Re: [Finale] Shameless Self-Promotion

[Darcy James Argue]

On 07 Jul 2005, at 2:36 AM, keith helgesen wrote:


Hi Darcy- top work!

Love the lead sheet.
How do you get the "shadow" effect on rehearsal numbers?


Thanks, Keith.  The drop-shadow rehearsal letters/numbers are done with 
Bill Duncan's Rehearsal font, available here:


http://www.gwmp.com/MusicFontsFrameset.htm

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


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

RE: [Finale] Shameless Self-Promotion

[keith helgesen]

Hi Darcy- top work!

Love the lead sheet.
How do you get the "shadow" effect on rehearsal numbers?

Cheers K in OZ

Keith Helgesen.
Director of Music, Canberra City Band.
Ph: (02) 62910787. Band Mob. 0439-620587
Private Mob 0417-042171

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Darcy James Argue
Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2005 3:15 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: [Finale] Shameless Self-Promotion

Hey all,

I now have a (makeshift) site up advertising my music prep services, 
including samples of the copying work I've done for Bob Brookmeyer, 
Maria Schneider, and others.  As always, your feedback is most welcome.

http://homepage.mac.com/djargon/

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

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

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 6/07/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 6/07/2005
 

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Noel Stoutenburg]

Christopher Smith wrote:

Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam 
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself "getting ahead" of Speedy 
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale "remembers" the 
numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as 
you would expect) but DOES NOT remember what MIDI note I was holding 
down at the time I hit the number key!


Well, I do not not expect Finale to remember the MIDI note I was holding 
when I hit the number key.  If Finale is "well behaved" that is, if it 
follows the rules and conventions established for the Operating System, 
what seems to be Finale "remembering" entries in the numeric keypad, is 
actually an artifact of Finale getting the next keystroke in the 
Keyboard buffer of the O.S.  I can't say whether it is possible, or 
rather how difficult it would be, for Finale to implement a shadow MIDI 
key buffer that could be somehow linked to the OS keyboard buffer, so 
that when Finale gets the sixteenth item from the keyboard buffer, it 
also gets the sixteenth item from the MIDI buffer.


If Finale has a more complex beaming algorithm than it presently does, 
no doubt this problem will get worse.


I doubt that, as the beaming algorithm is strictly computation and 
followed by redraw, and the problem you describe, of numeric keypad 
entries not matching the correct pitches is a hardware / OS problem.


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

[Finale] Shameless Self-Promotion

[Darcy James Argue]

Hey all,

I now have a (makeshift) site up advertising my music prep services, 
including samples of the copying work I've done for Bob Brookmeyer, 
Maria Schneider, and others.  As always, your feedback is most welcome.


http://homepage.mac.com/djargon/

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

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

Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[Darcy James Argue]

On 06 Jul 2005, at 11:25 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:

But you HAD objected to the concept of having two different windows 
open on the same file - why?


I personally much prefer the default Sibelius behavior, where you can 
simply click a button to switch between Score View and Part View 
without spawning a new window.  I never resize Finale windows so I can 
see two documents at once (or two views of the same document) -- if I 
need to compare two parts, or two different sections of the score, I 
print them out.


It just strikes me as potentially confusing to have separate windows 
for each part (plus the score) when they are not, in fact, separate 
documents.  The name in the title bar is different for each part 
(obviously), but this really is like opening multiple instances of the 
same document, and I don't think that's something most Mac users 
routinely do.


I still think Finale should support it -- after all, I can see how 
people would find the separate windows useful.  I just wanted to voice 
my support for *also* including the option to switch from Score View to 
Parts View within a single window.


Have you downloaded the Sibelius demo and tried this out?  The UI for 
Dynamic Parts takes a little getting used to (at least for me).  This 
isn't to take away from the solution they chose, which is a good one.  
It's just that the whole concept of Dynamic Parts is a tough UI nut to 
crack, and as soon as you get into multiple windows, it's hard to make 
it obvious what's going on.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


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

Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[Darcy James Argue]

On 06 Jul 2005, at 11:42 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:

Hmm again. I can't see that, but hey, if you find it helpful, fine 
with me. I get around the necessity by just saving it again after 
printing, then the most recent save date IS the most recent print 
date. It seems to me that the Current Date, if you chose it, would be 
printed on the most recent paper copy, but I suppose if you didn't 
have a paper copy at hand...


Precisely.

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts

[Tyler Turner]

--- Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> 
> On Jul 5, 2005, at 11:07 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:
> >
> > Discussing the merits of the feature from a
> > functionality standpoint isn't really what's
> needed
> > here. The justification for the feature was that
> > people wanted it. It was in high demand both
> before
> > and after sounds were included with Finale.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tyler
> >
> 
> AM I BELIEVING WHAT I JUST READ?!
> 
> This astounding comment goes a long way to
> explaining some bewildering 
> decisions about the features and implementation
> thereof in Finale 
> recently, if indeed the comment reflects MakeMusic's
> attitude. (Tyler, 
> you ARE affiliated with MM, aren't you?)
> 
> Basically what you are saying is that it doesn't
> matter how, or even 
> if, a feature works, as long as you can say "We put
> it in there, now 
> stop asking for it."
> 
> Sheesh.
> 
> Christopher
> 


No, I'm not affiliated with MakeMusic. I'm a former
employee - I left a year and a half ago. I do
participate in the beta testing. 

Secondly, you have misunderstood me by quite a bit. My
point wasn't that MakeMusic would stick a feature in
that didn't work. It was that they could include a
feature if it was in high demand, whether or not the
merits to the feature were obvious to them or everyone
else.

Keep this in perspective. We were talking about the
mixer feature, and in particular whether or not it
made sense to include it back in the days before
Finale included its own sounds. It was stated that
there was no use for the feature because sounds were
not included. For a while this point was argued back
and forth. Finally I just basically said, "look,
whether or not we personally each see use for the
feature is not the point - the point is that other
people wanted it." Now if you want to get specific,
the reason other people wanted it was because those
other people saw a point in it. And quite frankly so
did the people at MakeMusic. But when it comes right
down to it, the reason to include the feature stems
first from the fact that people WANT it.

A mixer that didn't work well wouldn't be what
everyone WANTED, so that wouldn't have been
MakeMusic's strategy.

Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger
selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times
do composers click play as opposed to extracting
parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as
commonly as some people here believe. It wasn't a
frequent topic on the tech support phones or in
e-mails. It's not commonly discussed on the forum.
When you think about it, if you combine the number of
composers who don't get their works performed with the
number who are composing for something other than an
ensemble (piano, and piano with voice are pretty
common), I'm pretty sure you're looking at over 50%.
And as for people who commonly work with extraction,
that must be a lot fewer. 

Please don't misunderstand! I'm not saying that linked
parts isn't an extremely valuable feature. I just
believe that when it comes right down to it, the fact
that MakeMusic has just given Finale far and away the
best playback is NOT evidence that they are not in
tune with their users. I'd be amazed to discover that
the number of people who will benefit regularly from
linked parts will approach the number that benefit
regularly from GPO and HP. After all, even though this
is notation software, it's ultimately still about the
music (audio), and if it wasn't for the audio people
wouldn't be messing with the notation. If 90% of
Finale users will never get the bulk of their personal
compositions performed by real people, don't you think
something like GPO will be more attractive to them
than linked parts? 

I hope that clears up what I've said.

Tyler

__
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Christopher Smith]

On Jul 6, 2005, at 11:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


A plugin for repeats is certainly more appropriate, in my opinion,
than a plugin for beaming, but I still think the basic functionality
of repeats is obtuse and ridiculous. In my database application
programming I have a rule: never require a user to put in data that
my program can retrieve or calculate without user input. Repeat
targets are something that could easily be calculated (though,
obviously, with nested repeats, there'd need to be confirmation and
the ability to override Finale's guess) without user intervention in
the UI, without need to resort to a plugin.



Actually, the 2005 version of repeats is very close to being excellent. 
The only place I have to enter information that should be gleaned 
automatically is when I create a 2nd ending. The "2" is put in 
automatically (editable, though) as is the ending box, while it STILL 
assumes I want a backwards repeat at the end of the box which I have to 
uncheck. Still, that's only ONE extra mouse click, instead of MANY, for 
pretty much perfect repeats.





Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself "getting ahead" of Speedy
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale "remembers" the
numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as
you would expect) but DOES NOT remember what MIDI note I was holding
down at the time I hit the number key!


I have never had any such trouble in WinFin, and I put in data *very*
fast. Is it perhaps an OS X problem, a remaining artifact of the yet-
to-be-fully-optimized-for-OS-X Finale?



I dunno.



For instance, if I have a quick scale passage to enter in eighth
notes, I can quickly hit
note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4 to fill the
measure, but when I look up at the screen, Finale is laboriously
catching up with me, and furthermore, it has often entered an EIGHTH
REST in the middle of the bar and continued mismatching pitches with
eighth note values to the end, occasionally putting the interval of a
second on a stem, too, as if it "saw" two notes being held down
instead of the one. This occurs more frequently when I pass over a
barline, or if the screen scrolls just as I get to end of a measure.


Is your MIDI interface USB? If so, you may have something else
contending for the bandwidth of the USB interface, and that could be
the reason you're having the problem.



I have a USB MIDI interface (4 ports) plugged into one of two available 
USB ports, also a Logitech wireless mouse, and of course my computer 
keyboard, both plugged into my screen's USB port, as designed. I 
occasionally plug a SanDisk memory card reader, or a Cue Cat barcode 
reader (don't ask!) into the other port, but the problem is there even 
when neither one is plugged in.


I do have a wireless router plugged into my Ethernet port for an 
Appletalk 10baseT local network supporting my cable modem, my LaserJet 
4 printer, and my wife's laptop. I also have an external Firewire drive 
plugged into one of the two Firewire ports almost constantly. But those 
shouldn't affect things adversely, should they?





I think you shouldn't have the problem you're having with the current
beaming algorithm.



Heh, heh! I agree!




Sounds like an interface problem to me.

Or a severe problem with Finale's OS X implementation.

Even so, I doubt the algorithm would actually take any longer.
Computers are *very* fast. The lag in your system is, I'm absolutely
certain, not in the calculations, but in the transmission and display
of the data you're inputting.



Well, I have no way to verify that. I'm not much of a gearhead, 
admittedly.




Then again, I'm speculating about a program whose internal structure
I haven't a clue about running on an OS I've barely touched, so if
you think I'm full of hooey, I can see why you'd think that! :)



Hey, it ALL sounds reasonable enough to me!

Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] GPO?

[Christopher Smith]

On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:29 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 6 Jul 2005 at 20:40, Christopher Smith wrote:

[re: Human Playback:]

Some items, like trills, are surprisingly good, though.


How do you control what note it starts on?

And are the trills metronomically regular, or do they start slow and
then speed up? Can they be made to crescendo?



There is an option under Advanced to check; Baroque ornaments, which 
affects commonly found ornaments, like trills starting on the top note. 
If you don't always want this, you can copy the Style, uncheck the 
Baroque box, and apply it using the Apply Human Playback plugin to only 
a certain range of the piece.


All the trills I checked start slower than they finish, but they vary 
according to the style chosen and the Mood slider (ha! I like that 
name! It adds a certain amount of randomness, within reason, to the 
settings so that it doesn't play back twice the exact same way. BTW, 
Darcy, your tempo problems with succeeding passes of the same tune with 
Human Playback applied might be traceable to this slider. Set Mood all 
the way to zero and the interpretation is supposed to be 100% 
consistent from one playback to another, including tempos.)


I don't know about crescendo, but you can certainly put a crescendo 
manually on a trill with a Smart Shape. It may very well do it 
automatically; but I don't know, I couldn't hear one when I listened 
closely. Maybe I am so used to hearing one that I inferred it anyway, 
or maybe it passed by my perception because I expected it. In any case, 
the trills sounded reasonably musical to me, for a computer band.


Christopher

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

Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[Christopher Smith]

On Jul 6, 2005, at 10:49 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:


On 06 Jul 2005, at 10:36 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:


On Jul 6, 2005, at 3:41 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:


	• A program option to "Print Date and Time Footer" on all 
documents, with the option to choose between the date of most recent 
printing, or most recent saving.




Hmm. Finale already has this. Text>Inserts> File Date or Current Date.


Isn't "File Date" date of most recent *save*?  Sib lets you choose the 
date the document was most recently *printed*, which is (for me) much 
more helpful.



Hmm again. I can't see that, but hey, if you find it helpful, fine with 
me. I get around the necessity by just saving it again after printing, 
then the most recent save date IS the most recent print date. It seems 
to me that the Current Date, if you chose it, would be printed on the 
most recent paper copy, but I suppose if you didn't have a paper copy 
at hand...


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 23:10, Christopher Smith wrote:

> On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:47 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > On 6 Jul 2005 at 21:17, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >>>
>  On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >>>
> >>  It'll be
> >> interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeats business
> >> works and whether or not it will adjust the measure numbers
> >> appropriately.
> >
> > Isn't it just implemented as a plug-in?
> 
>  Is there a problem with that? Plugins seem to be a good way to
>  go, as they don't take up CPU cycles when you are using the
>  program "normally". This is what I like about the TG Tools lyric
>  plugins, for example, over Finale's auto-word extensions.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I would assume that code that implements the MassEdit tool's
> >>> functionality doesn't take up CPU cycles when I'm in Speedy, so I
> >>> don't see this defense of plugins as relevant.
> >>
> >> Well, you WOULD see it as relevant if you had Finale slow to a
> >> crawl when Auto-Word Extensions is on in your 300 measure choral
> >> work with orchestra and several vocal soloists. Having word
> >> extensions update ONLY when I ask them to from a plugin is a
> >> distinct advantage in speed.
> >
> > Well, that's actually a poorly-chosen example. Beaming is calculated
> > as you edit the notes. That is, when you enter an 8th note, then
> > enter a second one, the calculation of beam angle occurs right then,
> > before the 2nd 8th note is displayed. If you add a 3rd 8th note as
> > part of the beam, it then recalculates the beam angle, and if you
> > add a 4th, it recalculates again.
> >
> > It's using a very small amount of data, the data that describes the
> > notes within the current beamed group, and based on a certain
> > algorithm, displays that single group.
> >
> > After that, there is no further re-calculation.
> >
> > But when you edit the notes in the beamed grouping, such as dragging
> > a note to the right or left, or by changing one of the pitches or
> > adding additional pitches, the beaming is recalculated.
> >
> > The CPU cycles are used *as needed*, and only when there is an edit
> > to the data that forms the inputs to the algorithm to calculate beam
> > angle.
> >
> > That's the place where Robert's code should be.
> >
> > And given the contemplation of dynamic parts, where a transposed
> > part might end up with different wedges than the concert pitch
> > version in the score, it seems obvious to me that the adjustments
> > that Robert's plug-in makes belong in Finale's basic beaming
> > algorithm.
> >
> > And it wouldn't add any overhead or slowdown to the data entry
> > process at all.
> 
> Sorry again. I thought we talking about mid-measure repeats being
> implemented as a plugin (as quoted at the top), not Patterson beams.

Er, um, ack, yes, that's what we were talking about.

A plugin for repeats is certainly more appropriate, in my opinion, 
than a plugin for beaming, but I still think the basic functionality 
of repeats is obtuse and ridiculous. In my database application 
programming I have a rule: never require a user to put in data that 
my program can retrieve or calculate without user input. Repeat 
targets are something that could easily be calculated (though, 
obviously, with nested repeats, there'd need to be confirmation and 
the ability to override Finale's guess) without user intervention in 
the UI, without need to resort to a plugin.

> Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam 
> algorithm. Even now, I often find myself "getting ahead" of Speedy
> Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale "remembers" the
> numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as
> you would expect) but DOES NOT remember what MIDI note I was holding
> down at the time I hit the number key!

I have never had any such trouble in WinFin, and I put in data *very* 
fast. Is it perhaps an OS X problem, a remaining artifact of the yet-
to-be-fully-optimized-for-OS-X Finale?

> For instance, if I have a quick scale passage to enter in eighth
> notes, I can quickly hit
> note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4 to fill the
> measure, but when I look up at the screen, Finale is laboriously
> catching up with me, and furthermore, it has often entered an EIGHTH
> REST in the middle of the bar and continued mismatching pitches with
> eighth note values to the end, occasionally putting the interval of a
> second on a stem, too, as if it "saw" two notes being held down
> instead of the one. This occurs more frequently when I pass over a
> barline, or if the screen scrolls just as I get to end of a measure.

I've never encountered that. First off, I'd do CAPS LOCK 4, then play 
the notes, since I sometimes get my hands out of order, but I 
certainly never have that much lag t

Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[Christopher Smith]

On Jul 6, 2005, at 10:49 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:


On 06 Jul 2005, at 10:36 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:


I didn't get in your last post, Darcy, what your objection was to 
opening a new window of the same document. Sure it's one checkbox in 
Sib, but it's one menu item away in Finale (Mac version, anyway) 
File>Recent Items> click on whatever is presently open.


Chris, here we are talking about how Dynamic Parts are displayed (not 
regular extracted parts).  You should try the Sib demo to see the 
difference between leaving this box checked or uncheked.  This is a 
feature Finale should steal *after they implement Dynamic Parts*.




I was comparing this in Finale to having the score in Scroll View 
simultaneously open along with the Special Part Extraction version in 
page view. OK, so you can't have the Special Part Extraction version 
for Violin 1 open at the same time as the Special Part Extraction 
version for Violin 2, without them being two different files.


But you HAD objected to the concept of having two different windows 
open on the same file - why?




• An option to automatically check for maintenance updates.


Yes, it's true. That option is FOUR clicks away in Finale (and you 
have to type in your user name and password, unless you have it set 
to autofill). No reason why it can't be one click.


Um, what?  Where is the option to have Finale automatically check for 
maintenance upgrades?  I don't think Finale can do this, no matter how 
many clicks are involved.  Am I missing something?





Automatically, no. You have to check for updates yourself, under 
Help>Finale Updates Website, and the other three clicks are for 
navigating the MakeMusic website.


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Christopher Smith]

On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:47 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 6 Jul 2005 at 21:17, Christopher Smith wrote:



On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:


On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:



 It'll be
interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeats business works
and whether or not it will adjust the measure numbers
appropriately.


Isn't it just implemented as a plug-in?


Is there a problem with that? Plugins seem to be a good way to go,
as they don't take up CPU cycles when you are using the program
"normally". This is what I like about the TG Tools lyric plugins,
for example, over Finale's auto-word extensions.


Well, I would assume that code that implements the MassEdit tool's
functionality doesn't take up CPU cycles when I'm in Speedy, so I
don't see this defense of plugins as relevant.


Well, you WOULD see it as relevant if you had Finale slow to a crawl
when Auto-Word Extensions is on in your 300 measure choral work with
orchestra and several vocal soloists. Having word extensions update
ONLY when I ask them to from a plugin is a distinct advantage in
speed.


Well, that's actually a poorly-chosen example. Beaming is calculated
as you edit the notes. That is, when you enter an 8th note, then
enter a second one, the calculation of beam angle occurs right then,
before the 2nd 8th note is displayed. If you add a 3rd 8th note as
part of the beam, it then recalculates the beam angle, and if you add
a 4th, it recalculates again.

It's using a very small amount of data, the data that describes the
notes within the current beamed group, and based on a certain
algorithm, displays that single group.

After that, there is no further re-calculation.

But when you edit the notes in the beamed grouping, such as dragging
a note to the right or left, or by changing one of the pitches or
adding additional pitches, the beaming is recalculated.

The CPU cycles are used *as needed*, and only when there is an edit
to the data that forms the inputs to the algorithm to calculate beam
angle.

That's the place where Robert's code should be.

And given the contemplation of dynamic parts, where a transposed part
might end up with different wedges than the concert pitch version in
the score, it seems obvious to me that the adjustments that Robert's
plug-in makes belong in Finale's basic beaming algorithm.

And it wouldn't add any overhead or slowdown to the data entry
process at all.



Sorry again. I thought we talking about mid-measure repeats being 
implemented as a plugin (as quoted at the top), not Patterson beams.


Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam 
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself "getting ahead" of Speedy 
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale "remembers" the 
numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as 
you would expect) but DOES NOT remember what MIDI note I was holding 
down at the time I hit the number key!


For instance, if I have a quick scale passage to enter in eighth notes, 
I can quickly hit 
note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4 to fill the 
measure, but when I look up at the screen, Finale is laboriously 
catching up with me, and furthermore, it has often entered an EIGHTH 
REST in the middle of the bar and continued mismatching pitches with 
eighth note values to the end, occasionally putting the interval of a 
second on a stem, too, as if it "saw" two notes being held down instead 
of the one. This occurs more frequently when I pass over a barline, or 
if the screen scrolls just as I get to end of a measure.


If Finale has a more complex beaming algorithm than it presently does, 
no doubt this problem will get worse.


Admittedly, I am on a rather middle-to-slow system about two years old 
(!) a 733 mHz G4, but I would have expected Finale's buffers to stay 
synchronised in any case.


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[Aaron Sherber]

At 10:49 PM 7/6/2005, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>Um, what?  Where is the option to have Finale automatically check for
>maintenance upgrades?

It's not automatic, but WinFin04 has Help | Finale Updates. This just 
takes you to the website, which isn't quite the same as automatic 
update checks.


Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[Darcy James Argue]

On 06 Jul 2005, at 10:36 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:


On Jul 6, 2005, at 3:41 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:


	• A program option to "Print Date and Time Footer" on all documents, 
with the option to choose between the date of most recent printing, 
or most recent saving.




Hmm. Finale already has this. Text>Inserts> File Date or Current Date.


Isn't "File Date" date of most recent *save*?  Sib lets you choose the 
date the document was most recently *printed*, which is (for me) much 
more helpful.


	• Custom keyboard shortcut sets, with the ability to assign your own 
shortcuts to any menu item or action.




Kind of like Metatools?


No.


Now if that were applicable to ANY menu item or action,


It is.


 as you appear to say Sib does,


I did.


that would be nice.


It is.

	• AHA!  There it is -- a checkbox for "View Parts In New Windows"!  
So David, you *can* compare multiple parts side-by-side.


I didn't get in your last post, Darcy, what your objection was to 
opening a new window of the same document. Sure it's one checkbox in 
Sib, but it's one menu item away in Finale (Mac version, anyway) 
File>Recent Items> click on whatever is presently open.


Chris, here we are talking about how Dynamic Parts are displayed (not 
regular extracted parts).  You should try the Sib demo to see the 
difference between leaving this box checked or uncheked.  This is a 
feature Finale should steal *after they implement Dynamic Parts*.



• An option to automatically check for maintenance updates.


Yes, it's true. That option is FOUR clicks away in Finale (and you 
have to type in your user name and password, unless you have it set to 
autofill). No reason why it can't be one click.


Um, what?  Where is the option to have Finale automatically check for 
maintenance upgrades?  I don't think Finale can do this, no matter how 
many clicks are involved.  Am I missing something?


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


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

Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?

[Gerald Berg]

Thanks all and thank you Owain -- this is  simplication towards 
clarification not a complication.


I'll repeat Creston's bit

You have your 4/4 measure
a.) the pulse is the quarter note.
b.) primary units at the eight -- 8/8
c.) extrametrical units are at the triplet -- 12/12

This 12/12 is what you are calling 12/8

In 12/8 the pulse is still in 4 -- all you've done is expand the tempo 
by a third to accommodate expanding the denominator by a third.


In answer to what does a twelfth note look like.

Creston again:

"...a 1/6 note triplet can be referred to (by the conductor) as a 
'written quarter note' triplet, and a 1/12 note triplet as a 'written 
eight note' triplet.


He likens this kind of discourse (very astutely I think) with 
transposition -- that is the conductor speaks to the Bb trumpet player 
(eg) as 'concert D - your written E".


In other words nothing changes except 9/8 is now (properly) 1/3 longer 
than 9/12.


Simple.

Jerry


On 6-Jul-05, at 3:47 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:

It looks just like an 8th-note. The purpose of x/12, x/10 etc. is to 
allow changes of pulse, in non-triplet situations, with signatures 
such as 5/12.  Yes, this could be indicated with a tempo change at the 
barline, but if the changes are every bar (as typical in Ferneyhough), 
x/12 etc. is the clearest system to use.  And isn't at all complicated 
once you've familiarised yourself with it.






Gerald Berg

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

Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[Christopher Smith]

On Jul 6, 2005, at 3:41 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

It's not just the dynamic parts.  Going through Sib 4, I'm finding 
lots of nice, little features Finale would do well to implement:






	• A program option to "Print Date and Time Footer" on all documents, 
with the option to choose between the date of most recent printing, or 
most recent saving.




Hmm. Finale already has this. Text>Inserts> File Date or Current Date.



	• Custom keyboard shortcut sets, with the ability to assign your own 
shortcuts to any menu item or action.




Kind of like Metatools? Now if that were applicable to ANY menu item or 
action, as you appear to say Sib does, that would be nice.




	• AHA!  There it is -- a checkbox for "View Parts In New Windows"!  
So David, you *can* compare multiple parts side-by-side.




I didn't get in your last post, Darcy, what your objection was to 
opening a new window of the same document. Sure it's one checkbox in 
Sib, but it's one menu item away in Finale (Mac version, anyway) 
File>Recent Items> click on whatever is presently open.




• An option to automatically check for maintenance updates.



Yes, it's true. That option is FOUR clicks away in Finale (and you have 
to type in your user name and password, unless you have it set to 
autofill). No reason why it can't be one click.


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?

[John Abram]

On 6-Jul-05, at 5:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


John Abram wrote:





A twelfth note is a triplet eighth note. They are sometimes used  
in  new
music (eg Mark-Anthony Turnage has used it frequently I believe)   
Henry

Cowell was way ahead of the game with this sort of thinking.

Why is 12/12 not like 12/8? Because 12/8 is not triplets.
Yes, I know it sounds like triplets, but it's not.



You're really splitting hairs here -- putting 3 evenly spaced notes
within one beat sounds like triplets to me, no matter how it's
represented in the time signature.


Yes it sounds the same, like "witch" sounds like "which" and like 4/8  
sounds like 4/16 and 4/4.



What's the difference?  Are you trying to say that triplets are only
triplets if they are 3 notes played in the time normally occupied by 2
of the same notes, and since in 12/8 the 8ths aren't played in the  
time

normally occupied by 2 8ths they aren't really triplets?


Yes, by definition triplets are 3 notes in the time of 2.


What does a 12th-note look like?


It looks like a triplet 8th, because it is one.

The usefulness of this is that one can make a measure of 11/12 which  
is essentially one triplet-eighth short of 4/4.
I'm sure not many people use this, but when I worked as a  
professional copyist in the 90's I was asked to do this sort of thing.

_
with best wishes,
John
http://abram.ca/

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

Re: [Finale] Grace Note Spacing

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 23:11, Rafael Velasco wrote:

> Try unchecking "avoid collision of ledger lines" (Document
> options/music spacing). That might solve the problem. Well, just if
> you don't mind the collision of those ledger lines. I'd much rather
> see Finale avoiding that collision and re-spacing the notes inside the
> other staves. Or is it already possible to do that?

Well, that's interesting. It does seem to avoid the problem in that 
case.

But I'm not sure it's not just easier to manually respace everything, 
as I'd already done.

-- 
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] Grace Note Spacing

[Rafael Velasco]

- Original Message - 
From: "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Grace Note Spacing


> On 6 Jul 2005 at 18:06, Mark D Lew wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 2005, at 8:47 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> > > But the spacing is wrong *before* I've nudged anything. Nudging and
> > > then respacing gets me back to exactly the same place it was before
> > > I did any manual adjustment.
> >
> > So you've got a case where you enter identical rhythms and get
> > non-identical spacing before doing any nudging?  If so, that's what
> > I'd like to see a sample of. (Or maybe you can just describe it in
> > email text?)
>
> Well, I just created a new default document and tried it, and it
> doesn't exhibit the problem.
>
> The problem is in this file:
>
> http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/HoffmeisterQuintet.mus
>
> If you go to mm. 5:14 and 6:110 and respace with metatool 4, you'll
> see the problem the violin and viola parts should be vertically
> aligned, because they are both at 75% reduction in the score.
>
> If you remove the spacing adjustments and respace, you'll see what
> happens -- it returns to the exact same bad spacing.
>
> > My thinking is that Finale's grace note spacing, although often ugly,
> > is at least consistent.  My goal here is to understand it's internal
> > logic so as to have a pattern of practices that lets us get decent
> > results so long as we remember to do it the right way.
> >
> > I'm interested in neither criticizing nor justifying Finale's
> > behavior.
> >   The program is what it is; I just want to figure out how to best use
> > it as it is.
>
> I think it's broken, but the problem may be with older files.
>
> It's still broken, though.
>
> -- 
> 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
>

David

Try unchecking "avoid collision of ledger lines" (Document options/music
spacing).
That might solve the problem. Well, just if you don't mind the collision of
those ledger lines.
I'd much rather see Finale avoiding that collision and re-spacing the notes
inside the other staves.
Or is it already possible to do that?

Regards
Rafael Velasco

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 21:17, Christopher Smith wrote:

> 
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
>   It'll be
>  interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeats business works
>  and whether or not it will adjust the measure numbers
>  appropriately.
> >>>
> >>> Isn't it just implemented as a plug-in?
> >>
> >> Is there a problem with that? Plugins seem to be a good way to go,
> >> as they don't take up CPU cycles when you are using the program
> >> "normally". This is what I like about the TG Tools lyric plugins,
> >> for example, over Finale's auto-word extensions.
> >
> > Well, I would assume that code that implements the MassEdit tool's
> > functionality doesn't take up CPU cycles when I'm in Speedy, so I
> > don't see this defense of plugins as relevant.
> 
> Well, you WOULD see it as relevant if you had Finale slow to a crawl
> when Auto-Word Extensions is on in your 300 measure choral work with
> orchestra and several vocal soloists. Having word extensions update
> ONLY when I ask them to from a plugin is a distinct advantage in
> speed.

Well, that's actually a poorly-chosen example. Beaming is calculated 
as you edit the notes. That is, when you enter an 8th note, then 
enter a second one, the calculation of beam angle occurs right then, 
before the 2nd 8th note is displayed. If you add a 3rd 8th note as 
part of the beam, it then recalculates the beam angle, and if you add 
a 4th, it recalculates again.

It's using a very small amount of data, the data that describes the 
notes within the current beamed group, and based on a certain 
algorithm, displays that single group.

After that, there is no further re-calculation.

But when you edit the notes in the beamed grouping, such as dragging 
a note to the right or left, or by changing one of the pitches or 
adding additional pitches, the beaming is recalculated.

The CPU cycles are used *as needed*, and only when there is an edit 
to the data that forms the inputs to the algorithm to calculate beam 
angle.

That's the place where Robert's code should be.

And given the contemplation of dynamic parts, where a transposed part 
might end up with different wedges than the concert pitch version in 
the score, it seems obvious to me that the adjustments that Robert's 
plug-in makes belong in Finale's basic beaming algorithm.

And it wouldn't add any overhead or slowdown to the data entry 
process at all.

> >>> If you add a new region, when you create it, it appears to inherit
> >>> all the settings of the previous region you were working on, but,
> >>> instead, it just doesn't update the display. When you close the
> >>> dialog, you find that it's actually inherited the default settings
> >>> for measure number formatting. Second, there are problems with the
> >>> measure-number display that I haven't quite traced down. It takes
> >>> two or three trips to the region editing dialog before the numbers
> >>> start actually displaying what you've told them to
> >>
> >> Command-D (control D on the PC) to redraw usually takes care of it
> >> for me.
> >
> > Ctrl-D in a *dialog* box? The dialog box shows the WRONG FONT.
> 
> Sorry, I missed what the problem was originally (I need to read
> better).
> 
> This doesn't seem to happen on my Mac version, though I DO have to hit
> redraw once I am back in the score for my measure number edits to show
> up properly.
> 
> Sounds like a bug.

Well, it can mostly be ameliorated by setting the defaults for 
measure regions, but it's nonetheless a bug.

-- 
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] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 18:12, Mark D Lew wrote:

> On Jul 6, 2005, at 3:46 AM, dhbailey wrote:
> 
> > And I fail to see how this linked score/parts would not benefit
> > practically every Finale user.
> 
> Well, it wouldn't benefit me, since I almost never extract parts.  My
> work is about 99% piano-vocal or choral, so there's never any parts to
> extract.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  I'm not opposed to the feature.  Obviously it's
> important to a lot of users.  I'm just contesting your implication
> that it's good for everyone.

Exactly how does "benefit practically every Finale user" equate to 
"good for everyone"?

Fact is, it doesn't. You can only disagree with my statement if you 
insist on reading it to say something that I didn't say.

-- 
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] Grace Note Spacing

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 18:06, Mark D Lew wrote:

> On Jul 6, 2005, at 8:47 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > But the spacing is wrong *before* I've nudged anything. Nudging and
> > then respacing gets me back to exactly the same place it was before
> > I did any manual adjustment.
> 
> So you've got a case where you enter identical rhythms and get 
> non-identical spacing before doing any nudging?  If so, that's what
> I'd like to see a sample of. (Or maybe you can just describe it in
> email text?)

Well, I just created a new default document and tried it, and it 
doesn't exhibit the problem.

The problem is in this file:

http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/HoffmeisterQuintet.mus

If you go to mm. 5:14 and 6:110 and respace with metatool 4, you'll 
see the problem the violin and viola parts should be vertically 
aligned, because they are both at 75% reduction in the score.

If you remove the spacing adjustments and respace, you'll see what 
happens -- it returns to the exact same bad spacing.

> My thinking is that Finale's grace note spacing, although often ugly,
> is at least consistent.  My goal here is to understand it's internal
> logic so as to have a pattern of practices that lets us get decent
> results so long as we remember to do it the right way.
> 
> I'm interested in neither criticizing nor justifying Finale's
> behavior. 
>   The program is what it is; I just want to figure out how to best use
> it as it is.

I think it's broken, but the problem may be with older files.

It's still broken, though.

-- 
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] GPO?

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 20:40, Christopher Smith wrote:

[re: Human Playback:]
> Some items, like trills, are surprisingly good, though.

How do you control what note it starts on?

And are the trills metronomically regular, or do they start slow and 
then speed up? Can they be made to crescendo?

-- 
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] Vertical Spacing Algorithms

[Mark D Lew]

On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:50 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:

No you're not. I would greatly appreciate it too. Of course, it should 
be "automatic" only in the same sense that horizontal page and measure 
layout is automatic: Finale should supply you with its best  
approximation when you first lay out systems, but after that you 
adjust it manually or reinvoke it in a selected region  w. a Mass-Edit 
 or Layout menu command. Also, the degree of vertical collision 
avoidance--and what items should be  considered--should be 
user-configurable, just as in the existing Music Spacing dialog.


Agreed.  The best thing about Finale is that even when it offers 
solutions, it doesn't impose them upon you; you can always do it 
yourself if you want something different.


I would pursue the analogy a little further and specify that 
implementing vertical spacing is an action you perform on a page when 
you choose to, just as you implement horizontal spacing on a measure or 
measures with the 3 or 4 metatool.  For those who want vertical spacing 
turned on all the time, there can be an "automatic page spacing" 
analogous to the current "automatic music spacing" and "automatic 
update layout".  Anyone who doesn't want the new vertical spacing can 
leave it turned off and never use it.


mdl

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Christopher Smith]

On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:


On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:



 It'll be
interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeats business works
and whether or not it will adjust the measure numbers
appropriately.


Isn't it just implemented as a plug-in?


Is there a problem with that? Plugins seem to be a good way to go, as
they don't take up CPU cycles when you are using the program
"normally". This is what I like about the TG Tools lyric plugins, for
example, over Finale's auto-word extensions.


Well, I would assume that code that implements the MassEdit tool's
functionality doesn't take up CPU cycles when I'm in Speedy, so I
don't see this defense of plugins as relevant.



Well, you WOULD see it as relevant if you had Finale slow to a crawl 
when Auto-Word Extensions is on in your 300 measure choral work with 
orchestra and several vocal soloists. Having word extensions update 
ONLY when I ask them to from a plugin is a distinct advantage in speed.


Plus I get a lot more (and better, which is more to the point) control 
over things with TG Tools.


There are a lot of plugins I use which I realise might have been part 
of the code of Finale, but I am glad not to have them adding to the 
bloat. I can easily remove plugins that I don't need. Maybe this one 
(midmeasure repeats) would be fine and cause no problems at all as part 
of the Repeat Tool, maybe not; I don't know.







If you add a new region, when you create it, it appears to inherit
all the settings of the previous region you were working on, but,
instead, it just doesn't update the display. When you close the
dialog, you find that it's actually inherited the default settings
for measure number formatting. Second, there are problems with the
measure-number display that I haven't quite traced down. It takes
two or three trips to the region editing dialog before the numbers
start actually displaying what you've told them to


Command-D (control D on the PC) to redraw usually takes care of it for
me.


Ctrl-D in a *dialog* box? The dialog box shows the WRONG FONT.


Sorry, I missed what the problem was originally (I need to read better).

This doesn't seem to happen on my Mac version, though I DO have to hit 
redraw once I am back in the score for my measure number edits to show 
up properly.


Sounds like a bug.

Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[Mark D Lew]

On Jul 6, 2005, at 3:46 AM, dhbailey wrote:

And I fail to see how this linked score/parts would not benefit 
practically every Finale user.


Well, it wouldn't benefit me, since I almost never extract parts.  My 
work is about 99% piano-vocal or choral, so there's never any parts to 
extract.


Don't get me wrong.  I'm not opposed to the feature.  Obviously it's 
important to a lot of users.  I'm just contesting your implication that 
it's good for everyone.


mdl

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

Re: [Finale] Grace Note Spacing

[Mark D Lew]

On Jul 6, 2005, at 8:47 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:


But the spacing is wrong *before* I've nudged anything. Nudging and
then respacing gets me back to exactly the same place it was before I
did any manual adjustment.


So you've got a case where you enter identical rhythms and get 
non-identical spacing before doing any nudging?  If so, that's what I'd 
like to see a sample of. (Or maybe you can just describe it in email 
text?)


My thinking is that Finale's grace note spacing, although often ugly, 
is at least consistent.  My goal here is to understand it's internal 
logic so as to have a pattern of practices that lets us get decent 
results so long as we remember to do it the right way.


I'm interested in neither criticizing nor justifying Finale's behavior. 
 The program is what it is; I just want to figure out how to best use 
it as it is.



I can't get to it until much later today. I'll try to remember.


No need to go to any extra trouble over it.  Just next time the problem 
comes up, save a copy of the file for me.


mdl

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Chuck Israels]

On Jul 6, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:



That's a very good idea.  I was wondering myself how to solve that  
particular problem, but if Finale just integrates Patterson Beams  
into the Beam Options, well, there's your solution right there.


-


Agreed, so please write MM (as I have) and add your name to the  
request.  I have the feeling that this is a real possibility.


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] GPO?

[Christopher Smith]

keith helgesen wrote:



What is *“human playback” *(as opposed to gorilla, or what playback?)



It's a relatively new feature in Finale that interprets accents, 
articulations, glissandos, rits, and the like, and adds more or less 
appropriate performance practice to the dry and machine-like playback 
of the bare notes. You can choose from a few different built-in styles 
in the Playback window. It adds time between the moment you hit Play 
and the music starts to playback, however, and even then it gets a bit 
overwrought at times.


Some items, like trills, are surprisingly good, though. The jazz 
playback style is better than nothing, especially if you keep it at 
Light Swing.


Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[Owain Sutton]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 7 Jul 2005 at 1:01, Owain Sutton wrote:



David W. Fenton wrote:


On 6 Jul 2005 at 15:41, Darcy James Argue wrote:



It's not just the dynamic parts.  Going through Sib 4, I'm finding
lots of nice, little features Finale would do well to implement:

• Translucent palettes (or "tool windows" as Sibelius calls them)


What use is there for this? Just to make it more Mac-like?


I use transparent windows all the time (see my other reply on this).
Nothing to do with Macs, just a different way of using a GUI.  It
should be minimal work to make such an option available.



Well, on the Mac, yes, as it's part of the basic Quartz architecture.

I thought Windows wasn't getting the useless transparent dialogs 
until Avalon, with the release of Longhorn.





No, on XP.  I mentioned it earlier, but it's so useful I'll do so again: 
Power Menuy, http://www.veridicus.com/tummy/programming/powermenu/, puts 
transparency options into the context menus of (almost) any window.


Example: http://www.owainsutton.co.uk/images/translucent.jpg
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[David W. Fenton]

On 7 Jul 2005 at 1:01, Owain Sutton wrote:

> David W. Fenton wrote:
> > On 6 Jul 2005 at 15:41, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> > 
> >>It's not just the dynamic parts.  Going through Sib 4, I'm finding
> >>lots of nice, little features Finale would do well to implement:
> >>
> >> • Translucent palettes (or "tool windows" as Sibelius calls them)
> > 
> > What use is there for this? Just to make it more Mac-like?
> 
> I use transparent windows all the time (see my other reply on this).
> Nothing to do with Macs, just a different way of using a GUI.  It
> should be minimal work to make such an option available.

Well, on the Mac, yes, as it's part of the basic Quartz architecture.

I thought Windows wasn't getting the useless transparent dialogs 
until Avalon, with the release of Longhorn.

> Actually, what I would love would be a vertical icon-menu on the left,
> each icon representing one tool, and giving a mouseover slide-out of
> the present toolbars.

I still don't get it. What value is having transparency in a palette 
or dialog, unless the palette or dialog is not movable? That would 
seem to be a design error that would be better fixed by making the 
blocking windows movable, rather than by making content behind them 
show through. I can only see transparency as something that makes it 
harder to view the windows that's on top, and gives you minimal 
viewing of the content beneath.

I just don't get it, other than for the WAY COOL factor.

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


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

[Finale] OT: Old Localtalk Printer on OSX

[Robert Patterson]

Sorry for the off-topic post, but I know several listers may have some 
insights. (Google doesn't seem to be much help.)


I have an old Dataproducts LZR 1580 that I bought in 1991. It is still 
quit useful, although it is no longer my primary printer. The PPD I have 
(ca. 1993) worked fine in Jaguar, with some minor cajoling. But 
Panther's Printer Setup refuses to cooperate. It will let me choose the 
PPD, even recognizing it as Dataproducts, but when I hit OK it refuses 
to assign it to the printer and fails to display any kind of error 
message. (G.) I can use the printer by setting it up as Generic 
Postscript, but that doesn't include any of the trays or paper size 
options the printer actually has. (I can get around the paper size 
restrictions by tricking the software, but it's a bit of a pain.)


And this discussion begs the question of Tiger. When Tiger comes, can I 
even still use an Ethertalk printer? I have discoverd that Tiger no 
longer supports File Sharing over Ethertalk. But what about Ethertalk 
printers? (FWIW: the printer is actually serial Localtalk, but I use a 
3rd-party adapter that converts back and forth.)


This is why I an coming to hate Apple: repeated cutoffs of support for 
legacy software and hardware, and already another coming. It may well 
drive me completely to the other side.


--
Robert Patterson

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

Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[Ken Durling]

At 05:01 PM 7/6/2005, you wrote:

What use is there for this? Just to make it more Mac-like?


I use transparent windows all the time (see my other reply on this). 
Nothing to do with Macs, just a different way of using a GUI.  It should 
be minimal work to make such an option available.


Actually, what I would love would be a vertical icon-menu on the left, 
each icon representing one tool, and giving a mouseover slide-out of the 
present toolbars.



Good idea.  Kind of like Photoshop.  I think a one key show/hide palettes 
like PS's Tab would be useful too.










• Custom keyboard shortcut sets, with the ability to assign your own
shortcuts to any menu item or action.

I sure would like that one!


Me too!






It's been a feature of Sib for some time, and you can save different sets 
of shortcuts as different House Styles.  So you can tailor the program to 
multiple projects and it really saves a lot of time.



ken





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

Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?

[Richard Yates]

> >>What does a 12th-note look like?
> > 
> > http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg
> > 
> That's a joke, right?

I am sure that it will turn up in Finale2007 if enough people ask for it.



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

Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[Owain Sutton]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 6 Jul 2005 at 15:41, Darcy James Argue wrote:



It's not just the dynamic parts.  Going through Sib 4, I'm finding
lots of nice, little features Finale would do well to implement:

• Translucent palettes (or "tool windows" as Sibelius calls them)



What use is there for this? Just to make it more Mac-like?



I use transparent windows all the time (see my other reply on this). 
Nothing to do with Macs, just a different way of using a GUI.  It should 
be minimal work to make such an option available.


Actually, what I would love would be a vertical icon-menu on the left, 
each icon representing one tool, and giving a mouseover slide-out of the 
present toolbars.







• Custom keyboard shortcut sets, with the ability to assign your own
shortcuts to any menu item or action.



I sure would like that one!



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

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 19:38, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> On 06 Jul 2005, at 7:16 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > On 6 Jul 2005 at 14:30, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> 
> >> Well, I don't know how XP works so I can't comment on that end of
> >> it. But on the Mac, there is no such thing as a "child" window.
> >
> > Sure there is. Any document window spawned by Finale is a child of
> > the parent Finale window.
> 
> That's not how it works on Mac.  There *is* no "parent" Finale window,
> so there's no "spawning".. . .

You may not have a box drawn around a rectangle onscreen, but there 
is unquestionably a window onscreen that represents the parent Finale 
process. Document windows are children of that process.

The difference between Windows and Mac is in how this lineage is 
displayed. On Windows, child windows exist only inside the parent 
window. On the Mac, since the parent window does not actual have a 
restricted border, the windows appear independent, and can be moved 
anywhere onscreen.

But they are *still* child windows of Finale.

> . . .  When no Finale documents are open, there is
> no Finale window either -- the application is still running, and you
> can switch to Finale, but there's no window. . . .

Isn't the Finale menu bar visible? That's a window, just not a 
bordered window containing the child windows.

> . . . When multiple Finale
> documents are open, they are all part of the same hierarchy.  There is
> no way that one parts window can "belong" to a score window.

There is no visual representation of that relationship, but it is 
still present. 

What happens if you have 3 document windows open in Finale and you 
exit Finale? Don't the child windows close?

> This lack of window hierarchy concerns me -- for instance, if you had
> two different scores open simultaneously, it might be difficult to
> tell which part window belonged to which score.  Especially if you
> had, for example, two different revisions of the same score open at
> the same time.

I'm stunned that FinMac lacks the ability to compare two different 
parts of the same file in separate document windows. I've often 
thought that some day I might switch to Mac, but that shows I 
couldn't possibly do so!

> > Opening multiple document windows solves the problem, though. And
> > that's what I'm reading you as having said you don't like.
> 
> On reflection, I'm fine with doing it either way (as Sieblius does) --
> so long as there is a way to switch between parts *without* spawning a
> bunch of new windows.  For my own work, I would find that UI much more
> clear than having to deal with a mess of windows.

Well, I did *not* say that all the parts should automatically open 
their own document windows! I'm not even sure the default parts view 
should display the score at all, to be honest. What utility is there 
in that, except to demo the linkage between score and parts?

Once you see the list of available part views it should work just 
like a web browser -- you have a choice of opening the other part 
view in the same document window you're currently using, or to launch 
it in a new window.

> > How are multiple windows on a single document implemented on the
> > Mac?
> 
> You open a second copy of the document via the "Open" menu, and the
> Finder labels the windows "Brilliant Concerto.mus:1" ; "Brilliant
> Concerto.mus:2"; etc.

Ah. Well, then you *do* have multiple document windows. It's surely 
not a second copy of the document that is open, since that would 
cause contention for the file on disk. If you edit in window 1 and 
then go to window 2 and save, aren't the changes in window 1 saved? 
If so, then you've already got multiple windows viewing a single 
document.

> > Whatever method is used for that would make perfect sense for part
> > view.
> 
> As long as you can do it both ways, I'm happy.

Well, I don't know why you assumed that I was proposing opening *all* 
the parts simultaneously any time you switched to part view!

> >> There is no "New Window" menu item on the Mac.
> >
> > You can't view two parts of a Finale document simultaneously?
> >
> > *BOGGLE*
> 
> No, you can, you just open a second copy of the same document.  That's
> something that always makes me uncomfortable, though -- I try to avoid
> that if possible.  (I have enough trouble with the File Overwrite bug
> as it is!)

Sounds like it's implemented with a result just like that in Windows, 
except the Windows UI makes it less dangrous feeling -- you launch a 
new window from the WINDOW menu by choosing NEW WINDOW. The title bar 
is exactly the same as for your separate document windows.

I doubt you have any reason to feel nervous about it. If you really 
were opening the document a second time, one of them would surely 
have to be read-only, and my bet is that this is not the case.

> > Tons of my editing work requires this! It's how I do my
> > musicological editing, where I make editorial suggestions to make,
> > say, an exposition and a recap 

Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?

[Owain Sutton]

Richard Yates wrote:

What does a 12th-note look like?



http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg




That's a joke, right?
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[Darcy James Argue]

On 06 Jul 2005, at 7:16 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 6 Jul 2005 at 14:30, Darcy James Argue wrote:



Well, I don't know how XP works so I can't comment on that end of it.
But on the Mac, there is no such thing as a "child" window.


Sure there is. Any document window spawned by Finale is a child of
the parent Finale window.


That's not how it works on Mac.  There *is* no "parent" Finale window, 
so there's no "spawning".  When no Finale documents are open, there is 
no Finale window either -- the application is still running, and you 
can switch to Finale, but there's no window.  When multiple Finale 
documents are open, they are all part of the same hierarchy.  There is 
no way that one parts window can "belong" to a score window.


This lack of window hierarchy concerns me -- for instance, if you had 
two different scores open simultaneously, it might be difficult to tell 
which part window belonged to which score.  Especially if you had, for 
example, two different revisions of the same score open at the same 
time.



Opening multiple document windows solves the problem, though. And
that's what I'm reading you as having said you don't like.


On reflection, I'm fine with doing it either way (as Sieblius does) -- 
so long as there is a way to switch between parts *without* spawning a 
bunch of new windows.  For my own work, I would find that UI much more 
clear than having to deal with a mess of windows.



How are multiple windows on a single document implemented on the Mac?


You open a second copy of the document via the "Open" menu, and the 
Finder labels the windows "Brilliant Concerto.mus:1" ; "Brilliant 
Concerto.mus:2"; etc.



Whatever method is used for that would make perfect sense for part
view.


As long as you can do it both ways, I'm happy.


There is no "New Window" menu item on the Mac.


You can't view two parts of a Finale document simultaneously?

*BOGGLE*


No, you can, you just open a second copy of the same document.  That's 
something that always makes me uncomfortable, though -- I try to avoid 
that if possible.  (I have enough trouble with the File Overwrite bug 
as it is!)



Tons of my editing work requires this! It's how I do my musicological
editing, where I make editorial suggestions to make, say, an
exposition and a recap have similar dynamics/articulations/bowings.


Whenever I have to do anything like this, I use a printout, marked up 
as necessary.  I hate proofing and editing on-screen.



In Sibelius -- at least on Mac -- you can't compare two parts
side-by-side.  You can only have the score window plus one dynamic
part open at any one time.


That would seem to me to be a very severe limitation.


I was wrong -- there's a "open parts in new windows" option in the 
preferences.


David, since you have a lot to say about this feature, I highly 
recommend you download the Sibelius 4 demo and try it for yourself -- 
see how it's implemented, see what you like and don't like.  That would 
help us make better suggestions about how Finale could implement the 
feature.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

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

Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 15:41, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> It's not just the dynamic parts.  Going through Sib 4, I'm finding
> lots of nice, little features Finale would do well to implement:
> 
>  • Translucent palettes (or "tool windows" as Sibelius calls them)

What use is there for this? Just to make it more Mac-like?

>  • A program option to "Print Date and Time Footer" on all documents,
> with the option to choose between the date of most recent printing, or
> most recent saving.

That's doable in Finale, since you have inserts for both current date 
and file date. And I prefer Finale's method, since it's not a choice 
between one or the other, but allows you to do both in the same 
printout.

>  • A user-configurable list of font equivalents, and the option to
> choose which fonts should be used (in order of priority) if a
> specified font is not available.

Finale used to have font substitutions built in, but there doesn't 
appear to be any such functionality there any longer (based on a 
perusal of the online documentation's index). Of course, my printer 
driver allows me to do this, but only with the PostScript driver (why 
would that be?).

>  • Custom keyboard shortcut sets, with the ability to assign your own
> shortcuts to any menu item or action.

I sure would like that one!

>  • The ability to set separate colors and textures for score view vs.
> parts view (I know some people will snicker at that, but it's actually
> a helpful visual cue).
> 
>  • AHA!  There it is -- a checkbox for "View Parts In New Windows"! 
>  So 
> David, you *can* compare multiple parts side-by-side.

Yay! :)

What happens when you have it unchecked?

>  • An option to automatically check for maintenance updates.

This is something I hate with a web browser and any number of other 
programs, but would actually like with a program like Finale, where 
the the updates usually are quite important and helpful.

>  • The ability to simply copy and paste the selected music directly
> into other applications (like, say, Word) without having to export
> graphics.

I wonder how they manage that. It's a complex problem on Windows, 
though much less complex on OS X.

>  • The ability to add and edit the list of expressions recognized by
> Espressivo (Sib's Human Playback equivalent).

Is there no similar functionality in Finale? Does that mean you can't 
really control what Human Playback does -- it's just all or nothing?

-- 
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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?

[Richard Yates]

> > What does a 12th-note look like?

http://www.yatesguitar.com/misc/TwelfthNote.jpg


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Richard Yates]

> > Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
> > part extraction:  1)  hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and
> > printed in close score, and 2) songs, including pop vocal music, and 3)
> > choral music, where the voice parts are printed in full score, or in the
> > case of larger works, where accompaniment is a larger ensemble, full
> > choral score with keyboard reduction of the accompaniment, and 4)
> > keyboard (piano, organ) music..
>
> Add to that much academic work.i.e. a significant part of the
> lucrative education-sector market.

And guitar


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 14:58, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:21 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > And it would also be nice, if, for instance, you could format your
> > linked parts, then save a single part out to a separate file, which
> > would no longer be connected to the score, so you could then make
> > changes to that part (like Darcy's change to the flute part of
> > printing the part at pitch and the score with an 8va transposition).
> 
> Good idea, but doesn't what you write below cover the same thing?

Well, it all depends on what you want to unlink.

The implementation could be something like this:

  ITEMS TO LINK
display positioning
  Notes X X
  Expressions   X X
  Articulations X X
  Slurs X X
  Beams X X

and so forth. Then you could unlink particular things.

But that would be massively more complicated to implement than say:

  PART VIEWS IN THIS SCORE
  Linked
  Piano X
  Flute
  ViolinX
  Viola X
  Cello X

To me, it would seem that it would be easier to just extract the 
flute part to a separate file if it's not going to be linked.

Another option would be to extend the functionality of staff styles 
so they could be defined differently for score and part view. That 
would probably be the most flexible method for implementing your 8va 
flute part.

But that would also require some kind of extension to staff styles.

Another option for implementing it would be to allow staff styles to 
apply to only one view, and you'd then apply an 8ba transposition to 
the score.

Then if it were possible to hide an expression or smart shape in a 
part, then you could hide the 8va expression/smart shape in the part.

Having part views opens a whole host of different ways for adding 
useful functionality to Finale, precisely because there's such a rich 
set of tools there already.

> > Also, back when *I* was making suggestions for how to implement
> > this, I always said that it should be possible to *break* the link
> > between the part and score, if you wanted to. What if you could do
> > that with a staff style, selectively applied to the measures you
> > wanted to change in the part but not in the score? That would be
> > pretty cool.
> 
> "Link/Unlink to score" would be great.

But I question the virtue of having it be a property of different 
kinds of data. I don't see any utility in having an unlinked part 
stored in the main score file, except for housekeeping purposes.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Darcy James Argue]

On 06 Jul 2005, at 7:06 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


Now, whether or not things like beam breakage and angle and other
elements that are at some level purely "cosmetic" should be linked, I
don't know. I can't think of a strong argument either way for
beaming, though I think that, in particular, avoidance of wedges is
going to be rather difficult if beam angle/position in transposing
parts is linked between parts and a concert-pitch score. That is
another of the arguments for why the functionality in Patterson Beams
belongs as part of the basic beaming algorithms, and not as a plug-in
that's applied to make adjustments to the data after entry.


That's a very good idea.  I was wondering myself how to solve that 
particular problem, but if Finale just integrates Patterson Beams into 
the Beam Options, well, there's your solution right there.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


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

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 14:30, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:10 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > On 6 Jul 2005 at 3:24, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> 
> >> When you select a Dynamic Part in Sibelius, it spawns a completely
> >> new window. . .
> >
> > But not an *independent* one -- it's a child window of the parent
> > Finale window. This seems to me exactly the correct way to do it.
> 
> Well, I don't know how XP works so I can't comment on that end of it. 
> But on the Mac, there is no such thing as a "child" window.

Sure there is. Any document window spawned by Finale is a child of 
the parent Finale window. The way that is represented onscreen and 
the available behaviors for that window are completely different 
between Windows and OS X/Mac OS, but the windows are still child 
windows of Finale (i.e., spawned by Finale and owned by Finale for 
the purpose of displaying Finale data).

> >> . . . My preference would be for Finale to *not* do that.  I like
> >> the concept of parts as a separate View in *the same window* --
> >> hence my idea of Parts View and Score View.
> >
> > How would you want it implemented, as two panes of a single window?
> 
> No -- no split screen.  It would be just another view inside the main
> window, like Page View and Scroll View.

But you can't view Page View and Scroll View simultaneously in the 
same file unless you open a new document window.

> > If you do that, you end up with the ability to have only two panes,
> > meaning you could not compare multiple parts simultaneously.
> 
> Hmm.  Well, you could open multiple copies of the same document -- but
> I don't think that's a very good solution, either.

Opening multiple document windows solves the problem, though. And 
that's what I'm reading you as having said you don't like.

> The problem is that -- on Mac at least -- it's very bad UI to have
> changes in one open document automatically affect another document. 

How are multiple windows on a single document implemented on the Mac? 
Whatever method is used for that would make perfect sense for part 
view.

> With Dynamic Parts, we are talking about a *single* document that
> contains both the score and the parts.  Parts view is just a different
> way of viewing the underlying data.  But as soon as we start spawning
> separate windows, that looks -- to Mac users -- like separate,
> independent documents, and that's not what we want for Dynamic Parts.

Well, perhaps I'm wrong to assume that FinMac has the ability to open 
multiple windows on the same Finale file?

> It's hard for me to say if this is a problem, because I never compare
> two (or more) parts on-screen simultaneously.  If I want to compare
> parts, I print them out.  But if on-screen comparison of multiple
> parts is important to people, I guess there needs to be some way of
> doing that -- I would just prefer to do that *without* spawning a
> bunch of new windows.  But that's a tough nut to crack.

I do it for copying system layouts (i.e., choosing system breaks). 
Sibelius's capability for copying layouts from one part to another 
would obviate that, but I can definitely see wanting to view a couple 
of parts at a time for other reasons, as well, such as editing the 
parts from a printed set of parts that have been marked up during a 
rehearsal/performance.

> > Well, I think it should work the same way as "New Window" within a
> > document works -- it opens a new document window showing the same
> > document, and you can adjust that window's view accordingly.
> 
> There is no "New Window" menu item on the Mac.

You can't view two parts of a Finale document simultaneously?

*BOGGLE*

Tons of my editing work requires this! It's how I do my musicological 
editing, where I make editorial suggestions to make, say, an 
exposition and a recap have similar dynamics/articulations/bowings.

> > The simplest way to implement it, seems to me, with the most
> > flexibility, is to start from Finale's current implementation of New
> > Document Window, where you can switch between scroll and page view
> > in any of those windows independently. If you then add the part
> > views as options in each of those document windows, you've got
> > maximum flexibility.
> >
> > I can't see how your suggestion would do anything but prevent the
> > implementation of viewing more than one part at a time.
> 
> I have no problem with the UI you suggested for Windows, if that's
> what Windows users are used to.  But the approach you suggest is
> completely nonstandard on the Mac.
> 
> In Sibelius -- at least on Mac -- you can't compare two parts 
> side-by-side.  You can only have the score window plus one dynamic
> part open at any one time.

That would seem to me to be a very severe limitation.

> There is also a warning in Sibelius: "Closing the full score will also
> close the parts.  Do you want to do this?"

That means they aren't really independent windows, and if the same 
warning applies in the Windows version, 

RE: [Finale] tacet instrument

[Lee Actor]

> Two questions about using "tacet":
> 
> 1. An instrument is not used in the first movement of a 
> multi-movement work. Should the instrument be included on the first 
> page of music in the score (and then perhaps deleted on other pages 
> of the first movement)?
> 
> 2. When creating the part for that instrument, should I just put "I. 
> TACET" and then start the second movement directly below on the same 
> page?
> 
> TIA.
> 
> Paul Hayden


Yes on both counts.

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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 13:46, John Howell wrote:

> At 5:22 AM -0500 7/6/05, Jim wrote:
> >David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i
> >see here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you
> >enlighten me as to their benefit? I'm not sure I see the benefit of
> >having an ex-post change made to a PART be reflected in the SCORE.
> >Some changes in parts I would NOT want reflected in a score. Is this
> >feature intelligent enough to sort that out?
> 
> Composer's Mosaic from MOTU (no longer supported as far as I know) has
> had linked parts from day one, along with the ability (indeed, the
> requirement!) to customize the layout of each part (which can be done
> at least in part using templates).  It is NOT intelligent in any way,
> and a mistake entered in either score or parts is instantly reflected
> in the other.  That simply means that the engraver has to be
> intelligent!  I agree 100% that the ability to control what is linked
> and what is not in both directions is essential in any Finale
> implementation.

Defining that doesn't seem all that complex to me. What needs to be 
identical in both is that which is, of necessity, identical in both --
they must convey the same musical text (notes, rhythms, 
articulations, expressions, slurs).

Everything regarding appearance and layout should be independent, 
with a newly created part view inheriting the score's positioning by 
default, until an item is repositioned.

I don't see anything particular complex about that.

Now, whether or not things like beam breakage and angle and other 
elements that are at some level purely "cosmetic" should be linked, I 
don't know. I can't think of a strong argument either way for 
beaming, though I think that, in particular, avoidance of wedges is 
going to be rather difficult if beam angle/position in transposing 
parts is linked between parts and a concert-pitch score. That is 
another of the arguments for why the functionality in Patterson Beams 
belongs as part of the basic beaming algorithms, and not as a plug-in 
that's applied to make adjustments to the data after entry.

But that's the only notational detail that looks at all problematic 
to me.

It occurs to me that it would also be nice if it were possible to 
extend the conditional display characteristics of measure expressions 
to other kinds of data. I might want to have bowings appear only in 
the parts, and not in the score, for instance (it's perfectly doable 
today by check DISPLAY ONSCREEN ONLY, or whatever the choice is in 
the articulation definition).

I just don't see insoluble problems in making these determinations.

I also think that the linkage should not be something you can turn on 
or off for each kind of object, unless there's some kind of data 
where it is sometimes desirable to link and sometimes not.

And maybe some things could be implemented by making staff styles 
have the capability of being specific to a view, so that you could 
define a staff style that displays one way in score view and another 
in part view.

Just a thought, but it really seems to me to open up a whole host of 
useful possibilities to make Finale more usable.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 10:36, Eric Dannewitz wrote:

> David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> >Other than Andrew, who has suggested anything else?
> >
> >Didn't we start from the Sibelius demo, which gives examples of
> >editing in both the score and the part, and how in each case, the
> >changes appear in the other? And how layout issues are independent
> >for the two views?
> >
> >I can only think that perhaps you and Andrew didn't view the Sibelius
> > demo?
>
> No, I viewed it. Looks good, if it works right. Just restating that
> I'd want it both ways.
> 
> I'm not clear if this new feature in Sibelius applies to things like
> slurs, or articulations.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, the ability to edit slurs in Finale is 
severely limited in comparison to Finale in the first place, so 
chances are good you don't get extra flexibility with it. However, 
I'd expect what editability you *do* have in Sibelius to be 
independent for score and parts.

Based on my meager knowledge of Sibelius, I think the situation with 
articulations is likely to be similar, as one of the complaints I've 
heard from Finale users is the severe limitations one has in Sibelius 
in regard to articulation positioning.

Since it's Finale we're talking about, I would agree that any 
implementation in Finale would have to store separate positioning 
data for parts and scores for those elements.

As I said early on in this discussion, I've always conceived of an 
implementation of this feature in Finale storing only the delta from 
the score for each part. That is, any positioning in the score is 
inherited in the part, until such time as you change it in the part. 
At that point, the offset from the score position (or the absolute 
position -- there are advantages to both approaches, but absolute is 
probably better) is stored with the part definition.

I just don't see that as being terribly difficult to implement, in 
proportion to the utility that comes from. Yes, it would be a 
programming challenge, both in terms of UI and in terms of data 
storage. But it really isn't that complicated, since (as someone has 
already pointed out) there are already score-only or part-only data 
structures (i.e., measure expressions with staff lists).

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

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

[Finale] tacet instrument

[Paul Hayden]

Two questions about using "tacet":

1. An instrument is not used in the first movement of a 
multi-movement work. Should the instrument be included on the first 
page of music in the score (and then perhaps deleted on other pages 
of the first movement)?


2. When creating the part for that instrument, should I just put "I. 
TACET" and then start the second movement directly below on the same 
page?


TIA.

Paul Hayden

--
Magnolia Music Press  
6319 Riverbend Blvd.
Baton Rouge, LA  70820
Fax (by arrangement) & Voice: 225-769-9604
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 10:28, Eric Dannewitz wrote:

> David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> >On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:30, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
> >
> >Given that the pre-Sibelius 4 discussions of linked parts here in
> >this forum revolved around the idea of implementing them by extending
> > Special Part Extraction, where does the idea that it *wouldn't* be
> >two-way by default come from?
> >
> Because the name, SPECIAL PART EXTRACTION means, to me, it's going to
> be UNLINKED from the score. Hence the name, extraction.

Except that SPECIAL PART EXTRACTION as it exists today is *not* 
unlinked from the score -- it *is* the score, just a different view 
of it.

The flaw in it is that layout changes also change the score, and 
that's why most people create a new file to do their special part 
extraction in.

> So, if Finale did something like Sibelius's Dynamic Parts, it should
> be something called LINKED parts. Or maybe we need to refer to it as
> something else then.

To me "linked" means between files, and that raises a whole host of 
difficult issues if you're trying to maintain links between separate 
objects in the file system that could be renamed or moved via means 
outside Finale.

That's why I said earlier on that "linked parts" was a term I don't 
like, as it implies certain things.

I see no easy way to implement dynamic parts with part files separate 
from the score.

I think it's fairly easy to see, given the already pre-existing 
special parts extraction view, how it could be done in the score file 
-- it would "simply" be a matter of changing special parts extraction 
so that layout changes done in that mode are stored separately from 
the layout for the score *not* viewed in that mode, and with the 
layout changes stored for each individual part.

One advantage would be that if it were implemented this way, you 
could still use groups and the like to define parts that have more 
than one staff in them. However, it wouldn't be possible without some 
kind of huge workaround (seems to me) to implement exploding layers 
into separate parts, unless you could have part definitions be layer-
specific.

Of course, we're all speculating about things that don't exist. I'm 
doing so based on my understanding of the relationship between 
databases and views of data from a database, as well as a rudimentary 
understanding of object orientation in computer programming.

And so far as I can see, no one is suggesting that a dynamic parts 
function should remove existing functionality from Finale. If you had 
a part that needed to be extracted in a way that the new dynamic 
parts didn't really support, then you could still do a traditional 
extraction to a separate file. You'd lose the link back to the score, 
but losing it for the 2/4/6 parts that require exploding to different 
staves would still mean you'd have the linkage for all the other 
parts -- that is, it would vastly reduce the amount of work to 
maintain all the *other* parts.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Owain Sutton]

Noel Stoutenburg wrote:

David W. Fenton opined:

part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't 
preparing any performance materials at all.
 

Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of 
part extraction:  1)  hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and 
printed in close score, and 2) songs, including pop vocal music, and 3)  
choral music, where the voice parts are printed in full score, or in the 
case of larger works, where accompaniment is a larger ensemble, full 
choral score with keyboard reduction of the accompaniment, and 4)  
keyboard (piano, organ) music..


Add to that much academic work.i.e. a significant part of the 
lucrative education-sector market.

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 13:05, Andrew Stiller wrote:

> 
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:53 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > If part view is just a view of the underlying data, you
> > automatically get two-way linking. That is, changes to the score
> > appear in the parts, and changes to the parts appear in the score.
> > The exception to this is, of course, spacing, which is kept
> > independently for the parts and score, as it must be.
> 
> Part view is something you (not me, I never use it) use before the
> actual parts are extracted. . . .

Er, "part view" doesn't exist in Finale.

> . . . Any dynamic linkage feature that I can
> ever conceive using would be applicable to parts that have *already
> been extracted and edited* and are therefore in completely separate
> files from the main score.

Well, that's a very difficult thing to accomplish, and if I were 
MakeMusic, I'd never implement it that way.

What if you had the option to output the "part views" to separate 
files, once you had them tweaked sufficiently? At that point, the 
linkage would break, though, in both directions.

> >  Are you saying that you'd *never* want score-to-part
> > updates, but *only* part-to-score updates?
> 
> No of course not. I just was calling attention to the need for 
> considering the part-to-score option--as several other listers 
> understood immediately and have, gratifyingly, endorsed.

NO ONE was proposing only score-to-part linkage.

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

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

[Finale] Re: Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts8

[Michael Good]

Hi Noel,

> comparing Sibelius third party "plug-ins" with Finale third party 
> "plug-ins" is not a direct comparsion; unless Sibelius has written
> their website with a peculiar inaccuracy, it appears to me that 
> what Sibelius calls a "plug in", MakeMusic calls a "Finale script"

Close, but not quite. Sibelius's plug-ins are written in the ManuScript
language, which is based on an early version of a scripting language
called Simkin. You can do more in ManuScript than you can in
FinaleScript, but nowhere near as much as you can do in a Finale
plug-in. That's because:

1) ManuScript limits what you can access in a Sibelius file. This is the
biggest problem. With Finale, you can access everything that is stored
statically in a Finale file, and even some of the things computed
dynamically like stem direction.

2) The ManuScript language has limited capabilities compared to most
modern programming languages. There's not even an "else if" statement.

3) The ManuScript programming development environment is very limited
compared to modern programming development environments.

One of the nice improvements in Sibelius 4 is the expanded plug-in
access to the musical data in a Sibelius score. This will allow us to do
much better translations from Sibelius 4 to MusicXML, and from there to
Finale. We will now be able to export articulations from Sibelius! 

Sibelius 4's MusicXML import also provides better translations from
later versions of Finale than their ETF converter does.

I don't think any ETF converter works nearly as well as our MusicXML
plug-ins. Sibelius's is the only one I have seen that even comes close.

So two-way score interchange will be much better with Finale 2006 and
Sibelius 4 than it ever was before. But your point that Finale's data
format is more open than Sibelius's remains true.

Best regards,

Michael Good
Recordare LLC
www.recordare.com




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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Noel Stoutenburg]

David W. Fenton opined:


part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't preparing 
any performance materials at all.
 

Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of 
part extraction:  1)  hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and 
printed in close score, and 2) songs, including pop vocal music, and 3)  
choral music, where the voice parts are printed in full score, or in the 
case of larger works, where accompaniment is a larger ensemble, full 
choral score with keyboard reduction of the accompaniment, and 4)  
keyboard (piano, organ) music..


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

[Finale] Native Instruments Newsletter

[Stephen Lamb]

Native Instruments just posted this announcement on their mailing list and
website:

 
   Grand Finale 2006: MakeMusic Notation Software with
   KONTAKT Player.
   The KONTAKT engine's victory march as the most powerful
   sampler platform is constantly gaining pace. A KONTAKT
   Player, including a 100 instrument large library from the
   Garritan Personal Orchestra, is now integrated into
   MakeMusic's Finale 2006 notation software. But that is not
   all: As part of the close cooperation with Native
   Instruments, Finale 2006 also supports plug-in integration
   of almost all NI instruments!


Note the plug-in integration of other NI instruments.

The rest of the announcement can be found here:
http://www.native-instruments.com/index.php?finale2006_us


Stephen Lamb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.jslweb.com


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

Re: [Finale] Vertical Spacing Algorithms

[Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account]

My number 1 new feature request:
Vertical Spacing Algorithms
Number 2:
Dynamic score/parts linking.



I feel like Bill Murray in The Life Aquatic: "Am I the only one with 
swamp leaches? What's with that?"


Am I the only one who wants vertical spacing handled automatically?

-Randolph Peters


No, not at all - it would be wonderful.  You would think that with the 
font annotation that's been in Finale since what, 2000?, that they would 
have done this by now.  Combined with a "Vertical Justification" 
feature, this would be wonderful.


The thing is that as far as I can see the tools have been there to 
implement this for a long time - TGTools has something very much like 
the Vertical Justification feature there already.  Whether Makemusic 
could implement it *well*, though, is another matter.


These sorts of things are going to go further to burying Finale I think. 
 In education in this country it's only Finale Notepad that is saving 
any semblance of Makemusic.  Sibelius is all-pervasive.


(On another matter, you still can't undo plugins in Sibelius 4 it seems! 
 What the hell is that about.  So Sibelius sure aren't perfect!)


Cheers

Matthew


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.9/42 - Release Date: 6/07/2005

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

Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[Owain Sutton]

Aaron Sherber wrote:

At 03:41 PM 07/06/2005, Darcy James Argue wrote:
 >• Translucent palettes (or "tool windows" as Sibelius calls them)

Okay, so I know this a really minor gripe in the scheme of things. But 
most of the Sibelius palettes and menu bars and so forth are hard-coded 
with a grey background (on Win, anyway).


Power Menu (http://www.veridicus.com/tummy/programming/powermenu/) lets 
you change the transparency of any window.  Finale toolbars can be set 
individually, as here: http://www.owainsutton.co.uk/images/translucent.jpg

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

Re: [Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[Aaron Sherber]

At 03:41 PM 07/06/2005, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>• Translucent palettes (or "tool windows" as Sibelius calls them)

Okay, so I know this a really minor gripe in the 
scheme of things. But most of the Sibelius 
palettes and menu bars and so forth are 
hard-coded with a grey background (on Win, 
anyway). This is fine if you have the default 
Windows color scheme, but I don't, and I've 
always hated apps that assume I do. (The correct 
method is to ask Windows what color to use.) For 
example, when I click one of the grey menu items 
at the top of the screen, the menu that opens up 
is in a *different color* -- the menu color from 
my color scheme -- because when you tell Windows 
to draw a menu it picks the right color from your scheme automatically.


Aaron.


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

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[William Roberts]

Darcy wrote:

> In Sibelius -- at least on Mac -- you can't compare two parts 
> side-by-side.  You can only have the score window plus one dynamic 
> part open at any one time.

That's not true.  You can resize the document windows and position them next to 
each other.  I also went digging in the Prefs dialog and found an option in 
there to open each new part in a new window, so you can actually have as many 
parts open as you like simultaneously.  And Sibelius does seem to have a New 
Window item in the Window menu, which does what you'd expect it to (and I 
notice that Word X 2004 has it too, for example).

The more I play with this, the more I like it!

Best,
-Will

-- 
___
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at 
once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts

[Christopher Smith]

On Jul 5, 2005, at 11:07 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:


Discussing the merits of the feature from a
functionality standpoint isn't really what's needed
here. The justification for the feature was that
people wanted it. It was in high demand both before
and after sounds were included with Finale.

Regards,
Tyler



AM I BELIEVING WHAT I JUST READ?!

This astounding comment goes a long way to explaining some bewildering 
decisions about the features and implementation thereof in Finale 
recently, if indeed the comment reflects MakeMusic's attitude. (Tyler, 
you ARE affiliated with MM, aren't you?)


Basically what you are saying is that it doesn't matter how, or even 
if, a feature works, as long as you can say "We put it in there, now 
stop asking for it."


Sheesh.

Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?

[Owain Sutton]

dhbailey wrote:

John Abram wrote:




A twelfth note is a triplet eighth note. They are sometimes used in  
new music (eg Mark-Anthony Turnage has used it frequently I believe)  
Henry Cowell was way ahead of the game with this sort of thinking.


Why is 12/12 not like 12/8? Because 12/8 is not triplets.
Yes, I know it sounds like triplets, but it's not.



You're really splitting hairs here -- putting 3 evenly spaced notes 
within one beat sounds like triplets to me, no matter how it's 
represented in the time signature.


What's the difference?  Are you trying to say that triplets are only 
triplets if they are 3 notes played in the time normally occupied by 2 
of the same notes, and since in 12/8 the 8ths aren't played in the time 
normally occupied by 2 8ths they aren't really triplets?


What does a 12th-note look like?



It looks just like an 8th-note. The purpose of x/12, x/10 etc. is to 
allow changes of pulse, in non-triplet situations, with signatures such 
as 5/12.  Yes, this could be indicated with a tempo change at the 
barline, but if the changes are every bar (as typical in Ferneyhough), 
x/12 etc. is the clearest system to use.  And isn't at all complicated 
once you've familiarised yourself with it.

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

[Finale] OTHER Sibelius features Finale should steal

[Darcy James Argue]

It's not just the dynamic parts.  Going through Sib 4, I'm finding lots 
of nice, little features Finale would do well to implement:


• Translucent palettes (or "tool windows" as Sibelius calls them)

	• A program option to "Print Date and Time Footer" on all documents, 
with the option to choose between the date of most recent printing, or 
most recent saving.


	• A user-configurable list of font equivalents, and the option to 
choose which fonts should be used (in order of priority) if a specified 
font is not available.


	• Custom keyboard shortcut sets, with the ability to assign your own 
shortcuts to any menu item or action.


	• The ability to set separate colors and textures for score view vs. 
parts view (I know some people will snicker at that, but it's actually 
a helpful visual cue).


	• AHA!  There it is -- a checkbox for "View Parts In New Windows"!  So 
David, you *can* compare multiple parts side-by-side.


• An option to automatically check for maintenance updates.

	• The ability to simply copy and paste the selected music directly 
into other applications (like, say, Word) without having to export 
graphics.


	• The ability to add and edit the list of expressions recognized by 
Espressivo (Sib's Human Playback equivalent).


And that's just from looking at the Preferences.

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


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

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[Darcy James Argue]

On 06 Jul 2005, at 3:11 PM, William Roberts wrote:

It looks like, if you drag something in the score, it moves in the 
parts, but if you move it in the parts, it won't move in the score.  
So, say you have an expression marking by a horn note that collides 
with a low note in a concert score, when you look at the transposed 
part, you can drag that note up to be nearer the note (which is now a 
5th higher) and it won't move in the score, plus it goes a different 
color to show you what's happened.


That's true but there's more.  Once you drag something -- let's say, a 
dynamic, or an 8va marking -- in the part, it unlinks the positioning 
of that element.  So if you go back and move it again in the score, it 
won't affect the part.  You can also re-link elements after unlinking 
them.


And -- exactly as I suggested in my outline of how Finale ought to do 
this -- unlinking only affects positioning.  If you delete an unlinked 
dynamic from the part, it disappears from the score, too.  It's also 
possible to create score-only or parts-only expressions, etc.


Sibelius really put a lot of thought into this feature.  Almost 
everything works just like you'd expect.


I don't know how you guys feel about this, but my gut is that 
MakeMusic! will have to add this feature now, just to stay competitive 
with Sibelius.


I sure hope so.  The only upside is, as Robert pointed out, it may be 
cheaper and easier for them to implement this now that Sibelius has 
shown how it ought to be done.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


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

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[William Roberts]

Eric wrote:

> Yeah, the demo that Sibelius has, it looks like you can change 
> notes, dynamics and page layouts. But what about all the other 
> stuff? Text blocks? Different fonts? Slurs? articulations? Can you 
> move these around?

I got tired of reading all this stuff here today and not being able to join in, 
so I downloaded the demo to try it out.  I opened up one of the examples they 
supply with the demo, and was quickly able to work out how this all works.  
After an hour's playing, here's what I know.

It looks like, if you drag something in the score, it moves in the parts, but 
if you move it in the parts, it won't move in the score.  So, say you have an 
expression marking by a horn note that collides with a low note in a concert 
score, when you look at the transposed part, you can drag that note up to be 
nearer the note (which is now a 5th higher) and it won't move in the score, 
plus it goes a different color to show you what's happened.

Slurs and ties appear to be independent, too, e.g. you can drag a slur or flip 
the curve of a tie in the part and it won't affect the score, which is great 
for those transposed parts.  Articulations (things like staccatos and marcatos) 
look like they have to be the same side of the note in the part as they are in 
the score, and it's the same with things like respelling the note: when I tried 
to respell a note in the part, it changed in the score, too.

Text was a bit funky, but I worked it out.  Looks like every kind of text can 
have a different size in the score in the parts, so you can have a bigger title 
in the score relative to the size of the staff than you would in the parts.  
Looks like you can also have a different default position of each kind of text 
in the score and parts if you want, so if you want expressions above the staff 
in the score but below in the part, you can do that (not sure why you'd want 
to, but you can!).

I have to say that it looks really, really easy.  The demo's crippled, as you 
might expect, but I tried clicking Print All Parts in the File menu, and it 
just spooled out the first page of each part, without me having to do anything. 
 It's easy to switch between the part and the score (just choose it from the 
menu, or hit a key), and it's fast on my computer, too!

I don't know how you guys feel about this, but my gut is that MakeMusic! will 
have to add this feature now, just to stay competitive with Sibelius.  It must 
be galling for them to have Sibelius announce a new version about a week after 
they do, and for people on this listserve to spend more time talking about the 
new Sibelius than Finale 2k6!

Best,
-WR

-- 
___
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at 
once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Darcy James Argue]

Andrew,

Two-way dynamic linking is implicit in the notion of Dynamic Parts.  
Everything we've been talking about assumes two-way dynamic linking as 
a starting point.


If the "Auto Page Turns" plugin can be fixed and integrated into the 
Extract Parts/Extract Dynamic Parts dialog, that seems like the logical 
place for it.  I don't know about it being smart enough to recognize 
"slow notes requiring just one hand," though.  You would probably still 
have to create those manually.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


On 06 Jul 2005, at 11:34 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:

Thinking about the  issue of linked parts, I realize that what I would 
like is considerably less than that. Dynamic linking is useful only if 
you make musically significant  changes  in the score that need to be 
reflected in the parts. I won't say I never do that, but it only 
happens once or twice a year, and almost never impacts more than one 
or two parts.


More useful to me  would be *reverse* linking, because part extraction 
provides the final proofreading check of the score, particularly for 
things like arco/pizz. and con/senza sord. It would indeed  be  very 
nice, therefore, to be able to make a change to a  part and  have it 
automatically appear in the score.


Auto page turns would be the most useful of  all--but I would want it 
to be intelligent enough to recognize that passages of slow notes 
requiring just one  hand are valid places for a turn.


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Darcy James Argue]

On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:21 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


And it would also be nice, if, for instance, you could format your
linked parts, then save a single part out to a separate file, which
would no longer be connected to the score, so you could then make
changes to that part (like Darcy's change to the flute part of
printing the part at pitch and the score with an 8va transposition).


Good idea, but doesn't what you write below cover the same thing?


Also, back when *I* was making suggestions for how to implement this,
I always said that it should be possible to *break* the link between
the part and score, if you wanted to. What if you could do that with
a staff style, selectively applied to the measures you wanted to
change in the part but not in the score? That would be pretty cool.


"Link/Unlink to score" would be great.

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Ken Durling]

At 08:34 AM 7/6/2005, you wrote:
More useful to me  would be *reverse* linking, because part extraction 
provides the final proofreading check of the score, particularly for 
things like arco/pizz. and con/senza sord. It would indeed  be  very nice, 
therefore, to be able to make a change to a  part and  have it 
automatically appear in the score.



The feature does work both ways.


ken

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

Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?

[dhbailey]

John Abram wrote:




A twelfth note is a triplet eighth note. They are sometimes used in  new 
music (eg Mark-Anthony Turnage has used it frequently I believe)  Henry 
Cowell was way ahead of the game with this sort of thinking.


Why is 12/12 not like 12/8? Because 12/8 is not triplets.
Yes, I know it sounds like triplets, but it's not.


You're really splitting hairs here -- putting 3 evenly spaced notes 
within one beat sounds like triplets to me, no matter how it's 
represented in the time signature.


What's the difference?  Are you trying to say that triplets are only 
triplets if they are 3 notes played in the time normally occupied by 2 
of the same notes, and since in 12/8 the 8ths aren't played in the time 
normally occupied by 2 8ths they aren't really triplets?


What does a 12th-note look like?


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

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[Eric Dannewitz]

Oh, you know, I think I have EXTRACT Parts and Special Part Extraction 
grouped together. They are different.


Aaron Sherber wrote:

Erm, in current Speical Part Extraction in Finale, nothing is 
unlinked. Any changes you make in Special Part Extraction are 
reflected in the score.


I agree that Special Part Extraction may not be the best name for 
this, since nothing is physically extracted, but it's been called that 
in Finale forever, and we were discussing the idea of dynamic parts 
based on this model.




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

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[Darcy James Argue]

On 06 Jul 2005, at 2:10 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:

Yeah, the demo that Sibelius has, it looks like you can change notes, 
dynamics and page layouts. But what about all the other stuff? Text 
blocks? Different fonts? Slurs? articulations? Can you move these 
around?


RE: Text blocks, it seems to depend what they are attached to.  I could 
move the title of the Sax Concerto in the parts, and it stayed put in 
the score.  But moving the composer's name affected both parts and 
score.


[BTW, everyone knows that the Sib 4.0 demo is AVAILABLE NOW, right?  
You guys can all go try this for yourselves.]


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

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

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[Lon Price]

On Jul 6, 2005, at 10:02 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:It seems to me self-evident that linked parts are the way Finale  should have been designed from the beginning. The spawing of  individual independent files, while perhaps dictated by the realities  of computer processing power at the time Finale was designed, make no  sense at all when Finale is viewed as a database program. The data  file is a database, and there are various report views for showing  that data and subsets of that data. That is a perfectly natural way  to think of the program and the presentation of its data. You know, MOTU's Composer's Mosaic was designed this way, and was the reason I went with it instead of Finale in 1990.  Mosaic gave the user the ability to create as many "views" of his/her music as wanted--either scroll views or page views--and all were contained within a single file.  One could open any or all views, and then toggle between them.  You could put together a scroll view of just the woodwinds, for example.  You could have a concert score and a transposed score in the same file, and of course all of the parts, either transposed or concert.  Where MOTU dropped the ball was the fact that any change made anywhere affected everywhere else.  Tweaking the score to make it look right screwed up the parts, and vice versa.  We users had to end up creating two files--one for parts and the other for the score.  Besides that, the program was really buggy and needed a lot of work.  Unfortunately (for us Mosaic users), MOTU introduced Digital Performer at about the same time, and eventually virtually all of their R&D went into that program, and, even though we users tried to get them not to, MOTU abandoned Mosaic altogether (although they still sell it).  My report on Mosaic is still on my website:     in case anyone is interested in reading it.Lon  Lon Price, Los Angeles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   ___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[Darcy James Argue]

On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:10 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 6 Jul 2005 at 3:24, Darcy James Argue wrote:



When you select a Dynamic Part in Sibelius, it spawns a completely new
window. . .


But not an *independent* one -- it's a child window of the parent
Finale window. This seems to me exactly the correct way to do it.


Well, I don't know how XP works so I can't comment on that end of it.  
But on the Mac, there is no such thing as a "child" window.



. . . My preference would be for Finale to *not* do that.  I like
the concept of parts as a separate View in *the same window* -- hence
my idea of Parts View and Score View.


How would you want it implemented, as two panes of a single window?


No -- no split screen.  It would be just another view inside the main 
window, like Page View and Scroll View.



If you do that, you end up with the ability to have only two panes,
meaning you could not compare multiple parts simultaneously.


Hmm.  Well, you could open multiple copies of the same document -- but 
I don't think that's a very good solution, either.


The problem is that -- on Mac at least -- it's very bad UI to have 
changes in one open document automatically affect another document.  
With Dynamic Parts, we are talking about a *single* document that 
contains both the score and the parts.  Parts view is just a different 
way of viewing the underlying data.  But as soon as we start spawning 
separate windows, that looks -- to Mac users -- like separate, 
independent documents, and that's not what we want for Dynamic Parts.


It's hard for me to say if this is a problem, because I never compare 
two (or more) parts on-screen simultaneously.  If I want to compare 
parts, I print them out.  But if on-screen comparison of multiple parts 
is important to people, I guess there needs to be some way of doing 
that -- I would just prefer to do that *without* spawning a bunch of 
new windows.  But that's a tough nut to crack.



Well, I think it should work the same way as "New Window" within a
document works -- it opens a new document window showing the same
document, and you can adjust that window's view accordingly.


There is no "New Window" menu item on the Mac.


The simplest way to implement it, seems to me, with the most
flexibility, is to start from Finale's current implementation of New
Document Window, where you can switch between scroll and page view in
any of those windows independently. If you then add the part views as
options in each of those document windows, you've got maximum
flexibility.

I can't see how your suggestion would do anything but prevent the
implementation of viewing more than one part at a time.


I have no problem with the UI you suggested for Windows, if that's what 
Windows users are used to.  But the approach you suggest is completely 
nonstandard on the Mac.


In Sibelius -- at least on Mac -- you can't compare two parts 
side-by-side.  You can only have the score window plus one dynamic part 
open at any one time.


There is also a warning in Sibelius: "Closing the full score will also 
close the parts.  Do you want to do this?"


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

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

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[Aaron Sherber]

At 01:28 PM 07/06/2005, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
>Because the name, SPECIAL PART EXTRACTION means, to me, it's going to be
>UNLINKED from the score. Hence the name, extraction.

Erm, in current Speical Part Extraction in Finale, nothing is 
unlinked. Any changes you make in Special Part Extraction are 
reflected in the score.


I agree that Special Part Extraction may not be the best name for 
this, since nothing is physically extracted, but it's been called 
that in Finale forever, and we were discussing the idea of dynamic 
parts based on this model.


Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] is that a new feature?!

[dhbailey]

David W. Fenton wrote:



Yes, and I still say that the addition of it is a *good* thing -- 
it's simple to implement and improves usability. It's not at all the 
kind of bolted-on feature that requires lots of work to implement and 
benefits very few.




I agree it's a good thing -- I just don't share the MakeMusic marketing 
department's idea that it's a noble feature that should be made a lot of 
in their promotional material about the upgrade.


It seems too much like a carnival huckster's trying to keep the 
audience's attention focused on one particular thing so it doesn't 
notice that the rest of the show is just so much junk.


My wife and I were looking at houses years ago when we were deciding on 
whether or not to buy the house we were renting, and we were weighing 
the pros and cons of whether we could both teach music lessons and I 
could have an instrument repair area.  We were trying to consider things 
in a serious manner, weighing the pros and cons, and the realtor(tm) 
kept babbling on about how the light fixtures came with the house, as if 
she didn't want us to realize it wouldn't be a good fit for us.


So nowadays when we see such "Pay attention to what I'm showing you and 
don't look too closely at anything else because it's terrible" things, 
we just look at each other and say "and the light fixtures actually come 
with the house!"


Just as light fixtures are important in a house and textured paper 
background may be very helpful for relieving eyestrain for those who 
work a lot in page view, making a big splash about it in the promo for a 
pricey upgrade is so much "and the light fixtures actually come with the 
house!" market-speak.


It makes me wonder what they're trying to draw our attention away from.

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

RE: [Finale] Vertical Spacing Algorithms

[Gary Griffiths]

When I ordered my Fin2k6 and filled in the questionnaire - that was the one
feature I asked for. I have also requested it before.

Gary

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
Sent: 06 July 2005 17:28
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Vertical Spacing Algorithms

At 11:11 AM 7/6/05 -0500, Randolph Peters wrote:
>Am I the only one who wants vertical spacing handled automatically?

Definitely not the only one! It's not on the very top of my list, but it
would save considerable time -- and if it were part of an algorithmic
approach, could be modified nicely by the visual plugin maestros such as
Robert Patterson. (And vertical spacing was one of the really fine features
of Graphire.)

Dennis


___
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] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[Eric Dannewitz]

Yeah, the demo that Sibelius has, it looks like you can change notes, 
dynamics and page layouts. But what about all the other stuff? Text 
blocks? Different fonts? Slurs? articulations? Can you move these around?



Darcy James Argue wrote:

The proposed features that follow are, to me, essential if the feature 
is to be actually useful.  If you can't specify a separate page format 
for the parts, or you can't specify a different font size and 
positioning for text blocks in the parts than in the score, or you 
can't include cue notes in the parts but not the score, or you can't 
change the positioning of dynamics in the parts but not the score, 
then Dynamic Parts becomes much less useful.


- Darcy




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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Chuck Israels]

On Jul 6, 2005, at 7:30 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:On the matter of whether features are "just" plugins, it would be relatively simple for MM (and Finale's users) to have cake and eat it too. Two extensions of the plugin interface would integrate them in ways that would erase much of the distinction.1. Plugins should be able to add themselves to context menus.2. The user should optionally be able to add plugins to an "automatic" list that runs at the same time "Automatic Note Spacing" runs.Plugin developers have been requesting these enhancements for years. The problem is, it is not the kind of enhancement that gets a tremendous number of user requests. That said, Sib's trumpeting of "automatic" "wedge-free" beaming could lend impetous to at least #2, because then Patterson Beams could disappear into the automatic run list.For the record, Robert,I have requested this and gotten an interested response, though I was told at the time that it was too late to implement that in the 2006 release.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

Igor (was [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts)

[John Abram]

On 6-Jul-05, at 10:27 AM, Ken  Durling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:





Didn't "Igor" have something like this feature?


Ken


Oh Yes YES IT DID!

Igor was such a great fledgeling programme.

The Igor way was that there were no separate files for parts - a  
"part" was simply a layout of the score that had one or more  
instrumental parts, rather than the whole thing.


And Igor's playback was way out in front of any other programme 5  
years ago. It still has features that Fin and Sib don't!


A tragedy it was effectively killed off by the new owners before it  
was fully functional...


_
with best wishes,
John
http://abram.ca/

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

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[Darcy James Argue]

On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:19 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:



On Jul 6, 2005, at 2:58 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:


.  Let's see if we can flesh something out on-list before submitting.

• First, Special Part Extraction would need to be revamped to be able 
to save independent an layout for each staff


Of all the long list of proposed features that follows, I'm not at all 
sure I feel a need for *any* of them.  Darcy is asking  for a 
profusion of new dialog boxes and windows, whereas I would have 
thought it  obvious that any dynamic parts linking  should be 
transparent: I change the score, the change is automatically (after 
signing off on an alert box) conveyed  to the parts. Period.


And as I wrote in a separate  post, even that  would be much  less 
useful to me  than the reverse: change a part and have  it 
automatically (after an alert box) affect the score.


I thought everyone understood that this was implicit in the idea of 
Dynamic Parts.


The proposed features that follow are, to me, essential if the feature 
is to be actually useful.  If you can't specify a separate page format 
for the parts, or you can't specify a different font size and 
positioning for text blocks in the parts than in the score, or you 
can't include cue notes in the parts but not the score, or you can't 
change the positioning of dynamics in the parts but not the score, then 
Dynamic Parts becomes much less useful.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY




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

Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?

[John Abram]

I believe Andrew and David said 12/12 was not the answer but did not
say why.

But Creston has a valid point ( and a logical solution) so I feel  
duty

bound to ask for clear arguments as to why it is unsatisfactory.

Really, it is elegant and straight-forward albeit (most likely)  
doomed.


12/8 is in fact 12/12.

What could be simpler?





Jerry




Almost anything, I fear. If there were such a thing  as a twelfth  
note,

intuition says it would be shorter than an 8th note; but the beat in
(compound) 12/8 is carried by the dotted quarter, and there are four
such beats in each measure, so the numerator ought  to be 4 and if one
insists on making the denominator a number, it ought to be 3, not
twelve.  If Creston were advocating for 12/8 = 4/3 I could see his
point, but as it is 12/12 merely compounds (as it were) the  
imprecision

of the notation because the absolute central requirement of any
reformed notation of compound meter must be that the top of the
signature reflect the actual number of beats in the bar.


A twelfth note is a triplet eighth note. They are sometimes used in  
new music (eg Mark-Anthony Turnage has used it frequently I believe)  
Henry Cowell was way ahead of the game with this sort of thinking.


Why is 12/12 not like 12/8? Because 12/8 is not triplets.
Yes, I know it sounds like triplets, but it's not.

Why is there so much confusion over compound time?

In my ideal world time signatures would have numbers over notes to  
indicate the number of beats and their duration.


Thus 4/4 would be 4/[quarter-note]
and 12/8 would be 4/[dotted-quarter-note]

THAT is simple. In my experience there is SO much confusion among  
teachers about what compound time is that young musicians have  a  
rather poor chance of understanding it.

_
with best wishes,
John
http://abram.ca/

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[John Howell]

At 5:22 AM -0500 7/6/05, Jim wrote:
David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i 
see here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you 
enlighten me as to their benefit?
I'm not sure I see the benefit of having an ex-post change made to a 
PART be reflected in the SCORE. Some changes in parts I would NOT 
want reflected in a score. Is this feature intelligent enough to 
sort that out?


Composer's Mosaic from MOTU (no longer supported as far as I know) 
has had linked parts from day one, along with the ability (indeed, 
the requirement!) to customize the layout of each part (which can be 
done at least in part using templates).  It is NOT intelligent in any 
way, and a mistake entered in either score or parts is instantly 
reflected in the other.  That simply means that the engraver has to 
be intelligent!  I agree 100% that the ability to control what is 
linked and what is not in both directions is essential in any Finale 
implementation.


John


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Eric Dannewitz]

David W. Fenton wrote:


Other than Andrew, who has suggested anything else?

Didn't we start from the Sibelius demo, which gives examples of 
editing in both the score and the part, and how in each case, the 
changes appear in the other? And how layout issues are independent 
for the two views?


I can only think that perhaps you and Andrew didn't view the Sibelius 
demo?


No, I viewed it. Looks good, if it works right. Just restating that I'd 
want it both ways.


I'm not clear if this new feature in Sibelius applies to things like 
slurs, or articulations.


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

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[Eric Dannewitz]

David W. Fenton wrote:


On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:30, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
 

Given that the pre-Sibelius 4 discussions of linked parts here in 
this forum revolved around the idea of implementing them by extending 
Special Part Extraction, where does the idea that it *wouldn't* be 
two-way by default come from?
 

Because the name, SPECIAL PART EXTRACTION means, to me, it's going to be 
UNLINKED from the score. Hence the name, extraction.


So, if Finale did something like Sibelius's Dynamic Parts, it should be 
something called LINKED parts. Or maybe we need to refer to it as 
something else then.



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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Aaron Sherber]

At 01:05 PM 07/06/2005, Andrew Stiller wrote:
>Part view is something you (not me, I never use it) use before the
>actual parts are extracted. Any dynamic linkage feature that I can ever
>conceive using would be applicable to parts that have *already been
>extracted and edited* and are therefore in completely separate files
>from the main score.

Andrew, I think your assumption that there's linkage between a score 
and *extracted* parts is what's causing some of the confusion here. 
In fact, dynamic parts as implemented by Sibelius and as envisioned 
for Finale don't involve extraction at all -- except in the sense of 
Finale's special part extraction.


In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special 
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are 
reflected immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the 
notes are only stored in one place. On the other hand, the file keeps 
track of different positioning information for things like 
expressions -- one position in the score and a different one in the 
part -- so that you can make small tweaks as needed.


Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[Andrew Stiller]

On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:53 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


If part view is just a view of the underlying data, you automatically
get two-way linking. That is, changes to the score appear in the
parts, and changes to the parts appear in the score. The exception to
this is, of course, spacing, which is kept independently for the
parts and score, as it must be.


Part view is something you (not me, I never use it) use before the 
actual parts are extracted. Any dynamic linkage feature that I can ever 
conceive using would be applicable to parts that have *already been 
extracted and edited* and are therefore in completely separate files 
from the main score.



 Are you saying that you'd *never* want score-to-part
updates, but *only* part-to-score updates?


No of course not. I just was calling attention to the need for 
considering the part-to-score option--as several other listers 
understood immediately and have, gratifyingly, endorsed.



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

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

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:30, Eric Dannewitz wrote:

> If Finale does part linking/dynamic parts, or whatever you want to
> call it, it needs to be TWO way. If you make a change in the part, or
> in the score, they BOTH get updated.

Given that the pre-Sibelius 4 discussions of linked parts here in 
this forum revolved around the idea of implementing them by extending 
Special Part Extraction, where does the idea that it *wouldn't* be 
two-way by default come from?

The whole principle behind the discussion was that parts would be a 
limited view of the same data as the full score. That idea has 
inherent within it two-way editing. Of course, "two-way" editing is 
an incorrect concept, as it reflects the idea that the two views are 
somehow based on independent data, when, in fact, the whole point is 
that you're editing exactly the same data.

I'm confused by the need to mention this, as it was inherent in the 
original discussion here on the list, as is also explicitly described 
in the Sibelius demo.

It's also been repeatedly mentioned in our discussion of Sibelius's 
implementation.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:24, Eric Dannewitz wrote:

> Indeed. I think Dynamic parts is something that needs to be added to
> Finale ASAP. But it needs to go BOTH WAYS, as other readers of pointed
> out. When I do changes, it's usually after someone PROOFED it on a
> part.

Other than Andrew, who has suggested anything else?

Didn't we start from the Sibelius demo, which gives examples of 
editing in both the score and the part, and how in each case, the 
changes appear in the other? And how layout issues are independent 
for the two views?

I can only think that perhaps you and Andrew didn't view the Sibelius 
demo?

-- 
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] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[Aaron Sherber]

At 12:19 PM 07/06/2005, Andrew Stiller wrote:
>Of all the long list of proposed features that follows, I'm not at all
>sure I feel a need for *any* of them.  Darcy is asking  for a profusion
>of new dialog boxes and windows, whereas I would have thought it
>obvious that any dynamic parts linking  should be transparent: I change
>the score, the change is automatically (after signing off on an alert
>box) conveyed  to the parts. Period.

Well, yes, I think that's implicit in Darcy's suggestion. The rest of 
it has to do with what happens *after* that, allowing you to have a 
different format for parts than for score (or different formats for 
different parts -- I use different settings for piano parts than for 
other instruments, e.g.) or to change spacing in the part without 
having it affect the score.


>And as I wrote in a separate  post, even that  would be much  less
>useful to me  than the reverse: change a part and have  it
>automatically (after an alert box) affect the score.

I think that's also implicit in Darcy's post, and it's also how 
Sibelius does things. You also have the option of changing certain 
things (note spacing, expression positioning, etc.) in the parts and 
having them *not* affect the score.


Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 12:19, Andrew Stiller wrote:

> On Jul 6, 2005, at 2:58 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> 
> > .  Let's see if we can flesh something out on-list before
> > submitting.
> >
> > • First, Special Part Extraction would need to be revamped to be
> > able to save independent an layout for each staff
> 
> Of all the long list of proposed features that follows, I'm not at all
> sure I feel a need for *any* of them.  Darcy is asking  for a
> profusion of new dialog boxes and windows, whereas I would have
> thought it  obvious that any dynamic parts linking  should be
> transparent: I change the score, the change is automatically (after
> signing off on an alert box) conveyed  to the parts. Period.
> 
> And as I wrote in a separate  post, even that  would be much  less
> useful to me  than the reverse: change a part and have  it
> automatically (after an alert box) affect the score.

I don't see why you'd want an alert box. The only reason I can see it 
is in order to break the habits of thought that independent file part 
extraction has built up in experienced Finale users, where they can 
do anything to the part and know that the score remains unchanged.

It seems to me self-evident that linked parts are the way Finale 
should have been designed from the beginning. The spawing of 
individual independent files, while perhaps dictated by the realities 
of computer processing power at the time Finale was designed, make no 
sense at all when Finale is viewed as a database program. The data 
file is a database, and there are various report views for showing 
that data and subsets of that data. That is a perfectly natural way 
to think of the program and the presentation of its data.

Then the only question is whether or not the different views are 
completely independent of each other in terms of the "view" 
characteristics (i.e., layout) or if subviews (individual parts) 
inherit characteristics from the global view (score).

I can't see any reason except the inertia of experience to not see 
linked parts as a huge advantage, especially for composers who are in 
Dennis's situation (i.e., making revisions to the piece based on 
feedback from a reading with actual musicians).

-- 
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] Vertical Spacing Algorithms

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 11:11, Randolph Peters wrote:

> I wrote:
> >My number 1 new feature request:
> >Vertical Spacing Algorithms
> >Number 2:
> >Dynamic score/parts linking.
> 
> I feel like Bill Murray in The Life Aquatic: "Am I the only one with
> swamp leaches? What's with that?"
> 
> Am I the only one who wants vertical spacing handled automatically?

While that would be nice (the same way that automatic word extensions 
is nice), I've never seen it as too much of a problem to make the 
adjustments myself, as the tools to do so are pretty easy to use, and 
are a natural part of the initial layout proofing of the score layout 
(once you've locked down your page and system breaks).

So, while it would be something I'd be happy to have, it wouldn't be 
nearly the productivity enhancement that linked parts would be for 
me.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 11:34, Andrew Stiller wrote:

> Thinking about the  issue of linked parts, I realize that what I would
> like is considerably less than that. Dynamic linking is useful only if
> you make musically significant  changes  in the score that need to be
> reflected in the parts. I won't say I never do that, but it only
> happens once or twice a year, and almost never impacts more than one
> or two parts.
> 
> More useful to me  would be *reverse* linking, because part extraction
> provides the final proofreading check of the score, particularly for
> things like arco/pizz. and con/senza sord. It would indeed  be  very
> nice, therefore, to be able to make a change to a  part and  have it
> automatically appear in the score.

If part view is just a view of the underlying data, you automatically 
get two-way linking. That is, changes to the score appear in the 
parts, and changes to the parts appear in the score. The exception to 
this is, of course, spacing, which is kept independently for the 
parts and score, as it must be.

This is exactly what the Sibelius demo shows, so I'm not sure why you 
make your post. Are you saying that you'd *never* want score-to-part 
updates, but *only* part-to-score updates? I can't see the utility of 
having only the one direction without the other. I can see doing it 
only one way by preference, but cannot see a justification for 
actually limiting the program to one-way updates.

-- 
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] Vertical Spacing Algorithms

[Andrew Stiller]

Am I the only one who wants vertical spacing handled automatically?

-Randolph Peters
___



No you're not. I would greatly appreciate it too. Of course, it should 
be "automatic" only in the same sense that horizontal page and measure 
layout is automatic: Finale should supply you with its best  
approximation when you first lay out systems, but after that you adjust 
it manually or reinvoke it in a selected region  w. a Mass-Edit  or 
Layout menu command. Also, the degree of vertical collision 
avoidance--and what items should be  considered--should be 
user-configurable, just as in the existing Music Spacing dialog.


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

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 14:14, Robert Patterson wrote:

> The last two annual releases reveal that MM is concerned with other
> matters than notation. Unfortunately for those of us who care about
> notation, MM's actions suggest that they believe there is more money
> in other aspects of the music business, and they are clearly headed
> there, using Finale as a springboard. The sad part is, if I were a
> stockholder, I'd probably agree with them.

I'm with David Bailey in a state of mystification as to how linked 
parts is a "mere" notation issue.

Except for people who use Finale as nothing but a sequencer (people 
who I'd say are either masochistic or just not very smart), who I'd 
think would be in a very small minority, part extraction is something 
*everyone* has to do, unless they aren't preparing any performance 
materials at all.

Dynamic parts as they appear to be implemented in Sibelius (based on 
the demo) seem to me to be something that would benefit the vast 
majority of Finale users, or, at least, all those who print out parts 
(which is surely more than 50% of users). And the way it seems to be 
implemented is intuitive and makes sense, and saves time and effort.

I just don't see how anyone could class this as a "mere" engraving 
feature, as something that's of real use only to the professional 
engravers.

On the contrary, my bet is that, properly implemented with good 
default settings, this feature would mean that the vast majority of 
Finale users would no longer have to do *any* tweaking of parts, as 
they'd come out "good enough" on the first try, whereas with the 
current setup, it's only the engravers who probably understand the 
process well enough to get some of it semi-automated, so they don't 
end up tweaking absolutely everything in each part manually.

This looks like exactly the kind of feature that brings benefit to 
all the constituencies Finale serves.

-- 
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] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?

[Andrew Stiller]

I believe Andrew and David said 12/12 was not the answer but did not 
say why.


But Creston has a valid point ( and a logical solution) so I feel duty 
bound to ask for clear arguments as to why it is unsatisfactory.


Really, it is elegant and straight-forward albeit (most likely) doomed.

12/8 is in fact 12/12.

What could be simpler?



Jerry



Almost anything, I fear. If there were such a thing  as a twelfth note, 
intuition says it would be shorter than an 8th note; but the beat in 
(compound) 12/8 is carried by the dotted quarter, and there are four 
such beats in each measure, so the numerator ought  to be 4 and if one 
insists on making the denominator a number, it ought to be 3, not 
twelve.  If Creston were advocating for 12/8 = 4/3 I could see his 
point, but as it is 12/12 merely compounds (as it were) the imprecision 
of the notation because the absolute central requirement of any 
reformed notation of compound meter must be that the top of the 
signature reflect the actual number of beats in the bar.


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

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

Re: [Finale] Hey! What's wrong with Creston's 12/12?

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:59, Gerald Berg wrote:

> Unfortunately (but really I mean fortunately)  I am away a lot for the
> next month (and previous days) -- so I am (and will be) missing some
> discussion points.
> 
> I believe Andrew and David said 12/12 was not the answer but did not
> say why.

12/12 changes all the rules for how time signatures work, since there 
is no such thing as a 1/12th note.

> But Creston has a valid point ( and a logical solution) so I feel duty
> bound to ask for clear arguments as to why it is unsatisfactory.
> 
> Really, it is elegant and straight-forward albeit (most likely)
> doomed.
> 
> 12/8 is in fact 12/12.
> 
> What could be simpler?

I don't understand it, except as treating a time signature as a 
fraction, and coming up with the least common denominator (or is that 
"greatest"?).

Time signatures are categorically not fractions, so this seems a 
completely illogical (and profoundly non-musical) solution.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:

> On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> > I have always felt that the easiest way for Finale to get "linked
> > parts" (I hesitate to use that expression, since it seems tied into
> > the in my opinion erroneous idea that the parts should be in
> > separate files, linked back to a score file) was to fix special part
> > extraction so that the layout changes for each part were stored as
> > deltas from the score layout.
> 
> That was the argument that won me over.
 
Well, as a computer programmer, it would never occur to me to 
implement it in any other way. Finale screams out for an object-
oriented approach to both implementation under the hood and user 
interface. The inheritance/encapsulation/subclassing that comes with 
object-oriented programming works exactly in this fashion by taking a 
basic object, subclassing it and adding interfaces/methods to the new 
object that is based on the other object.

That's exactly what a different view is.

It's also very much in line with my background as a database 
application programmer, where you do report layouts to present data 
that's stored in a format completely independent from the 
presentation format (i.e., it's not at all like a spreadsheet, where 
the data is stored in the same format you print, and alterations to 
the spreadsheet affect its layout for printing, with no independence 
between the two).

So, the ideas seem self-evident to me.
 
> >>  It'll be
> >> interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeats business works
> >> and whether or not it will adjust the measure numbers
> >> appropriately.
> >
> > Isn't it just implemented as a plug-in?
> 
> Is there a problem with that? Plugins seem to be a good way to go, as
> they don't take up CPU cycles when you are using the program
> "normally". This is what I like about the TG Tools lyric plugins, for
> example, over Finale's auto-word extensions.

Well, I would assume that code that implements the MassEdit tool's 
functionality doesn't take up CPU cycles when I'm in Speedy, so I 
don't see this defense of plugins as relevant.

To me, the basic functionality of the repeat tool should be changed 
to use common sense. Such as, if you place a backward repeat, Finale 
should find the previous forward repeat and say "do you want to 
repeat to the forward repeat at m. N?" and have a button called "SHOW 
ME" that shows you the context, and then allows you to say YES / NO / 
EDIT MANUALLY.

> > If you add a new region, when you create it, it appears to inherit
> > all the settings of the previous region you were working on, but,
> > instead, it just doesn't update the display. When you close the
> > dialog, you find that it's actually inherited the default settings
> > for measure number formatting. Second, there are problems with the
> > measure-number display that I haven't quite traced down. It takes
> > two or three trips to the region editing dialog before the numbers
> > start actually displaying what you've told them to
> 
> Command-D (control D on the PC) to redraw usually takes care of it for
> me.

Ctrl-D in a *dialog* box? The dialog box shows the WRONG FONT.

And the display has already been updated, since when I return to the 
document, the measure-number font is different than it was before I 
opened the dialog (it's now set to the default).

Why in the world would a modal dialog box that makes changes to 
objects displayed onscreen not automatically update the display as 
soon as the dialog is closed? That sounds like sloppy programming to 
me.

-- 
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] is that a new feature?!

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 7:52, Cecil Rigby wrote:

> OK, everyone- slap me if I missed something. There are 25 background
> pictures available in Fin'03 And if you wanna make your own,
> do it and put it in the resources folder
> 
> Is this textured paper thing in '06 something that actually prints? I
> could see some *small* difference then.

The background appears *behind* the page in page view.

"Textured paper" changes the appearance of the document window, the 
part behind the notes.

-- 
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] Dynamic Parts in Finale

[Eric Dannewitz]

Yeah. I agree. Thinking about it, if I do changes, it is AFTER parts are 
extracted, after they have been "proof played". That is when someone 
goes "You know, this would be better. Or that looks funny".


If Finale does part linking/dynamic parts, or whatever you want to call 
it, it needs to be TWO way. If you make a change in the part, or in the 
score, they BOTH get updated.


Andrew Stiller wrote:

Of all the long list of proposed features that follows, I'm not at all 
sure I feel a need for *any* of them.  Darcy is asking  for a 
profusion of new dialog boxes and windows, whereas I would have 
thought it  obvious that any dynamic parts linking  should be 
transparent: I change the score, the change is automatically (after 
signing off on an alert box) conveyed  to the parts. Period.


And as I wrote in a separate  post, even that  would be much  less 
useful to me  than the reverse: change a part and have  it 
automatically (after an alert box) affect the score.




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

Re: [Finale] is that a new feature?!

[David W. Fenton]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 8:23, dhbailey wrote:

> Cecil Rigby wrote:
> 
> > OK, everyone- slap me if I missed something. There are 25 background
> > pictures available in Fin'03 And if you wanna make your own,
> > do it and put it in the resources folder
> > 
> > Is this textured paper thing in '06 something that actually prints?
> > I could see some *small* difference then.
> > 
> 
> Those are the backgrounds AROUND the music.  The new textured paper is
> supposedly the actual page you are looking at where the music is
> displayed on the screen.
> 
> I just make the active window background light grey to ease my
> eyestrain.

Well, if you like that for all your other applications, that's fine.

> But this textured-paper thing is different from the backgrounds that
> Finale has had for many versions.

Yes, and I still say that the addition of it is a *good* thing -- 
it's simple to implement and improves usability. It's not at all the 
kind of bolted-on feature that requires lots of work to implement and 
benefits very few.

-- 
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] Vertical Spacing Algorithms

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 11:11 AM 7/6/05 -0500, Randolph Peters wrote:
>Am I the only one who wants vertical spacing handled automatically?

Definitely not the only one! It's not on the very top of my list, but it
would save considerable time -- and if it were part of an algorithmic
approach, could be modified nicely by the visual plugin maestros such as
Robert Patterson. (And vertical spacing was one of the really fine features
of Graphire.)

Dennis


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