the auto avoidance myself, and would have no problem duplicating 
expressions and assigning the metatools to, say, the row of keys below 
the equivalents for the regular dynamics.




Of course, don't the dynamics for a piano part go *between* the
staves, when the hands are not using independent dynamic levels?



Yep, so not a problem for you in many cases.

Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[A-NO-NE Music]

Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 03:35 PM wrote:

>I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment would
>be paid back by closer parallel development in future.

Hmmm, I don't know.  Can you name single app that makes user feel
parallel dev benefits?  NI is obviously favor to Win.  I don't know
about Finale.  I am doing one DAW beta testing that uses 8GB .dat file. 
The performance hit on Win is bad since it is encoded in Big Endian. 

I might have been dreaming but I just can't get away from thinking
Finale wasn't this buggy before Win version was introduced :-(

Ducking...

-- 

- Hiro

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


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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[dhbailey]

Simon Troup wrote:


The real question to us, Finale user, is that would MakeMusic! take a
long walk again, as did on OSX?



I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment would be paid 
back by closer parallel development in future.



That would assume that the problems MakeMusic had were with dealing with 
the Mac chips, not the OS programming.


Different OS, same chip, different programming hassles.  I'm not sure, 
given today's OS design which supposedly shields the software from the 
hardware or vice versa, whether two different OSs running on the same 
chip would make development any more similar or parallel.


Another fact that someone else pointed out is that we don't know if it 
was a stock Pentium chip the demo ran on, or a special one that Intel 
has developped for Mac use only.


Remember the 386 or was it the 486 where the math coprocessor link was 
cut on the less expensive version, but the chips were in fact identical? 
 But of course the programming couldn't be identical since the math 
coprocessor couldn't be accessed in the machines with the less expensive 
chip.


I wonder if Apple/Intel have some similar sort of 
not-quite-the-same-pentium design situation where the chip starts out 
the same but a simple tweak turns it into something that won't run 
Windows but which Apple knows how to get around so it will run OSX.


Otherwise possibly we can all look forward to running truly dual-boot 
machines and really having the ability to pick and choose which OS/App 
combination we want for whatever situation we choose.


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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jun 2005 at 20:35, Simon Troup wrote:

> > The real question to us, Finale user, is that would MakeMusic! take
> > a long walk again, as did on OSX?
> 
> I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment would
> be paid back by closer parallel development in future.

There will be no time savings at all, as Finale doesn't run on top of 
the hardware, but on top of the OS. Since the APIs for OS X and 
Windows are completely different, there will be absolutely no time 
savings in parallel development.

In fact, for most apps designed for the native OS X APIs, surely 
there will be very little in the way of changes needed for it to run 
on whatever Intel chip Apple chooses to put in its new Macs. Classic 
will be much more complicated, though, according to what I've read.

And keep in mind the last line of this article:

http://news.com.com/2100-7341_3-5733756.html

 After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller
 addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no
 plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That
 doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably
 will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that." 

 However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run
 Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow
 running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said. 

(here's a hint for posting News.com URLs -- cut out the title of the 
article and keep only the numeric part. The original URL looked like 
this:

http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel/2100-
7341_3-5733756.html?tag=nl )

-- 
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] OT - Apple move to Intel

[Simon Troup]

http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=28771&category=main

---

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed 
the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or 
support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from 
running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to 
preclude that." 

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on 
other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on 
anything other than an Apple Mac," he said. 

---

Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[Simon Troup]

> The real question to us, Finale user, is that would MakeMusic! take a
> long walk again, as did on OSX?

I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment would be paid 
back by closer parallel development in future.

Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[A-NO-NE Music]

Johannes Gebauer / 2005/06/06 / 02:36 PM wrote:

>Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs 
>was giving his keynote, publically.

Darwin runs on x86 from day one.  Cocoa apps might be easily
recompiled.  The fact even MS game box as well as major game industry
users PowerPC, and Intel already announced x86 speed bump hit the wall,
all that suggest there may be something completely new coming.

The real question to us, Finale user, is that would MakeMusic! take a
long walk again, as did on OSX?

-- 

- Hiro

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


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

Re: [Finale] Expression positioning

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jun 2005 at 15:04, Christopher Smith wrote:

> On Jun 6, 2005, at 2:23 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> > Either that, or you should be able to position the dynamics above or
> > below the staff. This seems especially so if, as I understand from
> > the description, the same UI for horizontal baseline positioning
> > that is found with lyrics is being re-used for expressions.
> 
> Close, except you have TWO baselines for expressions (above and
> below), and only one for each chorus/verse/section of lyrics.

I assume you have the same number of options with multiple triangles 
that move the baseline in different contexts, as with lyrics, where 
the last triangle moves the baseline for a single system in page 
view?

> > That's a good
> > thing, but it's *bad* that it works differently (i.e., you can't
> > drag the baseleline above the staff).
> >
> 
> You are mistaken here, you can drag the lower baseline above the
> staff, and the dynamic will go with it, but not if (as is the default
> definition) the dynamic is set to be on the below-the-staff baseline
> OR the entry, and it is a note-attached expression. . . .

I figured this out from further posts after I sent mine in.

> . . . This option is
> available and useful in order to prevent collisions with very low
> notes by ensuring that the dynamic will always be below the note. If
> it is set to be ONLY on the below-the-staff baseline, then you can
> drag the baseling wherever you wish and it will affect all items set
> to it.

And the only thing that you lose is the automatic collision 
avoidance? If it's still draggable, that means you'd only have to 
handle the very low exceptions, rather than needing to maintain two 
sets of expression definitions. 

To me, the time saved in positioning those exceptions (in most 
pieces) would not be worth the trouble of needing to maintain two 
sets of expression definitions (am I the only person who needs to 
constantly adjust expression/articulation definitions as new features 
are introduced in Finale, and as I learn more and more about how to 
get the most out of Finale?).

> A simple way to have dynamics ABOVE the staff for voices and BELOW the
> staff for instruments without having two different sets is this: you
> set the dynamics to vertically align to the BELOW the staff baseline,
> but NOT below the staff or entry. Then you drag the second arrow from
> the left above the choral staff. All the dynamics set to that baseline
> FOR THAT STAFF ONLY will follow, while the ones on the other staves
> will stay where the left-most arrow is positioned.

That sounds very good.

> The drawback with this is that very low notes in the other staves will
> NOT have their dynamics automatically pushed down, as the default
> presently is. You will have to nudge or drag them manually.

In most pieces, and in most staves, this would surely not be a 
terrible problem. I foresee it as a moderate issue only with the left 
hand of piano parts.

Of course, don't the dynamics for a piano part go *between* the 
staves, when the hands are not using independent dynamic levels?

-- 
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] OT - Apple move to Intel

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jun 2005 at 20:36, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

> Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs
> was giving his keynote, publically.

Well, it may have been an Intel chip on the motherboard of the 
machine running demos, but:

1. we don't know if it's a garden-variety Pentium, one of Intel's new 
dual-core Pentium D chips, which aren't yet available in any 
commercially available PCs.

2. we don't know what the motherboard was, which is crucial. It was 
surely not an Intel-based motherboard with legacy BIOS and so forth --
it was almost certainly an Apple motherboard with whatever adaptation 
is necessary to connect to a different CPU.

In short, this does *not* mean that we'll be able to buy OS X and 
install it on our PCs.

All it means is that there will be an Intel-manufactured chip at the 
heart of the boxes Apple sells, but the boxes themselves will still 
reflect Apple engineering at all levels, and not be at all 
interchangeable with, say, a Dell box with the same CPU.

That's the only possible way Apple could make this work -- otherwise 
they'd be in the same boat as Microsoft, having to support so many 
different configurations of hardware that they could never create a 
truly reliable system.

All that aside, the real issue here may be completely different. Some 
provocative articles on what this is really about:

(from January 2005)
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050120.html

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

Basically, according to the speculation in these articles, it's all 
about DRM (Digital Rights Management) and the movie industry, and 
repositioning the Mac as the premier platform for delivery of on-
demand movies/video.

-- 
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] fees?

[Lee Actor]

> Andrew Stiller wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jun 5, 2005, at 10:26 PM, Ken Durling wrote:
> >
> >>   a frame is one bar of one *staff*, so for example a piano part would
> >> be two frames per measure, most other instruments only one.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, a frame is one *layer* of one bar of one staff. This is of
> > course not relevant to your sensible fee scheme, but should be
> > understood as a Finale technical matter.
> >
> > Andrew Stiller
>
> That may be your definition (and it is one with which I concur), but
> that's not Finale's definition of a frame -- I just checked, entered
> notes in two different layers of a single measure, deleted all the empty
> measures so there was a single staff with one measure and notes
> in 2 layers.
>
> By Andrew's definition that should be 2 frames, but Finale says it is 1
> frame.
>
> So if a person chooses to use Andrew's definition, which makes perfect
> sense to me, be aware that the File/FileInfo Statistics button won't
> give you an accurate frame count to use for billing purposes.
>
>
> --
> David H. Bailey


Finale is not consistent in its definition of a frame.  As you point out,
David, the "Statistics" button reports frames by combining layers, but in
Speedy Entry, the Edit Frame dialog box deals with only one layer of one
measure at a time.  Maybe a better way of measuring of complexity for
billing purposes would be to use the "Count Items" plugin to calculate a
metric based on some weighted sum of notes, expressions, articulations,
smart shapes, etc.  But whether you calculate the fee based on an arcane
formula or a simple hourly rate, the most important thing is to manage your
client's expectations.  Not good for business to have a surprise in the bill
suddenly spring up at the end (esp. if it's higher!).

Lee Actor
Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic
http://www.leeactor.com


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

Re: [Finale] fees?

[Christopher Smith]

On Jun 6, 2005, at 2:49 PM, dhbailey wrote:


Whatever sort of quote the client wants, the client gets.  Whatever 
sort of paycheck I deserve and will have earned is what I get.  It 
doesn't matter how the client perceives it, I get my hourly rate no 
matter what.




That sounds amazingly like sense to me. Of course, it takes some 
experience to avoid screwing yourself on the estimate...


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[Simon Troup]

> Look for Win-OSX coming soon!  :-)

I wonder if Apple have looked at their ability to market the iPod and retain 
market share and believe they now have the name and experience to capitalise on 
this by going back into the marketplace with Dell and the like. After all 
they've seemingly weathered the Sony, iRiver (etc) challenges against the iPod.

I think they can retain the hardware/software joint development advantage for 
apple hardware buyers and still make OSX available on the x86 platform 
generally.

I look forward to this, I think it's great news. I'm no great fan of IBM, just 
as I wasnt a fan of Motorola. I don't really care who the chips are made by, so 
long as they're reliable - if they're cheaper and more plentiful, that's only 
good too!

Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

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

Re: [Finale] clearing chord positioning

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jun 2005 at 11:32, Chuck Israels wrote:

[quoting me:]
> > Have I mentioned recently how broken Finale's copying mechanisms
> > are?
> 
> I haven't heard anything about this lately, but I hope MM has been 
> paying attention to this for 2006.  It's a major irritant for me, 
> even though I've become used to the vagaries of the system, as it is 
> now.  This is the kind of thing for which I gladly pay the yearly 
> upgrade cost.  I don't want to start another "Is is worth it?" 
> discussion here.  Our personal economies vary, so the value of this 
> is relative.  I'm just happy to have reached the point that I can 
> safely say that it's worth it to me.

If they fix all the copying errors, so that nothing breaks, that 
would be a real reason for even *me* to upgrade, though I won't be 
doing it until there's key escrow.

In other words, fixing the copying would be enough of a productivity 
improvement that it would pay for itself, all by itself.

There are very few such fixes/improvements that would have that same 
equation for me, personally.

Other people's balance of cost/productivity will, of course, be 
different.

-- 
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] Expression positioning

[Christopher Smith]

On Jun 6, 2005, at 2:23 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


Either that, or you should be able to position the dynamics above or
below the staff. This seems especially so if, as I understand from
the description, the same UI for horizontal baseline positioning that
is found with lyrics is being re-used for expressions.


Close, except you have TWO baselines for expressions (above and below), 
and only one for each chorus/verse/section of lyrics.




That's a good
thing, but it's *bad* that it works differently (i.e., you can't drag
the baseleline above the staff).



You are mistaken here, you can drag the lower baseline above the staff, 
and the dynamic will go with it, but not if (as is the default 
definition) the dynamic is set to be on the below-the-staff baseline OR 
the entry, and it is a note-attached expression. This option is 
available and useful in order to prevent collisions with very low notes 
by ensuring that the dynamic will always be below the note. If it is 
set to be ONLY on the below-the-staff baseline, then you can drag the 
baseling wherever you wish and it will affect all items set to it.


A simple way to have dynamics ABOVE the staff for voices and BELOW the 
staff for instruments without having two different sets is this: you 
set the dynamics to vertically align to the BELOW the staff baseline, 
but NOT below the staff or entry. Then you drag the second arrow from 
the left above the choral staff. All the dynamics set to that baseline 
FOR THAT STAFF ONLY will follow, while the ones on the other staves 
will stay where the left-most arrow is positioned.


The drawback with this is that very low notes in the other staves will 
NOT have their dynamics automatically pushed down, as the default 
presently is. You will have to nudge or drag them manually.


Christopher

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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[dhbailey]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:

Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs 
was giving his keynote, publically.


Not sure what to think of it, though. Good? Bad? Who knows...

Johannes


Look for Win-OSX coming soon!  :-)

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

Re: [Finale] fees?

[dhbailey]

David W. Fenton wrote:


On 6 Jun 2005 at 10:33, Allen Fisher wrote:



I can't justify an hourly
rate, because I can move through note entry fairly quickly (If I'm
motivated, that is ).



What am I doing wrong?

Now, I'm not a professional engraver, but when I work in Finale, note 
entry is the one part of the process that is fast and painless. I'd 
even include the addition of dynamics and so forth in that.


It's the editing, layout and part extraction processes that are 
tedious and difficult and take hours and hours of tweaking to get 
ready for print. Those always take me 2-3 times longer than the 
actual entry of the raw music.




From my experience, I don't think you're doing anything wrong, David. 
The layout issues, in order to get a final product that looks good to my 
eye, take a lot of time, and can't simply be glossed over in switching 
from scroll view to page view.


And if lyrics are involved, add 2-3 times the note-entry additional for 
spacing issues.


I can justify an hourly rate easily, with a minimum as somone else 
mentioned for lead-sheet work (I don't get much call for that, with or 
without a minimum) because they can be churned out very quickly.


But choral music with lots of expressions and dynamics, divisi parts, 
with a keyboard accompaniment?  Definitely time consuming, and comparing 
a lead-sheet to a choral work as I have just described, a per-frame rate 
is totally out of the question.


Of course, a clever engraver will have a sense of how long the total 
project will take, multiply that by your per-hour charge, then present 
that to the client in any method they want.


The bottom line is the bottom line -- if a project will take me enough 
time to warrant a $1000 total fee, I can present the bill in per-page 
terms, per-system terms, per-frame terms, even per-note terms (that 
calculation adds to the bottom line, though, since I would have to count 
a lot more things and that takes billable time).


Whatever sort of quote the client wants, the client gets.  Whatever sort 
of paycheck I deserve and will have earned is what I get.  It doesn't 
matter how the client perceives it, I get my hourly rate no matter what.


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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[Eric Dannewitz]

Its good. As long as Apple uses its own board designs. That is the good 
part of Apple, the tight fit of hardware and software.


Apple designed boards, and Intel chips. It will be a good thing.

Johannes Gebauer wrote:

Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs 
was giving his keynote, publically.


Not sure what to think of it, though. Good? Bad? Who knows...

Johannes




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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[dhbailey]

A-NO-NE Music wrote:


Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote:



Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are
dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips.



Yup.  it's here:


But I really doubt Mac OSX is going to run on x86, not to mention bite
order differences besides RISC/CISC differences.



In the article I read, Jobs was quoted as saying that OS-X won't need 
much change to run on Pentium4 chips.


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

Re: [Finale] fees?

[dhbailey]

Andrew Stiller wrote:



On Jun 5, 2005, at 10:26 PM, Ken Durling wrote:

  a frame is one bar of one *staff*, so for example a piano part would 
be two frames per measure, most other instruments only one.




Actually, a frame is one *layer* of one bar of one staff. This is of 
course not relevant to your sensible fee scheme, but should be 
understood as a Finale technical matter.


Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/

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



That may be your definition (and it is one with which I concur), but 
that's not Finale's definition of a frame -- I just checked, entered 
notes in two different layers of a single measure, deleted all the empty 
measures so there was a single staff with one measure and notes in 2 layers.


By Andrew's definition that should be 2 frames, but Finale says it is 1 
frame.


So if a person chooses to use Andrew's definition, which makes perfect 
sense to me, be aware that the File/FileInfo Statistics button won't 
give you an accurate frame count to use for billing purposes.



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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[dhbailey]

Simon Troup wrote:


Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are dropping 
IBM in favour of Intel chips.



Interesting -- maybe there will be less wintel bashing now that there 
will be aptel drinking from the same well?


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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[Johannes Gebauer]

Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs 
was giving his keynote, publically.


Not sure what to think of it, though. Good? Bad? Who knows...

Johannes

A-NO-NE Music schrieb:

Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote:



Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are
dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips.



Yup.  it's here:


But I really doubt Mac OSX is going to run on x86, not to mention bite
order differences besides RISC/CISC differences.



--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

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

Re: [Finale] fees?

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jun 2005 at 10:33, Allen Fisher wrote:

> I can't justify an hourly
> rate, because I can move through note entry fairly quickly (If I'm
> motivated, that is ).

What am I doing wrong?

Now, I'm not a professional engraver, but when I work in Finale, note 
entry is the one part of the process that is fast and painless. I'd 
even include the addition of dynamics and so forth in that.

It's the editing, layout and part extraction processes that are 
tedious and difficult and take hours and hours of tweaking to get 
ready for print. Those always take me 2-3 times longer than the 
actual entry of the raw 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

Re: [Finale] clearing chord positioning

[Chuck Israels]

Have I mentioned recently how broken Finale's copying mechanisms are?-- David W. Fenton                        http://www.bway.net/~dfentonDavid Fenton Associates                http://www.bway.net/~dfassocI haven't heard anything about this lately, but I hope MM has been paying attention to this for 2006.  It's a major irritant for me, even though I've become used to the vagaries of the system, as it is now.  This is the kind of thing for which I gladly pay the yearly upgrade cost.  I don't want to start another "Is is worth it?" discussion here.  Our personal economies vary, so the value of this is relative.  I'm just happy to have reached the point that I can safely say that it's worth it to me.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
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[Eric Dannewitz]

Of course since Steve Jobs ran his whole presentation on an OS X Intel 
box, and ran iPhoto, Safari, etc, etc, plus Adobe and other apps.


They are going to do the Fat binary thing again. I don't think it will 
be a problem as long as developers have been using the right tools. 
Hello Codamusic!!!


A-NO-NE Music wrote:


Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote:

 


Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are
dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips.
   



Yup.  it's here:


But I really doubt Mac OSX is going to run on x86, not to mention bite
order differences besides RISC/CISC differences.

 




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

Re: [Finale] clearing chord positioning

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jun 2005 at 9:25, Christopher Smith wrote:

> On Jun 4, 2005, at 11:39 PM, Chuck Israels wrote:
> 
> > I just made a useful discovery.  Using the "clear" key after
> > selecting a group of chords will remove any special positioning that
> > has been applied (by nudging, etc.).
> >
> > Make a "mistake" and learn!
> 
> Yes, I discovered that fairly recently, too. It also works for 
> articulations, lyrics, and the new auto-positioning expressions. Whee!

Well, while we're "admitting" this kind of thing, I'll 'fess up to 
something even more basic:

I just recently realized that all the features that Mac users have 
talked about using the CLEAR key are implemented on Windows using the 
BACKSPACE key. This means that if you want to clear the notes in a 
group of measures, you highlight with Mass Mover and hit BACKSPACE 
(CLEAR). I never knew that and had always used the menu for it.

The same thing works with removing staff styles, which is a very good 
thing for all the copying I've been doing to assemble single files 
from individual movements, as the staff styles in the inserted 
measures all get competely misplaced and have to be removed and re-
applied.

Have I mentioned recently how broken Finale's copying mechanisms are?

-- 
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] Expression positioning

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jun 2005 at 8:44, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> You need to use a separate set of dynamics for vocal staves, defined
> to go above the staff instead of below.
> 
> There is a Choral Dynamics library (already set up for placement above
> the staff) in the Maestro Font folder inside your Libraries folder. 
> Load that library, and use those dynamics for the vocal staff

As wonderful as the automatic positioning of expressions is, it seems 
clear to me from these instructions that Finale still remains in the 
dark ages of software design because, once again, a feature is 
implemented that requires proliferation of object definitions.

I have said it a million times: you should define a dynamic marking 
once, and then be able to sub-class it so that you can have different 
versions of it that have properties that over-ride those of the basic 
dynamic mark definition.

Either that, or you should be able to position the dynamics above or 
below the staff. This seems especially so if, as I understand from 
the description, the same UI for horizontal baseline positioning that 
is found with lyrics is being re-used for expressions. That's a good 
thing, but it's *bad* that it works differently (i.e., you can't drag 
the baseleline above the staff).

I have always felt that the need to proliferate expression and 
articulation definitions is a massive flaw in Finale, even with the 
ability since 2K4 to at least be able to distinguish the different 
versions of the expressions (though I've not heard anything about how 
one distinguishes articulations -- still nothing?).

Finale data is stored in a database, and individual expressions can 
be dragged around onscreen, so there's already somewhere in the data 
storage hierarchy that stores individual positioning information. It 
seems to me that it shouldn't be all that difficult (and I say this 
as someone who makes his living as a database application programmer) 
to add a higher level of the hierarchy, that serves as a master 
definition. It doesn't even require the creation of a new data table, 
just the addition of a new field in the existing definition that 
points to a parent object (in database terms, a self-join).

As for UI, it could be as simple as:

- duplicate an existing expression/articulation definition

- in the dialog defining that new item, there's a check box that says 
"maintain link to source definition." This could be turned off by 
default, so that anyone who doesn't like this idea could continue to 
use expression/articulation definitions just as they always have.

Better still would be if the UI also indicated what the parent object 
was, and had some easy way to inspect its properties. Perhaps it 
would be better if any properties that were altered from the parent 
were indicated in a different color in the properties dialog.

It would also be good if parent definitions were distinguished in the 
expression/articulation dialogs in some way so you would realize 
those were not deletable without causing cascading consequences.

Comments welcome, and if there's enough interest and we can work it 
into something clear that many people find useful, I'll forward it to 
MM as a feature suggestion.

-- 
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] OT - Apple move to Intel

[A-NO-NE Music]

Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote:

>Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are
>dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips.

Yup.  it's here:


But I really doubt Mac OSX is going to run on x86, not to mention bite
order differences besides RISC/CISC differences.

-- 

- Hiro

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


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

Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[Phil Daley]

At 6/6/2005 01:57 PM, Simon Troup wrote:
 
>Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple
are 
>dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips.
>
Apple Expected To Announce Shift To Intel Chips 
http://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,102258,00.html?nlid=AM


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




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

Re: [Finale] fees?

[Andrew Stiller]

On Jun 5, 2005, at 10:26 PM, Ken Durling wrote:
  a frame is one bar of one *staff*, so for example a piano part would 
be two frames per measure, most other instruments only one.




Actually, a frame is one *layer* of one bar of one staff. This is of 
course not relevant to your sensible fee scheme, but should be 
understood as a Finale technical matter.


Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/

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

[Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel

[Simon Troup]

Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are dropping 
IBM in favour of Intel chips.

Simon Troup
Digital Media Art

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

Re: [Finale] Expression positioning

[Barbara Touburg]

AHA! That did the trick. Thanks very much, Darcy.
One question though: where do I (did you) find this information? Is it
somewhere in the manual?


- Original Message -
From: "Darcy James Argue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Expression positioning


> Barbara,
>
> The triangles only affect the vertical positioning of
> *baseline-aligned* expressions.  You cannot use them to move
> expressions above the staff if your expressions are set to, e.g.,
> "below note" or "below staff baseline or entry" (the default setting).
> That's why you need to use the Choral Dynamics library.
>
> - Darcy
> -
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Brooklyn, NY
>
>
> On 06 Jun 2005, at 10:10 AM, Barbara Touburg wrote:
>
> > OK, but what are the triangles there for then??
> >
> > The manual says:
> > "Drag the positioning triangles to adjust the vertical positioning of
> > the
> > expressions. These triangles are handles that control the baseline for
> > the
> > expressions (the invisible line against which the bottoms of the
> > letters
> > align). Dragging the leftmost triangle up or down moves the baseline
> > for
> > these expressions vertically, affecting the entire piece. The second
> > triangle sets the baseline for expressions for this staff only. The
> > third
> > triangle, whose effect is only visible in Page View, sets the baseline
> > for
> > this staff in this system only. The rightmost triangle sets the
> > baseline for
> > the next expression you enter."
> >
> > Dragging the second triangle up just does not work (for me). The
> > expressions
> > stay below the staff. Am I missing something? I don't get it.
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "dhbailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 2:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Finale] Expression positioning
> >
> >
> >> Barbara Touburg wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm trying to put expression marks _above_ a vocal staff, but the
> >>> positioning triangles just won't work. Both for note positioning and
> > measure
> >>> positioning the expressions are defined to go below the staff
> >>> baseline
> > (or
> >>> entry) and I want to drag them up for that vocal staff. The lyrics
> >>> positioning triangles work just fine. What am I (or is Finale) doing
> > wrong?
> >>>
> >>
> >> For expressions, I click to place and then drag to where I want them,
> >> above or below the staff.
> >>
> >> Your best bet, as far as my experience goes, if you want them all
> >> above
> >> the staff, is to go through and edit those you'll be using so they
> >> will
> >> automatically be placed above the staff.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> David H. Bailey
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> ___
> >> 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
> >
>
> ___
> 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] RE: harmon mute on horn?

[Ken Durling]

This is kind of unrelated, but i remember a  horn player telling me about a 
custom mute he made in order to perform those loud, low and menacing 
"cuivre" notes in the finale of Tchaik 6.  IIRC, it was a straight mute 
with a bunch of holes punched into it.  I've always wondered how widespread 
this practice is.


Ken

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

[Finale] RE: harmon mute on horn?

[Ryan Beard]

I've only seen Harmon mute called for once in one of
my parts and it was for a musical. The tpt and trb
were both playing straight mutes in the passage, so I
used my stopped mute. (I'm sure in the tpt and trb
parts actually called for Harmon mutes, but this was
an amatuer production and I don't think those players
owned a Harmon mute.)

As a horn player, I just found it kind of annoying
that the orchestrator didn't know enough about the
instrument to know that a Harmon mute isn't common for
the horn - perhaps non existant. 

Unless your client is writing for a hornist he KNOWS
has a horn Harmon mute, I would recommend that he
write the name of the mute that a hornist will
actually use, most likely the brass mute. 

Ryan

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] fees?

[Allen Fisher]

This is similar to my system. I do charge by the frame, but I actually
extend frames to include layers/voices. I adjust my rate based on
complexity. If it's three layers of sixteenths with a lot of markings, I'm
going to charge more than for say "Fanfare on a Bach chorale in whole
notes". I charge by the hour for revisions (their mistakes/changes of
heart), and nothing for corrections (my mistakes). I can't justify an hourly
rate, because I can move through note entry fairly quickly (If I'm
motivated, that is ).

I might be inclined to charge by the hour for the whole thing if I was doing
a graphical score, but I've never been asked to do that, so I haven't
thought about that much.


On 6/6/05 10:08 AM, "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said this:


> The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had a scale worked out where a
> "frame" (they didn't call it that, though) was one voice. So a drum
> part was two or three voices, a piano part was generally two, etc.;
> plus they had supplements for chords, lyrics, double-staff parts (which
> seems to be a holdover from handcopying days, as double staff parts are
> no more complicated in Finale than single-staff parts) and other stuff.
> But still, two stacked whole notes in a bar under CBC's method gets
> paid twice as much as one voice with complex entries, so the problem is
> no clearer.
> 
> An hourly rate seems to be the best way overall for Finale work, IMHO.
> 
> Christopher
> 


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

Re: [Finale] fees?

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 11:08 AM 6/6/05 -0400, Christopher Smith wrote:
>I never liked the "frame rate" method, as a whole note with nothing on 
>it gets charged the same as complex collection of sixteenths with 
>articulations, custom beams, note expressions, hairpins, and the like.

Or stuff like jef chippewa does. Or some of what I do.

Contemporary work with graphical elements can run my clients $100-$250 per
page or more, particularly if there's a lot of back-and-forth about
fine-tuning the placement of graphical elements. A single page can take a
day or two.

Dennis



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

Re: [Finale] Expression positioning

[Christopher Smith]

On Jun 6, 2005, at 10:19 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:


On 06 Jun 2005, at 9:55 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:

A quick and dirty solution for just one file with dynamics already 
entered (with no other non-choral instruments with different 
requirements to mess things up) would be to just drag the 
below-the-staff-baseline up, over the staff.


Actually, that won't work with Finale's default dynamics.  Expressions 
set to "Below Staff Baseline or Entry" cannot be dragged above the 
staff using the triangles.


You really do have to use separate choral dynamics defined for 
above-staff placement.




Aha! It's because they are set to "Below-staff baseline OR ENTRY". If 
they were set to "Below-staff baseline" only, then my method works.


Actually, if she has already entered a whole cartload of dynamics for 
the whole piece and needs to move them, then she should just edit the 
Note Positioning (or Measure Positioning, depending on which entry she 
used) to change it to Above Staff Baseline for the eight or so dynamics 
she probalby uses in the work.


Barbara, if you are reading, here it is for expressions already entered.

Double click on a dynamic, say the "f".

If it looked red, it is a Note-assigned expression, if it looked green, 
it is Measure Assigned. Click the box that corresponds to the kind of 
positioning you want to edit.


For Vertical Positioning, change the drop-down menu to "Above Staff 
Baseline or Entry"


Close the dialogue boxes. The "f" will now be above the measure.

Repeat for the other dynamics that appear in the work. No use editing 
any others, if they are not used.


In the Expression menu, select  "Adjust Above Staff Baseline". Your 
arrows will now be the ones that adjust this expression.


If you have already dragged the 'F" around, you might want to clear the 
manual dragging. Drag a rubber-band box around all the expressions that 
you want to clear positioining for (or hit control A to select all) and 
hit Clear on a Mac (I think on PC it is backspace, but I am not sure. 
One deletes, the other clears positioning.)


There you go.

Christopher

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

Re: [Finale] fees?

[Christopher Smith]

On Jun 6, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Ken Durling wrote:


I will also add that the frame rate can be variable (from a minimum) - 
I wouldn't charge the same frame rate for a Brian Ferneyhough score as 
I would a Frank Loesser song!  In addition, you can have a minimum 
charge per page.  I do this to cover myself when someone just wants a 
lead sheet.  At a .25 frame rate a simple 32-bar lead sheet would only 
cost $8.00, so I have a $15 minimum.  Not too bad when you can crank 
out a lead sheet in about 10 minutes.


Ken



I never liked the "frame rate" method, as a whole note with nothing on 
it gets charged the same as complex collection of sixteenths with 
articulations, custom beams, note expressions, hairpins, and the like. 
Plus drum parts, keyboard parts, choral parts, are all charged one 
frame per bar, even there is actually eight frame sworth of music 
crammed into each.


The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had a scale worked out where a 
"frame" (they didn't call it that, though) was one voice. So a drum 
part was two or three voices, a piano part was generally two, etc.; 
plus they had supplements for chords, lyrics, double-staff parts (which 
seems to be a holdover from handcopying days, as double staff parts are 
no more complicated in Finale than single-staff parts) and other stuff. 
But still, two stacked whole notes in a bar under CBC's method gets 
paid twice as much as one voice with complex entries, so the problem is 
no clearer.


An hourly rate seems to be the best way overall for Finale work, IMHO.

Christopher

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

Re: [Finale] Expression positioning

[Darcy James Argue]

On 06 Jun 2005, at 10:18 AM, dhbailey wrote:


I figure I've done more profitable work simply clicking and dragging 
than messing around trying to get the triangles to do that job for me. 
And I've never wanted all my expressions exactly the same distance 
above or below the staff, since the music I work on has jagged edges 
above and below the staff.


That's what "Below staff baseline or entry" (or "Above staff baseline 
or entry") is for.  The dynamics appear at the same distance above or 
below the staff _unless_ there would be a collision with the attached 
note -- then they adjust down (or up) to make room for the note.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

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

Re: [Finale] Expression positioning

[Darcy James Argue]

On 06 Jun 2005, at 9:55 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:

A quick and dirty solution for just one file with dynamics already 
entered (with no other non-choral instruments with different 
requirements to mess things up) would be to just drag the 
below-the-staff-baseline up, over the staff.


Actually, that won't work with Finale's default dynamics.  Expressions 
set to "Below Staff Baseline or Entry" cannot be dragged above the 
staff using the triangles.


You really do have to use separate choral dynamics defined for 
above-staff placement.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

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

[Finale] Mac/Tiger Font Question

[Simon Troup]

I just moved to Tiger and used it as a good excuse to purge the entire 
computer. I reinstalled Mac Fin 2005b, ran FontAgent over the drive, but I kept 
getting font inclusion error reports when compiling EPS files. It seems that 
the installer doesn't install Type 1 postscript outline files, only the printer 
fonts. I had to manually dump the postscript printer fonts in the system folder 
and use the true types (bleh!) for display.

Of course this is probably because I like to use FontAgent Pro to organise my 
fonts, I suppose I should just have left the whole lot in the /library/fonts.

Anyway, why aren't there Postscript outlines? Is this some sort of new policy?

Fontagent doesn't like the duplications, and I don't blame it, it's designed 
for finding unmatched and duplicated fonts.

Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

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

Re: [Finale] Expression positioning

[dhbailey]

Barbara Touburg wrote:

OK, but what are the triangles there for then??

The manual says:
"Drag the positioning triangles to adjust the vertical positioning of the
expressions. These triangles are handles that control the baseline for the
expressions (the invisible line against which the bottoms of the letters
align). Dragging the leftmost triangle up or down moves the baseline for
these expressions vertically, affecting the entire piece. The second
triangle sets the baseline for expressions for this staff only. The third
triangle, whose effect is only visible in Page View, sets the baseline for
this staff in this system only. The rightmost triangle sets the baseline for
the next expression you enter."

Dragging the second triangle up just does not work (for me). The expressions
stay below the staff. Am I missing something? I don't get it.



The triangles and I have never been more than disgruntled fellow-workers 
who would rather be anywhere else but next to each other.  I try to 
avoid messing with them and work hard so they don't screw up my work.  :-)


I figure I've done more profitable work simply clicking and dragging 
than messing around trying to get the triangles to do that job for me. 
And I've never wanted all my expressions exactly the same distance above 
or below the staff, since the music I work on has jagged edges above and 
below the staff.


I place the expressions where they look best and have done with it.


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

Re: [Finale] Expression positioning

[Darcy James Argue]

Barbara,

The triangles only affect the vertical positioning of 
*baseline-aligned* expressions.  You cannot use them to move 
expressions above the staff if your expressions are set to, e.g., 
"below note" or "below staff baseline or entry" (the default setting).  
That's why you need to use the Choral Dynamics library.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


On 06 Jun 2005, at 10:10 AM, Barbara Touburg wrote:


OK, but what are the triangles there for then??

The manual says:
"Drag the positioning triangles to adjust the vertical positioning of 
the
expressions. These triangles are handles that control the baseline for 
the
expressions (the invisible line against which the bottoms of the 
letters
align). Dragging the leftmost triangle up or down moves the baseline 
for

these expressions vertically, affecting the entire piece. The second
triangle sets the baseline for expressions for this staff only. The 
third
triangle, whose effect is only visible in Page View, sets the baseline 
for
this staff in this system only. The rightmost triangle sets the 
baseline for

the next expression you enter."

Dragging the second triangle up just does not work (for me). The 
expressions

stay below the staff. Am I missing something? I don't get it.


- Original Message -
From: "dhbailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Expression positioning



Barbara Touburg wrote:


I'm trying to put expression marks _above_ a vocal staff, but the
positioning triangles just won't work. Both for note positioning and

measure
positioning the expressions are defined to go below the staff 
baseline

(or

entry) and I want to drag them up for that vocal staff. The lyrics
positioning triangles work just fine. What am I (or is Finale) doing

wrong?




For expressions, I click to place and then drag to where I want them,
above or below the staff.

Your best bet, as far as my experience goes, if you want them all 
above
the staff, is to go through and edit those you'll be using so they 
will

automatically be placed above the staff.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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



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

Re: [Finale] Expression positioning

[Barbara Touburg]

OK, but what are the triangles there for then??

The manual says:
"Drag the positioning triangles to adjust the vertical positioning of the
expressions. These triangles are handles that control the baseline for the
expressions (the invisible line against which the bottoms of the letters
align). Dragging the leftmost triangle up or down moves the baseline for
these expressions vertically, affecting the entire piece. The second
triangle sets the baseline for expressions for this staff only. The third
triangle, whose effect is only visible in Page View, sets the baseline for
this staff in this system only. The rightmost triangle sets the baseline for
the next expression you enter."

Dragging the second triangle up just does not work (for me). The expressions
stay below the staff. Am I missing something? I don't get it.


- Original Message -
From: "dhbailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Expression positioning


> Barbara Touburg wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to put expression marks _above_ a vocal staff, but the
> > positioning triangles just won't work. Both for note positioning and
measure
> > positioning the expressions are defined to go below the staff baseline
(or
> > entry) and I want to drag them up for that vocal staff. The lyrics
> > positioning triangles work just fine. What am I (or is Finale) doing
wrong?
> >
>
> For expressions, I click to place and then drag to where I want them,
> above or below the staff.
>
> Your best bet, as far as my experience goes, if you want them all above
> the staff, is to go through and edit those you'll be using so they will
> automatically be placed above the staff.
>
>
> --
> David H. Bailey
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ___
> 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] Re: Changing clefs in Staff Styles ADD Finale default documents

[Allen Fisher]

The text files don't change fonts. Edit the Maestro Font Default file (for
maestro docs) and the JazzFont default file (for jazzfont docs) in your
component files folder. There are some settings that the wizard changes
(mostly margins), but fonts are not set by the wizard.

If you have a custom default file, rename it Maestro Font Default and
replace the one in Component files...


On 6/6/05 7:38 AM, "RegoR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said this:

> Thanx for the info on the instrument.txt doc.  I looked there and EVERY
> non transposing instrument is at useKeySigs = 1  --  so I just left it
> alone. the problem was resolved by removing the Set To Clef in the
> transposition dialogue box.
> 
> One question Jef, how well do you understand the workings of text files in
> Finale? and is there a way to really alter the default document?  Also
> WHERE is the default document located for the Wizard?  I have tried to
> alter several files, but it is always coming up with Maestro, and a whole
> other slew of things I really prefer not using, so I have taken the round
> about way of creating a "template" file I like with a single staff line,
> and then going to Wizard to add the instruments I wish.  I am sure there
> must be another way to slay this beast.
> 
> Gregory
> 
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 01:04:57 +0300, shirling & neueweise
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Gregory wrote:
>>> Never did think of looking there, because I don't even remember having
>>> set
>>> up the bassoon as a transposing instrument!
>> 
>> in instrument.txt doc, ALL instruments defined to not use key signatures
>> are set as transposing instruments, with a transposition interval of 0.
>> 
>> useKeySigs  = 0
>> 
>> this might be why it was set that way.
>> 
> 
> 

-- 

Allen J. Fisher
Quality Assurance Developer
MakeMusic! Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.makemusic.com

In art, and in the higher ranges of science, there is a feeling of harmony
which underlies all endeavor. There is no true greatness in art or science
without that sense of harmony.

--Albert Einstein

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

Re: [Finale] Re: OT: mac mini + monitor trouble

[A-NO-NE Music]

Have you zapped PRAM yet?
I think it would do the trick.

Cmd+Opt+P+R+Boot

-- 

- Hiro

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


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

Re: [Finale] Expression positioning

[Christopher Smith]

A quick and dirty solution for just one file with dynamics already 
entered (with no other non-choral instruments with different 
requirements to mess things up) would be to just drag the 
below-the-staff-baseline up, over the staff. This beats going in and 
changing the automatic positioning for every dynamic.


But for sure the best solution is yours, Darcy.

Christopher



On Jun 6, 2005, at 8:44 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:


Barbara,

You need to use a separate set of dynamics for vocal staves, defined 
to go above the staff instead of below.


There is a Choral Dynamics library (already set up for placement above 
the staff) in the Maestro Font folder inside your Libraries folder.  
Load that library, and use those dynamics for the vocal staff


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


On 06 Jun 2005, at 7:55 AM, Barbara Touburg wrote:


I'm trying to put expression marks _above_ a vocal staff, but the
positioning triangles just won't work. Both for note positioning and 
measure
positioning the expressions are defined to go below the staff 
baseline (or

entry) and I want to drag them up for that vocal staff. The lyrics
positioning triangles work just fine. What am I (or is Finale) doing 
wrong?


Barbara
NL

(Finale 2005a, Win2000SP4)

___
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



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

Re: [Finale] fees?

[Ken Durling]

At 03:26 AM 6/6/2005, you wrote:
3) who pays for mistakes and changes -- you should fix any mistakes you 
made during data entry for no additional charges, but once you have 
entered all the manuscript as the composer gives it to you, if the client 
notices some mistakes in the manuscript which need changing, there should 
be an additional fee stipulated in writing that you would be paid.  The 
same goes if the client changes anything else about the manuscript (adding 
or deleting measures, changing the roadmap or the songform);



This is an excellent point, and funny thing, I just got a call last night 
from a prospective client who specifically said he was look for a copyist 
who could be "fluid."   In other words he knows he's going to be making 
changes as the work in question goes into rehearsal.  The last engraver he 
worked with was every reluctant to make ANY changes once the score was 
entered, but that person worked in Score, so I think I understand.   I work 
primarily in Sibelius, (in the process of learning Finale) and it's easy to 
make changes, so now I'm confronted with exactly David's question 
here.   My first thought was to alter the frame rate so that it reads "per 
frame version" so that if a measure gets rewritten it gets charged 
again.  I'm not entirely sure that would cover it, so I'm probably going to 
say "per frame version + hourly rate," to cover the possibility of complex 
revisions.


I will also add that the frame rate can be variable (from a minimum) - I 
wouldn't charge the same frame rate for a Brian Ferneyhough score as I 
would a Frank Loesser song!  In addition, you can have a minimum charge per 
page.  I do this to cover myself when someone just wants a lead sheet.  At 
a .25 frame rate a simple 32-bar lead sheet would only cost $8.00, so I 
have a $15 minimum.  Not too bad when you can crank out a lead sheet in 
about 10 minutes.


Ken

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

Re: [Finale] clearing chord positioning

[Christopher Smith]

On Jun 4, 2005, at 11:39 PM, Chuck Israels wrote:

I just made a useful discovery.  Using the "clear" key after selecting a group of chords will remove any special positioning that has been applied (by nudging, etc.).

Make a "mistake" and learn!


Yes, I discovered that fairly recently, too. It also works for articulations, lyrics, and the new auto-positioning expressions. Whee!

Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] harmon mute on horn?

[Christopher Smith]

On Jun 4, 2005, at 7:35 PM, John Howell wrote:


At 3:33 PM -0400 6/4/05, shirling & neueweise wrote:

for the horn player in you:

i don't recall ever seeing this anywhere before, but a client has 
indicated harmon mute for horn (small orchestra for opera).  does a 
harmon mute exist for horns?


cheers,
jef


Never seen one, never seen one in a catalog, never heard one.  Wa-wa 
horn??  Of course "Harmon" is a company name, as far as I know, 
and the company may well make a horn mute of some kind.  Just because 
"harmon mute" is universally recognized as the trumpet/trombone wa-wa 
mute with a plunger that can be extended or removed doesn't mean that 
it might not indicate a specific horn mute, but I certainly wouldn't 
use that designation.  Ask your client.  All we can do is guess.


Basically there are two kinds of horn mute, a straight mute that's 
non-transposing (with a sound I don't care for) and a transposing mute 
(requiring the player to finger up a half-step, unless it's down a 
half-step) that mimics the sound of hand stopping.


John



The hand-stopping mute is the one that kind of looks and sounds like a 
Harmon; that might be what he is intending. In our little big band 
(medium band?) Altsys Jazz Orchestra, we have a french horn, and he has 
discovered that the stopped mute is the one that fits best with the 
trumpets in Harmon. And he has a horn cup mute, too, that sounds very, 
well, unusual, if not exactly like a cup.


Nothing the trombones put in sounds like a Harmon, not even an actual 
Harmon mute, so we use something else that doesn't disturb the blend 
and balance too badly.


Christopher

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

Re: [Finale] harmon mute on horn?

[Christopher Smith]

On Jun 4, 2005, at 4:12 PM, Carl Dershem wrote:


Robert Patterson wrote:

I've never seen a harmon mute for the horn. Possibly one built for a 
large-bore bass trombone might work, assuming they exist for bass 
trombone.


  (And they still sound silly, and do not fit well)




Which means they are exactly the same for horn as they are for bass 
trombone! 8-)


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] Expression positioning

[Darcy James Argue]

Barbara,

You need to use a separate set of dynamics for vocal staves, defined to 
go above the staff instead of below.


There is a Choral Dynamics library (already set up for placement above 
the staff) in the Maestro Font folder inside your Libraries folder.  
Load that library, and use those dynamics for the vocal staff


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


On 06 Jun 2005, at 7:55 AM, Barbara Touburg wrote:


I'm trying to put expression marks _above_ a vocal staff, but the
positioning triangles just won't work. Both for note positioning and 
measure
positioning the expressions are defined to go below the staff baseline 
(or

entry) and I want to drag them up for that vocal staff. The lyrics
positioning triangles work just fine. What am I (or is Finale) doing 
wrong?


Barbara
NL

(Finale 2005a, Win2000SP4)

___
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] Re: Changing clefs in Staff Styles ADD Finale default documents

[RegoR]

Thanx for the info on the instrument.txt doc.  I looked there and EVERY  
non transposing instrument is at useKeySigs = 1  --  so I just left it  
alone. the problem was resolved by removing the Set To Clef in the  
transposition dialogue box.


One question Jef, how well do you understand the workings of text files in  
Finale? and is there a way to really alter the default document?  Also  
WHERE is the default document located for the Wizard?  I have tried to  
alter several files, but it is always coming up with Maestro, and a whole  
other slew of things I really prefer not using, so I have taken the round  
about way of creating a "template" file I like with a single staff line,  
and then going to Wizard to add the instruments I wish.  I am sure there  
must be another way to slay this beast.


Gregory

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 01:04:57 +0300, shirling & neueweise  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Gregory wrote:
Never did think of looking there, because I don't even remember having  
set

up the bassoon as a transposing instrument!


in instrument.txt doc, ALL instruments defined to not use key signatures  
are set as transposing instruments, with a transposition interval of 0.


useKeySigs  = 0

this might be why it was set that way.





--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Expression positioning

[RegoR]

Dag Barbara..

Which set of triangles are you using?  You can set them to either above  
the staff or below the staff through the expressions dropdown list.  The  
expressions that are attached to above the staff will be handled by the  
upper set of triangles, and those from below the staff by the lower set of  
triangles.


For personal purposes, I have created a separate set of expressions  
expressly for vocal staves for precisely that reason. Mine are all  
attached to above the barline or staff with the following measures.   
Additional entry offset : 0.020285, and Additional baseline offset :  
-0.62618.  I find that I have much better control of the whole situation.   
Just put a little note to yourself in the Description Box to let you know  
what it is all about


Groetjes uit ergens anders.

Gregory



On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:55:41 +0300, Barbara Touburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



I'm trying to put expression marks _above_ a vocal staff, but the
positioning triangles just won't work. Both for note positioning and  
measure
positioning the expressions are defined to go below the staff baseline  
(or

entry) and I want to drag them up for that vocal staff. The lyrics
positioning triangles work just fine. What am I (or is Finale) doing  
wrong?


Barbara
NL

(Finale 2005a, Win2000SP4)

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






--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Expression positioning

[dhbailey]

Barbara Touburg wrote:


I'm trying to put expression marks _above_ a vocal staff, but the
positioning triangles just won't work. Both for note positioning and measure
positioning the expressions are defined to go below the staff baseline (or
entry) and I want to drag them up for that vocal staff. The lyrics
positioning triangles work just fine. What am I (or is Finale) doing wrong?



For expressions, I click to place and then drag to where I want them, 
above or below the staff.


Your best bet, as far as my experience goes, if you want them all above 
the staff, is to go through and edit those you'll be using so they will 
automatically be placed above the staff.



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

[Finale] Expression positioning

[Barbara Touburg]

I'm trying to put expression marks _above_ a vocal staff, but the
positioning triangles just won't work. Both for note positioning and measure
positioning the expressions are defined to go below the staff baseline (or
entry) and I want to drag them up for that vocal staff. The lyrics
positioning triangles work just fine. What am I (or is Finale) doing wrong?

Barbara
NL

(Finale 2005a, Win2000SP4)

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

Re: [Finale] fees?

[dhbailey]

Lora Crighton wrote:


Another question - how do you decide how much to charge?  I have done
a lot of scores for choirs I sing with, but have always donated my
time.  Now I've got a composer asking if I have time to do some choral
scores for him & what are my rates, and I have no idea what is
reasonable.



Since you'll be doing the sort of work you've already been doing you 
must have a pretty good idea of how long such a project will take you, 
or at least how long an individual page of original manuscript will take 
you to get into printable form.


You also need to have an idea of how much you wish to earn on a per-hour 
basis.  If you have a paying job already, would you be satisfied earning 
the same amount from your engraving?  Remember, once you start earning 
income you will need to declare that income on your income taxes 
(assuming you live in the US, which may not be a safe assumption on this 
list) and file schedule C for self-employment income and schedule SE for 
the self-employment social-security tax.  You'll also need to pay 
quarterly tax payments to cover any additional tax liability over and 
above what is currently withheld from your paycheck at your current job.


So what is your hourly rate to be?  $20?  $30?  $40?  Figure out what 
you want to earn and then multiply that rate by the amount of time it 
takes you to get one page ready to print, and that is your per-page 
rate.  You can further break it down into a per-frame rate as in the 
other advice you have already received.


Clients prefer the estimates in varying forms, depending on the client. 
 Some simply want a total project cost and don't care how you work it 
out.  Others want a per-page cost so they can more easily grasp how the 
total will be calculated.  Still others are happier with a per-frame 
rate because it seems much more reasonable, even though the total 
project cost should be the same no matter how you break it down.


Things to put down in writing before accepting any money and beginning 
the project:
1) delivery schedule -- make sure you have a reasonable and manageable 
deadline;
2) payment schedule -- you should receive half of the projected total up 
front, and the rest upon delivery of the project.  Some engravers want 
1/4 additionally when the data entry is completed (i.e. when you present 
a rough draft to the client for proof-reading) and the final 1/4 when 
the finished product is delivered;
3) who pays for mistakes and changes -- you should fix any mistakes you 
made during data entry for no additional charges, but once you have 
entered all the manuscript as the composer gives it to you, if the 
client notices some mistakes in the manuscript which need changing, 
there should be an additional fee stipulated in writing that you would 
be paid.  The same goes if the client changes anything else about the 
manuscript (adding or deleting measures, changing the roadmap or the 
songform);

4) just what the client will receive at the end of the project:
a) number of copies of camera-ready output of the score and any
extracted parts;
b) whether or not the client will get your finale files (this
has generated some rather heated debate on this list in the past
-- it really makes no difference as long as you and the client
agree.  Some feel that giving up the finale files is like a
professional photographer giving up the negatives, something
a professional photographer rarely does, so that he/she remains
in control of any further use of the pictures.  Others feel that
the client has paid for finale output and is entitled to the
files since they represent creative content which you are not
entitled to do anything with without the copyright holder's
(the composer, presumably) permission.
5) if the works you will be engraving represent arrangements of 
copyrighted materials which the client doesn't own the copyrights of 
(e.g. a popular song or movie theme or copyrighted hymn) be sure that 
there is the stipulation that you are performing this as a 
work-for-hire, which places the onus for any copyright infringement on 
the client, not on you.


There may be other things to consider to have in writing, but these are 
the major ones that will help ensure a good working relationship.


Remember that your per-hour rate needs to be reasonable for you as well 
as for the client.  It does you no good to work for $10/hour, since 33% 
goes to the government (assuming you work in the US and live in a state 
without an income tax) right away in income tax and social security tax, 
so you would only really be putting $6.67 in your pocket, and even less 
if you do live in a state with an income tax.


Many composers have no idea how much time is involved in turning out a 
decently engraved project, and also have no idea what a self-employed 
individual needs to charge per-hour in order to earn a half-way decent 
income

Re: [Finale] Chant notation

[Eric Fiedler]

Lora,
http://www.saintmeinrad.edu/monastery_lit_fonts_chant.aspx
Cheers!
Fiedler


Habsburger Verlag Frankfurt (Dr. Fiedler)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On 06.06.2005, at 03:49, Lora Crighton wrote:

Thanks for all the info!!

On 6/5/05, Noel Stoutenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Depends upon how authentic you want your chant to appear.  If you are
wanting to do Chant for a schola skilled in reading and singing from
square notation, the "Medieval" plug in is capable of accomplishing
this, for a fee.


Not needed at the moment, but I will probably want this eventually -
it this something I would order from Finale or somewhere else?


If all you need is a plainsong line, with square notation, the St.
Meinrad fonts by themselves will do the trick.



 Is there a website?

___
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