date:20051103



On Nov 3, 2005, at 9:55 PM, Williams, Jim wrote:


Randolph...a follow-up...

Then you'd call Tech Support after 5 or 6 pots worth of grounds  
disappeared, and they'd say they've never heard of the brand of  
coffee you use, and IT must be the cause of your problem. You can't  
expect a coffeemaker to work properly with every single brand of  
coffee ever made, now, can you???...if they had to test it with  
every brand of coffee they'd go broke, and they'd all die of  
caffeine poisoning because, after all, they are a small company.


And, by the way, was the toaster on at the same time?

Chuck






Jim W.



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Randolph Peters
Sent: Thu 03-Nov-05 19:33
To: finale@shsu.edu
Cc: Johannes Gebauer
Subject: Re: [Finale] Product Proliferation--a Contest



At 11:27 PM +0100 11/3/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:


I have been waiting for the Finale coffeemaker for years.



Let's see, a Finale coffeemaker: Yeah, it would probably take
forever, run on DC power, and every once in a while make your grounds
disappear.

-Randolph Peters
___
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



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] Product Proliferation--a Contest

Randolph...a follow-up...
 
Then you'd call Tech Support after 5 or 6 pots worth of grounds disappeared, 
and they'd say they've never heard of the brand of coffee you use, and IT must 
be the cause of your problem. You can't expect a coffeemaker to work properly 
with every single brand of coffee ever made, now, can you???...if they had to 
test it with every brand of coffee they'd go broke, and they'd all die of 
caffeine poisoning because, after all, they are a small company.
Jim W.



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Randolph Peters
Sent: Thu 03-Nov-05 19:33
To: finale@shsu.edu
Cc: Johannes Gebauer
Subject: Re: [Finale] Product Proliferation--a Contest



At 11:27 PM +0100 11/3/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>I have been waiting for the Finale coffeemaker for years.

Let's see, a Finale coffeemaker: Yeah, it would probably take
forever, run on DC power, and every once in a while make your grounds
disappear.

-Randolph Peters
___
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] Another serious question about what you use



On Nov 3, 2005, at 9:23 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 3 Nov 2005 at 19:56, Chuck Israels wrote:



On Nov 3, 2005, at 6:06 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:



On 3 Nov 2005 at 16:13, Chuck Israels wrote:



Well, that is true of me, but Gary is a neighbor (on an island I
see from my window), and I benefitted from that and the fact that I
recorded jazz bass samples for him.  Still, I'd have been glad to
get the GPO "lite" that comes with 2006.  It's such an improvement
over what Andy Homzy calls "the little kazoo band" we used to have
to hear, and it requires little fussing.  What fussing it allows is
pretty transparent in how it works.



I don't understand remarks like this. No one was ever limited to the
soundfont that Finale started providing with Finale 2004. especially
when you consider that Finale *didn't* provide it before then.



We all have different levels of interest and ability at "attaching"
things to Finale. . . .



Decent playback before the inclusion of the Finale soundfont or GPO
required *nothing* to be "attached" to Finale. It just required the
relevant hardware/software to be on your computer. Since the vast
majority


Hmnnn. Not me.  Minority report.



of people using Finale would already be people who would
have MIDI-driven sound modules or soft synthesizers available to
them, the only question was how much you wanted to invest in your
synthesizer(s).

To me, any properly equipped computer comes out of the box with the
ability for pre-soundfont Finale to play back in some form, however
poor. So the question is simply what you want to do to get something
better than a "little kazoo band." Nobody was required to wait around
for Finale 2006 for something better than that.



. . . That's what made the sound improvements attractive
to someone like me.  Maybe you have to have some empathy for
different experience and "courage" about this kind of thing to
understand the remark.  That I am ignorant of some things, or
reluctant to get into the necessary new learning to make them work,
is clear. . . .



So far as I can see, there would have been no learning required at
all for you to have had better sounds before Finale 2006. You'd only
have needed to add a synthesizer that was better than the one(s)
offered by the default configuration of your computer.


Maybe so, but it didn't seem that way to me.  I live near a company  
(Edirol) that imports and sells Roland sound modules.  I took the  
trouble to visit the place one day in order to hear what came out of  
those "boxes".  Admittedly - this was quite a few years ago, but I  
was underwhelmed.
I think there may be another factor that was in operation at the  
time.  The orchestral sounds were better than the jazz sounds (that I  
needed).  As far as I know, it has taken the entry of GPO into the  
jazz sound font field to get decent saxophone sounds - for instance.








. . . That doesn't make me hopelessly flawed because I have
different attitudes and experience than you.  I am probably among the
oldest folks on this list and have come to computer work quite late
in life.  I have some intuition and am not dumb, but there's a lot I
don't know and a lot that is daunting to me.  I do my best.



I don't understand your reaction. I didn't say *you* were flawed or
ignorant or anything. I just took issue with the idea implicit in the
"little kazoo band" phrase that Finale 2006 is some kind of
revolution that makes possible what was not within easy reach before.
That's patently untrue, and it's not at all something that was
available only to the technically savvy.


OK, I was wrong, but that's the way it seemed to me, and I guess it  
depends on what's "easy,"  and for whom.







I don't believe it's Finale's job to provide good playback sounds. I
understand *why* they feel they have to provide good playback, but I
don't support it myself.



I'm OK with that, and didn't care that much when there was hardly any
playback, and it was klunky. . . .



This is where I just have a breakdown of understanding. Yes, before
Human Playback, what you got required some tweaking to make it sound
like an acceptable performance form the standpoint of timing and
agogics, but the pitches and rhythms were always as notated, and the
quality of the sound samples was as good as you provided in the
synthesizer for Finale to use.

Human Playback certainly makes it easier to get something that sounds
better, but it still sounds *nothing* like a real human being, even
the most mechanical of human musicians.


I agree with this - mostly, but I've heard some really mechanical  
performances in school!







If Finale with GPO is satisfactory for your auditory requirements, I
just don't see why a decent sound module (not even a very expensive
one) would have suited your purposes before GPO was integrated into
Finale.

It's not like playback was difficult once the MIDI setup was in
place.



. .. Still, easily used integrated playback
improvements are attractive to m

Re: [Finale] Another serious question about what you use

On 11/3/05, Chuck Israels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sometimes I think I should spend a full week tweaking templates and
> shortcuts, but music gets in the way.

Don't you hate it when that happens? :)

--
Brad Beyenhof
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com
Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also
deprive me of the possibility of being right.   ~ Igor Stravinsky

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

Re: [Finale] Another serious question about what you use

On 4 Nov 2005 at 4:55, John Bell wrote:

> On 4 Nov 2005, at 02:06, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > On 3 Nov 2005 at 16:13, Chuck Israels wrote:
> >
> >> Well, that is true of me, but Gary is a neighbor (on an island I
> >> see from my window), and I benefitted from that and the fact that I
> >> recorded jazz bass samples for him.  Still, I'd have been glad to
> >> get the GPO "lite" that comes with 2006.  It's such an improvement
> >> over what Andy Homzy calls "the little kazoo band" we used to have
> >> to hear, and it requires little fussing.  What fussing it allows is
> >> pretty transparent in how it works.
> >
> > I don't understand remarks like this. No one was ever limited to the
> > soundfont that Finale started providing with Finale 2004. especially
> > when you consider that Finale *didn't* provide it before then.
> 
> I do understand remarks like this. Those of us who are reluctant to 
> spend a lot of time making audio demos, but who nevertheless welcome 
> the opportunity to easily make some sort of soundfile for our clients 
> or ourselves from Finale scores welcome the new features of Fin2006. . .

Well, you're conflating TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES. Chuck didn't 
talk about creating audio demos from Finale. Indeed, I'd think that 
would not be something that interests him. He was talking about 
playback as a useful help to his composing, and saying that GPO now 
made it pleasant and useful because it had banished the "Little kazoo 
band."

Well, for pure Finale playback, my point is that nobody was ever 
limited to a mere kazoo band -- your playback experience was limited 
only by what synthesizer(s) you provided for Finale to playback 
through.

> . . . I
> already used GPO prior to Fin  2006. Setting up all the sounds for
> every score was rather time- consuming in the past. Fin 2006
> integrates GPO in a way that makes it  easy.
> 
> If you don't use GPO you may well turn up your nose at this. Maybe 
> you are right in that case to give Fin 2006 a miss.

I *can't* use GPO because I don't have a computer that could run it.

But it would also be useless for all my existing files, which are 
already tweaked for General Midi playback.

Further, I don't find the GPO sounds all that impressive themselves. 
Yes, the integration with Finale and with Human Playback makes it 
possible to get more of the subtleties of your notated score into the 
synthesized performance without tons of hand tweaking, and that's 
useful, but it's not of much use if I could only use it on all my new 
pieces, and if I'd only be able to use it if I bought a new computer.

And, frankly, it's not something *I* need.

But, I clearly stated that I understand why it's in Finale, because a 
lot of people *will* find it useful.

Certainly, when I save to MIDI then create a WAV file by playing back 
the MIDI file through MIDI2WAV, it would be easier if I could do that 
direct from Finale (though I probably wouldn't, because Finale 
doesn't actually play back as weel as most other MIDi players -- it 
still has the non-legato problem, with a small amount of space added 
between all the notes).

So, I'm not disputing that GPO is useless. It's certainly not in the 
class of the other list of add-ons that started this thread.

-- 
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] Another serious question about what you use

On 3 Nov 2005 at 19:56, Chuck Israels wrote:

> On Nov 3, 2005, at 6:06 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > On 3 Nov 2005 at 16:13, Chuck Israels wrote:
> >
> >> Well, that is true of me, but Gary is a neighbor (on an island I
> >> see from my window), and I benefitted from that and the fact that I
> >> recorded jazz bass samples for him.  Still, I'd have been glad to
> >> get the GPO "lite" that comes with 2006.  It's such an improvement
> >> over what Andy Homzy calls "the little kazoo band" we used to have
> >> to hear, and it requires little fussing.  What fussing it allows is
> >> pretty transparent in how it works.
> >
> > I don't understand remarks like this. No one was ever limited to the
> > soundfont that Finale started providing with Finale 2004. especially
> > when you consider that Finale *didn't* provide it before then.
> 
> We all have different levels of interest and ability at "attaching" 
> things to Finale. . . .

Decent playback before the inclusion of the Finale soundfont or GPO 
required *nothing* to be "attached" to Finale. It just required the 
relevant hardware/software to be on your computer. Since the vast 
majority of people using Finale would already be people who would 
have MIDI-driven sound modules or soft synthesizers available to 
them, the only question was how much you wanted to invest in your 
synthesizer(s).

To me, any properly equipped computer comes out of the box with the 
ability for pre-soundfont Finale to play back in some form, however 
poor. So the question is simply what you want to do to get something 
better than a "little kazoo band." Nobody was required to wait around 
for Finale 2006 for something better than that.

> . . . That's what made the sound improvements attractive 
> to someone like me.  Maybe you have to have some empathy for 
> different experience and "courage" about this kind of thing to 
> understand the remark.  That I am ignorant of some things, or 
> reluctant to get into the necessary new learning to make them work, 
> is clear. . . .

So far as I can see, there would have been no learning required at 
all for you to have had better sounds before Finale 2006. You'd only 
have needed to add a synthesizer that was better than the one(s) 
offered by the default configuration of your computer.

> . . . That doesn't make me hopelessly flawed because I have 
> different attitudes and experience than you.  I am probably among the 
> oldest folks on this list and have come to computer work quite late 
> in life.  I have some intuition and am not dumb, but there's a lot I 
> don't know and a lot that is daunting to me.  I do my best.

I don't understand your reaction. I didn't say *you* were flawed or 
ignorant or anything. I just took issue with the idea implicit in the 
"little kazoo band" phrase that Finale 2006 is some kind of 
revolution that makes possible what was not within easy reach before. 
That's patently untrue, and it's not at all something that was 
available only to the technically savvy.

> > I don't believe it's Finale's job to provide good playback sounds. I
> > understand *why* they feel they have to provide good playback, but I
> > don't support it myself.
> 
> I'm OK with that, and didn't care that much when there was hardly any 
> playback, and it was klunky. . . .

This is where I just have a breakdown of understanding. Yes, before 
Human Playback, what you got required some tweaking to make it sound 
like an acceptable performance form the standpoint of timing and 
agogics, but the pitches and rhythms were always as notated, and the 
quality of the sound samples was as good as you provided in the 
synthesizer for Finale to use.

Human Playback certainly makes it easier to get something that sounds 
better, but it still sounds *nothing* like a real human being, even 
the most mechanical of human musicians.

If Finale with GPO is satisfactory for your auditory requirements, I 
just don't see why a decent sound module (not even a very expensive 
one) would have suited your purposes before GPO was integrated into 
Finale. 

It's not like playback was difficult once the MIDI setup was in 
place.

> . .. Still, easily used integrated playback 
> improvements are attractive to me, and probably many others who are 
> not posting to this list.

Finale has *always* had integrated playback, just not integrated 
sounds. This is where the disconnect lies for me. You seem to me to 
be confusing the inclusion of the soundfount and GPO with the ability 
to play back files, which has existed as long as I've known anything 
about Finale. The only difference is that you had to provide the 
sounds yourself. Since around 1995 or so, every PC has come with 
sound support (however poor), and my understanding is that *all* Macs 
have always had sound support (though my understanding is that 
they've tended to be soft synths like QuickTime Musical Instruments 
more than hardware sound cards as was the norm on PCs until the last 
5 years or so; af

Re: [Finale] Another serious question about what you use

2005-11-03 Thread John Bell



On 4 Nov 2005, at 02:06, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 3 Nov 2005 at 16:13, Chuck Israels wrote:


Well, that is true of me, but Gary is a neighbor (on an island I see
from my window), and I benefitted from that and the fact that I
recorded jazz bass samples for him.  Still, I'd have been glad to get
the GPO "lite" that comes with 2006.  It's such an improvement over
what Andy Homzy calls "the little kazoo band" we used to have to
hear, and it requires little fussing.  What fussing it allows is
pretty transparent in how it works.


I don't understand remarks like this. No one was ever limited to the
soundfont that Finale started providing with Finale 2004. especially
when you consider that Finale *didn't* provide it before then.


I do understand remarks like this. Those of us who are reluctant to  
spend a lot of time making audio demos, but who nevertheless welcome  
the opportunity to easily make some sort of soundfile for our clients  
or ourselves from Finale scores
welcome the new features of Fin2006. I already used GPO prior to Fin  
2006. Setting up all the sounds for every score was rather time- 
consuming in the past. Fin 2006 integrates GPO in a way that makes it  
easy.


If you don't use GPO you may well turn up your nose at this. Maybe  
you are right in that case to give Fin 2006 a miss.


Yes, the bugs sound scary. Using Fin 2006 I have more than once been  
bitten by the bug that "unexpectedly" quits when you try to print. I  
have followed MakeMusic!'s advice to trash Finale's preferences, and  
Darcy's advice to delete all the printer settings other than the  
default. It's too soon to know if doing these things have solved it.



MakeMusic were investing their time and energy in something else,
but, as with so many things, I'm not the target audience.


I don't suppose I'm the target audience either. Every new release of  
Finale contains features that hold no interest for me, but I respect  
their right to make these decisions according to their perceptions of  
what their customers want.


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

Re: [Finale] Another serious question about what you use



On Nov 3, 2005, at 6:06 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 3 Nov 2005 at 16:13, Chuck Israels wrote:



Well, that is true of me, but Gary is a neighbor (on an island I see
from my window), and I benefitted from that and the fact that I
recorded jazz bass samples for him.  Still, I'd have been glad to get
the GPO "lite" that comes with 2006.  It's such an improvement over
what Andy Homzy calls "the little kazoo band" we used to have to
hear, and it requires little fussing.  What fussing it allows is
pretty transparent in how it works.



I don't understand remarks like this. No one was ever limited to the
soundfont that Finale started providing with Finale 2004. especially
when you consider that Finale *didn't* provide it before then.


David,

We all have different levels of interest and ability at "attaching"  
things to Finale.  That's what made the sound improvements attractive  
to someone like me.  Maybe you have to have some empathy for  
different experience and "courage" about this kind of thing to  
understand the remark.  That I am ignorant of some things, or  
reluctant to get into the necessary new learning to make them work,  
is clear.  That doesn't make me hopelessly flawed because I have  
different attitudes and experience than you.  I am probably among the  
oldest folks on this list and have come to computer work quite late  
in life.  I have some intuition and am not dumb, but there's a lot I  
don't know and a lot that is daunting to me.  I do my best.




I don't believe it's Finale's job to provide good playback sounds. I
understand *why* they feel they have to provide good playback, but I
don't support it myself.


I'm OK with that, and didn't care that much when there was hardly any  
playback, and it was klunky.  Still, easily used integrated playback  
improvements are attractive to me, and probably many others who are  
not posting to this list.





GPO integration with Finale is a complete non-issue for me -- it
neither makes me want to upgrade nor discourages me from doing so.
But that's because I've had sounds available to me for a long time
that I consider superior to the "little kazoo band."


Good for you, and my bad that I waited for Finale to do this before  
doing it myself.  I used to like manual transmissions too, but the  
automatic in my very good car has improved to the point that it  
shifts better than I do.



I'd much rather
MakeMusic were investing their time and energy in something else,
but, as with so many things, I'm not the target audience.


OK, and I'm not the target for auto harmonizer.  But auto harmonizer  
is probably not very useful for many folks, and I believe GPO is.   
I'm happy there are things that others can use that I don't happen to  
need, and that they keep MM in business.  That doesn't keep me from  
understanding and agreeing that there continues to be room for  
improvement in the music prep end (or beginning) of Finale.


Chuck





--
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



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] Another serious question about what you use



On Nov 3, 2005, at 6:30 PM, Brad Beyenhof wrote:


On 11/3/05, Chuck Israels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


j.FinaleScript?


Tried it and found Automator in Tiger to work more easily for batch
printing.  I did have one Finale script that worked for a while - to
change fonts, but it sopped working and seemed more trouble to re-
build or repair than to do the necessary work by hand.



But geeks like me are more than happy to spend 6 hours in order to
make a 10-minute job take 45 seconds.

Of course that's hyperbole, but any sort of scripting takes a certain
type of computing mindset that's more suited to those with experience
doing some sort of programming.


I understand that Brad, and there's a little geek in me too, but you  
guys are so much faster at that kind of thing.  Karen, for instance,  
has helped me a lot by sending QuicKeys things that she created.  I  
can adapt hers much more easily than creating my own.


Sometimes I think I should spend a full week tweaking templates and  
shortcuts, but music gets in the way.


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] Another serious question about what you use

On 11/3/05, Chuck Israels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > j.FinaleScript?
> Tried it and found Automator in Tiger to work more easily for batch
> printing.  I did have one Finale script that worked for a while - to
> change fonts, but it sopped working and seemed more trouble to re-
> build or repair than to do the necessary work by hand.

But geeks like me are more than happy to spend 6 hours in order to
make a 10-minute job take 45 seconds.

Of course that's hyperbole, but any sort of scripting takes a certain
type of computing mindset that's more suited to those with experience
doing some sort of programming.

--
Brad Beyenhof
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com
Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also
deprive me of the possibility of being right.   ~ Igor Stravinsky

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

Re: [Finale] Another serious question about what you use

On 3 Nov 2005 at 16:13, Chuck Israels wrote:

> Well, that is true of me, but Gary is a neighbor (on an island I see 
> from my window), and I benefitted from that and the fact that I 
> recorded jazz bass samples for him.  Still, I'd have been glad to get 
> the GPO "lite" that comes with 2006.  It's such an improvement over 
> what Andy Homzy calls "the little kazoo band" we used to have to 
> hear, and it requires little fussing.  What fussing it allows is 
> pretty transparent in how it works.

I don't understand remarks like this. No one was ever limited to the 
soundfont that Finale started providing with Finale 2004. especially 
when you consider that Finale *didn't* provide it before then.

I don't believe it's Finale's job to provide good playback sounds. I 
understand *why* they feel they have to provide good playback, but I 
don't support it myself. 

GPO integration with Finale is a complete non-issue for me -- it 
neither makes me want to upgrade nor discourages me from doing so. 
But that's because I've had sounds available to me for a long time 
that I consider superior to the "little kazoo band." I'd much rather 
MakeMusic were investing their time and energy in something else, 
but, as with so many things, I'm not the target audience.

-- 
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] Data-erasing bug in Fin2006 - The facts

2005-11-03 Thread Eric Dussault

At work, we are considering starting to use 2006, but the one thing  
holding us for now is the data-erasing bug that has been discussed a  
lot in the last few weeks. My attention was now totally focused at  
that time because it was before 2k6a and anyway we could not possibly  
consider the switch before that (still work in Finale 2003). Now the  
eps dotted-slur bug is gone, measure-attached smart shapes copy and  
after playing-around a lot with 2k6 in the last few months, I see a  
whole lot of new time-saving features to use. Don't care about GPO, I  
only need to engrave music properly.

Is this bug well-documented at MakeMusic? Is it reproducible? Mac only?
We have a good back-up system at work, but it saves data once daily,  
so the perspective of losing one day's work is frightening and would  
probably hold us from working with 2k6. BTW is the file overwrite  
problems with multiple files open still there in 2k6?


Thanks in advance for the help,

Eric Dussault
Finale 2006 for Mac
OS 10.2
PowerMac Dual 1.8 GHz
1 GB Ram




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

Re: [Finale] Product Proliferation--a Contest

2005-11-03 Thread Randolph Peters


At 11:27 PM +0100 11/3/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

I have been waiting for the Finale coffeemaker for years.


Let's see, a Finale coffeemaker: Yeah, it would probably take 
forever, run on DC power, and every once in a while make your grounds 
disappear.


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

Re: [Finale] Another serious question about what you use


Jim,

Here is my personal answer.


On Nov 3, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Williams, Jim wrote:


Friends...
A while back someone posted about the "hidden corners" of Finale,  
which led me to pose a question about your forays into those areas.  
The responses were interesting and enlightening.


The recent posts about certain "features" lead me, then, to the  
following questions:


1. WHAT "ADD-ONS" DO YOU USE?
a.The Band-in-a-Box Harmonizer?

Never


b.The rhyming dictionary?

No, but maybe it might help someone sometimes.


c.The marching percussion?

No

d.The exercises/exercise wizard?

No

e.GPO?


Yes, and will use this more when the library of sounds that I need  
arrives (the Jazz Library).  Finale performance problems can be  
minimized by turning off GPO until playback is needed, but I haven't  
been able to figure out how to hear what I am entering on my  
soundless midi keyboard unless GPO is on, so I am cornered here.  (I  
use a fixed channel midi thru, so I hear only piano sounds when  
entering music.  I tried smart midi thru, but found it distracting.   
Sometimes the entry window would be left in one instrument while I  
was playing things for another instrument - just playing sounds and  
thinking, and I'd have to switch the window to the correct instrument  
or to the piano staff.  That got to be enough of a drag that I  
settled on fixed midi.  What I can't figure out is how to get that  
piano sound out of the keyboard without having GPO on or switching  
back to smartsynth.)



f.Finale Performance Assessment?

Never

g.Scanning?
Tried it long ago - paid $300 for Smart Score.  It sucked as far as I  
was concerned.  Tom Johnson at MM promises me a free upgrade to the  
latest full version of Smart Score every year, when I see him at a  
convention, but it has yet to show up.  I haven't bugged him about it  
because I think it will not work well enough to be practical for me  
anyway.

h.Creation of Smart Music accompaniments?
No, and I think there's some wrong thinking about an accompaniment  
that is led by a solo line.  There is interaction in what I consider  
correct musical communication of rubatos and tempo changes.  Good  
accompaniments don't "follow" a lead, they accompany it.  I haven't  
tried this, but there are many ways I suspect it is a dumb tool, and  
maybe encourages poor performances by allowing an accompaniment to  
remain in synch with a stumbling solo.



i.Composer's Assistant?
No, but maybe it might have some use as a starting point for some  
development of an idea.



j.FinaleScript?
Tried it and found Automator in Tiger to work more easily for batch  
printing.  I did have one Finale script that worked for a while - to  
change fonts, but it sopped working and seemed more trouble to re- 
build or repair than to do the necessary work by hand.




k.MIBAC Rhythm Section Generator?


You know, it's not terrible, and considering that it's a machine  
that's doing this stuff, it's kind of remarkable.  But it's not good  
either, and I certainly don't need it.  I am way too particular about  
what I want to hear to accept a generic version of an accompaniment.





l.Anything like these that I might have overlooked?


I don't use the shape designer, but I know it's useful/necessary to  
some and don't consider it a frill.


Hyperscribe - I can't see how it can work more reliably/faster  
overall than step time entry.  Maybe highly skilled keyboard people  
can use this.  I cannot.


2. How often do you use them?


GPO almost all the time now.  I can hear things in my head, but it  
really does help me.  Maybe I am admitting a shortcoming in my own  
internal music imagery, but I catch things with it simply because  
some things in dense textures become clearer when I listen to them  
with different timbres, even the timbres I don't want (clarinets or  
english horns for saxes, classical brass for jazz brass and no mutes,  
and an incredibly dumb sounding "classical" bass pizzicato for jazz  
bass.  I am eagerly awaiting my copy of the Jazz band library.  The  
sounds are ready.  It's integration with Finale that is holding up  
the works.


3. Was any of them a "deal-maker" for your purchase of Finale?


No - how the music printed was the first reason for buying Finale  
version 1 and remains the reason I use it, though I have no reason to  
dislike the integration of GPO playback and disagree with those who  
think that it's the downfall of the music prep attributes of the  
program.  It may be a distraction for some, but it helps me, and even  
if that exposes a fault in an ideal image of myself as a composer,  
it's a true description of my working method, and I accept it. I  
check things with it all the time.  To make it perfectly clear: I  
believe I understand the difference between computer playback driven  
by notation software and real music and don't confuse the two.  It's  
still a helpful step on the way to better communication through  
notation for me.


4

Re: [Finale] Product Proliferation--a Contest

2005-11-03 Thread Barbara Touburg

But - but - they gave us T-shirts... (I have one, haha)


Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 03.11.2005 Williams, Jim wrote:
>> We now have...
>> 
>> *Finale
>> *Print Music
>> *Finale Guitar
>> *Finale Songwriter
>> 
>> WHAT'S NEXT??? Submit your entries to the group...now's your chance
>> to dream (ha,ha)!!  WHAT'S NEXT?
>> 
> 
> I have been waiting for the Finale coffeemaker for years.
> 
> Johannes
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Another serious question about what you use

2005-11-03 Thread Morris Inouye

On 11/3/05, Williams, Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Friends...A
while back someone posted about the "hidden corners" of Finale, which
led me to pose a question about your forays into those areas. The
responses were interesting and enlightening.The recent posts about certain "features" lead me, then, to the following questions:1. WHAT "ADD-ONS" DO YOU USE?a.The Band-in-a-Box Harmonizer?
b.The rhyming dictionary?c.The marching percussion?d.The exercises/exercise wizard?e.GPO?f.Finale Performance Assessment?g.Scanning?h.Creation of Smart Music accompaniments?i.Composer's Assistant?
j.FinaleScript?k.MIBAC Rhythm Section Generator?l.Anything like these that I might have overlooked?
The only one of the above I have tried is Scanning ... but it didn't
work (two years ago when I last tried ... so I have written it
off.) 2. How often do you use them?
See above. (Never). 
3. Was any of them a "deal-maker" for your purchase of Finale?

No. 
4. How do you rate the quality of those features you use or tried to use?

The one feature I tried to use was pure bloat--i.e. purely non-functional bytes.

-- Morris Inouye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. --Hanlon's Razor
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Product Proliferation--a Contest

2005-11-03 Thread Owain Sutton




Brad Beyenhof wrote:

On 11/3/05, Williams, Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Finale Friends...

We now have...

*Finale
*Print Music
*Finale Guitar
*Finale Songwriter



How about the "Engraver's Edition" that notates music cleanly and
efficiently without even claiming to do any of the
marketing-hype-driven fluff like the rhyming dictionary and
auto-harmonization?




Huh?  Engravers?  What are they?
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: Re: [Finale] Product Proliferation--a Contest

2005-11-03 Thread richard.bartkus

How about "Finale Rap"

The default template will automatically ressurect some random worn out groove 
from the 80's.  The "Rap Generator" plug-in will start with the fundamental 
"Square Dance Caller" lead line, replacing evry fourth word with the obligatory 
profanity.   

Whaddayathink ?

> 
> From: dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/11/03 Thu PM 05:17:11 EST
> To: finale@shsu.edu
> Subject: Re: [Finale] Product Proliferation--a Contest
> 
> Williams, Jim wrote:
> 
> > Finale Friends...
> >  
> > We now have...
> >  
> > *Finale
> > *Print Music
> > *Finale Guitar
> > *Finale Songwriter
> >  
> > WHAT'S NEXT??? Submit your entries to the group...now's your chance to 
> > dream (ha,ha)!!  WHAT'S NEXT?
> >  
> 
> Finale Dirge Composer -- automatically generates music to be played at 
> funeral services for over-bloated software.
> 
> Finale Jingle Composer -- "Give us a product and we'll auto-compose a 
> jingle for you" (comes with new expanded Rhyming Dictionary(tm) which 
> includes words like "cheeseburger" and "Corvette.")
> 
> Finale A La Carte -- you get to choose whether to include GPO or not, 
> you decide which plug-ins you want to pay for (already paid for TGTools? 
> No need to pay twice, we simply won't ship the lite version to you) Wish 
> that silly EPS export wasn't taunting you Windows users from the 
> Graphics menu?  We'll take it out for you!  Upgrade prices range from 
> $39.95 on up, your choice.
> 
> -- 
> David H. Bailey
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
> 


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

Re: [Finale] Product Proliferation--a Contest


On 03.11.2005 Williams, Jim wrote:

We now have...
 
*Finale

*Print Music
*Finale Guitar
*Finale Songwriter
 
WHAT'S NEXT??? Submit your entries to the group...now's your chance 
to dream (ha,ha)!!  WHAT'S NEXT?




I have been waiting for the Finale coffeemaker for years.

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

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

Re: [Finale] Product Proliferation--a Contest

On 11/3/05, Williams, Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Finale Friends...
>
> We now have...
>
> *Finale
> *Print Music
> *Finale Guitar
> *Finale Songwriter

How about the "Engraver's Edition" that notates music cleanly and
efficiently without even claiming to do any of the
marketing-hype-driven fluff like the rhyming dictionary and
auto-harmonization?

--
Brad Beyenhof
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com
Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also
deprive me of the possibility of being right.   ~ Igor Stravinsky

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

Re: [Finale] Another serious question about what you use

On 11/3/05, Williams, Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Of the "add-ons" you list, the only one I have ever used effectively
is FinaleScript. I do use it quite often, though... to apply Patterson
Beams to a group of files, to (in conjunction with a QuicKeys macro)
export a folder full of files as EPS, to print a whole folder of
files... basically to do operations on a number of documents all at
once. Much easier and faster than getting RSI hitting "cmd-p, enter,
cmd-w, enter, cmd-o" over and over again.

--
Brad Beyenhof
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com
Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also
deprive me of the possibility of being right.   ~ Igor Stravinsky

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

Re: [Finale] Product Proliferation--a Contest

2005-11-03 Thread dhbailey


Williams, Jim wrote:


Finale Friends...
 
We now have...
 
*Finale

*Print Music
*Finale Guitar
*Finale Songwriter
 
WHAT'S NEXT??? Submit your entries to the group...now's your chance to dream (ha,ha)!!  WHAT'S NEXT?
 


Finale Dirge Composer -- automatically generates music to be played at 
funeral services for over-bloated software.


Finale Jingle Composer -- "Give us a product and we'll auto-compose a 
jingle for you" (comes with new expanded Rhyming Dictionary(tm) which 
includes words like "cheeseburger" and "Corvette.")


Finale A La Carte -- you get to choose whether to include GPO or not, 
you decide which plug-ins you want to pay for (already paid for TGTools? 
No need to pay twice, we simply won't ship the lite version to you) Wish 
that silly EPS export wasn't taunting you Windows users from the 
Graphics menu?  We'll take it out for you!  Upgrade prices range from 
$39.95 on up, your choice.


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

[Finale] Another serious question about what you use

Friends...
A while back someone posted about the "hidden corners" of Finale, which led me 
to pose a question about your forays into those areas. The responses were 
interesting and enlightening.
 
The recent posts about certain "features" lead me, then, to the following 
questions:
 
1. WHAT "ADD-ONS" DO YOU USE? 
a.The Band-in-a-Box Harmonizer?
b.The rhyming dictionary? 
c.The marching percussion? 
d.The exercises/exercise wizard? 
e.GPO?
f.Finale Performance Assessment?
g.Scanning?
h.Creation of Smart Music accompaniments?
i.Composer's Assistant?
j.FinaleScript?
k.MIBAC Rhythm Section Generator?
l.Anything like these that I might have overlooked?
 
2. How often do you use them?
 
3. Was any of them a "deal-maker" for your purchase of Finale?
 
4. How do you rate the quality of those features you use or tried to use?
 
I'll start.
*I already owned GPO, so that point is moot.
*I tried the Auto-Harmonizer twice and was thoroughly underwhelmed--not ready 
for prime-time.
*I tried scanning a couple things--worked ok for some simple stuff, but not 
otherwise worth the time or effort
*I wanted to try some FinaleScript, but LAST I LOOKED (which was a while ago) 
it was a "teach yourself" 
 project for which I simply lacked time. It's supposed to be a time saver, but 
I lacked the time to invest in  mastering it. Is that different in 2006?
 

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

Re: [Finale] Product Proliferation--a Contest

2005-11-03 Thread Owain Sutton




Williams, Jim wrote:

Finale Friends...
 
We now have...
 
*Finale

*Print Music
*Finale Guitar
*Finale Songwriter
 
WHAT'S NEXT??? Submit your entries to the group...now's your chance to dream (ha,ha)!!  WHAT'S NEXT?




Finale Justdoeswhatitclaims (or am I being silly?)
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Product Proliferation--a Contest

Finale Friends...
 
We now have...
 
*Finale
*Print Music
*Finale Guitar
*Finale Songwriter
 
WHAT'S NEXT??? Submit your entries to the group...now's your chance to dream 
(ha,ha)!!  WHAT'S NEXT?
 

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

RE: [Finale] Fin2006a now available!

I share this opinion and resent MM's near-"forced-subscription" model. I wrote 
about that earlier but it didn't seem to register.
2006 was the last for me for a while (I should have skipped it--2004 worked ok 
for me); I will be waiting for compelling notation improvements and/or more 
thorough VST implementation. *IF* I ever order another Finale upgrade, I will 
never again be an unpaid beta tester for MM. I will wait for careless bugs to 
be worked out by the first users.

My guess under the forced subscription model is that bugfixes and improvements 
will be parceled out so that only one or two of any consequence occur each 
year, regardless of requests or reports. If the one you want is six years away, 
you are hosed. Fluff can be added at a low marginal cost (in $ and 
person-hours), and evidently brings large marginal benefits (at least for 
initial purchases) so we should see an endless stream of that, though I'm not 
sure what could top the rhyming dictionary.

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of David W. Fenton
Sent: Thu 03-Nov-05 16:05
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Fin2006a now available!

On 3 Nov 2005 at 13:35, Morris Inouye wrote:

> I have absolutely no plans to upgrade to 2007. Also like you, I
> *might* consider the upgrade if something like dynamic parts (similar
> to Sibelius's capability) is added. Even if they add a must-have
> feature, I will definitely upgrade *only* after others have evaluated
> the upgrade for at least 4-5 months. If the 2007 upgrade is as
> unstable as 2006, I won't upgrade even if it has dynamic parts!

It's funny how many of you are now coming around to the same position
on upgrades that I've *always* had -- don't upgrade until the
features are compelling and the upgrade is stable.

I've *never* understood the logic of knee-jerk upgrades, as it
removes all the customer's power of expression, as well as exposing
you to early adopter bugs. I understand that MakeMusic depends on
those upgrade revenues, but this is a case where their interests and
mine seem to me to be at odds. I'm not going to compromise my own
interests just to keep them in business, particularly since enforcing
my own interests is the only way I have to discipline them to respond
to my needs.

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

[Finale] FinMac2k6 mass edit canonic utilst retro hangs app

2005-11-03 Thread Claudio Pompili

Title: FinMac2k6 mass edit canonic utilst retro hangs
app


Hi

I'm on Tiger
10.4.2/Panther 10.3.9 and FinMac2k6. The few occasions that I've
needed to use the Mass Edit>Canonic Utilities>Retrograde plug in
it causes the app to hang/spinning pizza of death.

Anybody else have
similar problems and is there a workaround?
-- 

cheers, Claudio


Claudio Pompili
composer, sound designer, music consultant
http://www.claudiopompili.net.au/ (**2002-2003 Golden Web Award**)
AMC http://www.amcoz.com.au


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

Re: [Finale] Fin2006a now available!

On 3 Nov 2005 at 13:35, Morris Inouye wrote:

> I have absolutely no plans to upgrade to 2007. Also like you, I
> *might* consider the upgrade if something like dynamic parts (similar
> to Sibelius's capability) is added. Even if they add a must-have
> feature, I will definitely upgrade *only* after others have evaluated
> the upgrade for at least 4-5 months. If the 2007 upgrade is as
> unstable as 2006, I won't upgrade even if it has dynamic parts!

It's funny how many of you are now coming around to the same position 
on upgrades that I've *always* had -- don't upgrade until the 
features are compelling and the upgrade is stable. 

I've *never* understood the logic of knee-jerk upgrades, as it 
removes all the customer's power of expression, as well as exposing 
you to early adopter bugs. I understand that MakeMusic depends on 
those upgrade revenues, but this is a case where their interests and 
mine seem to me to be at odds. I'm not going to compromise my own 
interests just to keep them in business, particularly since enforcing 
my own interests is the only way I have to discipline them to respond 
to my needs.

-- 
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] Fin2006a now available!

2005-11-03 Thread Morris Inouye

On 11/3/05, Eric Dannewitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only way I'd upgrade to 2007 is for it to have some compellingfeatures. I debated about upgrading to 2006, but they were pushing it(and still are) has having performance gains.Ha!2007 needs dynamic parts, or something like it. That would be the only
thing I'd upgrade for now. I'm not going to be lured into MakeMusic'smarketing again. And I am not going to put my system at risk with theircrappy installers and crappy testing practices.

Like you, I have absolutely no plans to upgrade to 2007. Also like you,
I *might* consider the upgrade if something like dynamic parts (similar
to Sibelius's capability) is added. Even if they add a must-have
feature, I will definitely upgrade *only* after others have evaluated
the upgrade for at least 4-5 months. If the 2007 upgrade is as unstable
as 2006, I won't upgrade even if it has dynamic parts!-- Morris Inouye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. --Hanlon's Razor
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] new Finale

On 3 Nov 2005 at 7:07, dhbailey wrote:

> Or what if they released a version without the 
> "manipulate-temp-files-in-memory-rather-than-on-disk" supposed
> improvements.

Bugs don't work that way.

First off, there's nothing fundamentally unreliable about in-memory 
temp data. Indeed, that's really the norm (though very often in 
combination with on-disk temp files, either as scratch files or to 
allow backup recovery).

The problem is that MakeMusic made some major mistake(s) in 
implementing their changes to temp file handling. The implementation 
mistake(s) are the problem, not the feature being implemented.

Secondly, you can't just back out a change like this and replace it 
with the "old" way of doing things, because that process is likely to 
introduce *more* bugs than it will fix.

Third, the speed of autosave (and manual saves) is probably due to 
this new approach to temp files, so you'd be losing something truly 
useful at the same time that you're getting rid of the horrid bug.

This kind of thing is probably very difficult to diagnose and fix. 
That's why it got through the beta process without being found, 
because it's a tough one to begin with.

For perspective, let me describe the worst bug that Microsoft Access 
ever had. In an Access form, there's a method for navigating between 
records that uses what are called "bookmarks," which are pointers to 
cursor locations in a recordset. Forms have two sets of bookmarks, 
one in the recordset loaded in the form, and one in an exact 
duplicate of that recordset, called the RecordsetClone. The 
RecordsetClone allows you to find out things about the real recordset 
without having an effect on the real recordset.

The method for navigation via recordset is that you do a FindFirst in 
the recordsetclone. If there's a match, it sets the bookmark to the 
new record position. Since the form's real recordset is identical, 
you can set it equal to the RecordsetClone's bookmark, which then 
moves the form's cursor location to the same place as it was in the 
RecordsetClone.

So far so good. This feature had been implemented sometime around 
Access version 1.x and 2.0, if I'm remembering correctly (i.e., in 
1993 or so), and had been relied on by all Access programmers (as 
well as by some of the wizards built into Access that write code for 
you to accomplish tasks, like finding a record).

But in August of 1998, it was announced that a bug had been found 
with bookmark navigation that could cause data to be written to the 
wrong record. The bug manifested itself in these circumstances:

1. in a form having a recordset with more than 262 records

2. that has had a record deleted from it

3. that then has an edit to a record that is after record 262 and 
after the deleted record

And the result was that changes to any of the remaining undeleted 
records *after* the deleted record got written to the record *after* 
what the form displayed.

The problem was that the recordsetclone and the form's actual 
recordset were out of synch with each other because of the deleted 
record.

The workaround was actually very simple -- after deleting a record, 
requery the form (if you don't requery you keep the same number of 
records with the deleted record display #deleted in all fields).

But the problem existed back to all versions of Access since 1993. 
For more than five years people had been using the product and nobody 
had identified this extremely serious bug.

By the time I heard about it, it had already been diagnosed and the 
workaround discovered. Microsoft issued a service release about a 
month later that fixed the problem permanently.

As it turns out, one of my applications probably was bitten by this 
bug in early 1998 (users reported remembering entering data into 
particular records, then coming back to the same record and not 
seeing it there; we never could identify the cause, though it may 
have been the bookmark bug; reports of the bookmark bug also caused 
me to discover that bookmark navigation had problems when activated 
on unsaved records because under some circumstances the data would 
*not* be saved and no error would be raised). But because the 
symptoms were so incredibly hard to diagnose (who is going to 
recognize that the data in a record actually belongs to a different 
record?), and because the scenario required for it to happen was so 
specific (though not at all uncommon).

Microsoft is a much, much larger company than MakeMusic, and Access 
has orders of magnitude more users than Finale, but it took FIVE 
YEARS for the bug to actually be discovered, even though it had the 
potential to badly corrupt the data of any application that was 
exposed to the bug (i.e., using bookmark navigation and allowing 
deletes without requery in a form with more than 262 records).

It may take MakeMusic quite a while to fix this bug. I'm not at all 
surprised that a fix did not make it into release 2006a, since that 
was surely already "gold" by t

Re: [Finale] Mac Finale 5, 6 or 7. That is the question


On 03.11.2005 Andrew Stiller wrote:
IMO Finale 2K2 was the finest  iteration of the program ever 
produced. I would still be using it today were it not for the fact 
that it will not run in OSX, and System 9 is dying. Because of the 
necessity of jumping to OSX (which I loathe, hate, and  despise, but 
what ya gonna do?) I now do most of my work in 2K4, which is nice and 
stable, and has only minor bugs. 2K5, by all reports, is similar.


Given the bugs in 2K6, you should by no means purchase it, discount 
or no. You *should* however get 2K5 because sooner or later you're 
not going to be able to use System 9, or any application tied to it, 
and will need to update all your Finale files with an OSX-ready 
version--a job better done now than later.


It is interesting how experiences vary. I found 2k4 pretty unusable on 
the Mac. Slow and buggy. 2k5 was much better, and personally I prefer 
2k6. But then I have not been hit by the bugs. There are certainly 
problems in all versions of Finale.


Contrary to what other people say I do not believe that 2k6 crashes any 
more than 2k5 or 2k4, if you only do the same things with it. When GPO 
comes into play things may indeed be different, simply because GPO eats 
resources, especially memory. However, as long as you don't activate it 
this shouldn't be a problem.


The dataloss bug does indeed sound serious, no doubt. However, by my own 
experience I believe it is pretty unlikely to happen if you only have 
one document open at the time - I have used 2k6 pretty heavily in the 
last few months and I have not seen any sign of the bug.


Johannes

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

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

Re: [Finale] Mac Finale 5, 6 or 7. That is the question


On 03.11.2005 Eric Dannewitz wrote:
It also depends on your system. I have a G4 933Mhz, and a MiniMac. 
Both are maxed out in ram. With Finale 2006, both are unstable, the 
MiniMac being the most unstable (crashes when printing). The 933 G4 
also will randomly dump out of Finale 2006.


I cannot remember if Finale 2005 did that, but I'm pretty sure it was 
way more stable than 2006. Basically, you are getting GPO with 2006. 
Which, in my opinion, is fluff.



The one real advantage I find with 2k6 is the far superior screen 
display on the Mac platform. Antialiasing is brilliant, I can still read 
the notes while looking at a whole page on my 14" iBook. For this reason 
I will not go back. I have not found 2k6 to crash more. I hardly use GPO 
though (although I even have the full GPO, too).


Johannes

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

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

Re: [Finale] PDFs


On 03.11.2005 Charles Small wrote:
The only difference between what I'm doing and what Dave describes 
above is that I have MacGSview instead of macps2pdf, but it's clearly 
supposed to work exactly as he describes.


Actually, I don't think GSView works at all. What you should get is 
MacGhostView, which includes macps2pdf. Find it here:


http://www.kiffe.com/macghostview.html

and get version 3.2 for OS 9.

Johannes

--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] new Finale

2005-11-03 Thread A-NO-NE Music

Lawrence David Eden / 2005/11/03 / 06:24 AM wrote:

>I find myself wondering why those of you who have been bitten 
>by some pretty scary bugs have not simply disposed of this version of 
>Finale and gone elsewhere.

'Coz 2006 still is more productive for me, and remember I got bitten 3
times already :-)

The biggest improvement that makes me not to go back to previous version
is the Copy Item dialog by Opt+Shift+Click.  This alone made my workflow
much, much faster.  I can't think of working without it, period.

The so called nasty bug is not like you loose file by crash, like we
used to have from v1.0 up to v2.6 (ack!).  Wait.  I even remember one
file which was $$ job got totally corrupted with v3.2, and only to
realize backup also didn't open(!).  That was fatal.

When data disappears, unlike someone reported, the disappearing data is
always around the measure(s) I made action to so I notice the problem
right away.  I close the file without saving it.  No big deal.  I
haven't lost much work by the bug.  I certainly don't mind living with
it at this moment.  I am serious!

-- 

- Hiro

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

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

Re: [Finale] Mac Finale 5, 6 or 7. That is the question

2005-11-03 Thread Andrew Stiller



On Nov 3, 2005, at 7:43 AM, Thurletta Brown-Gavins wrote:

 Since resources are tight, do I upgrade to 2005, spring for the buggy 
2006 before the upgrade offer expires in December and pray things will 
be resolved, or wait for 2007?


I have a system very similar to yours: a dual-boot iMac. I keep Finale 
2K2 in System 9, and 2K4 in OSX 10.3.3.


IMO Finale 2K2 was the finest  iteration of the program ever produced. 
I would still be using it today were it not for the fact that it will 
not run in OSX, and System 9 is dying. Because of the necessity of 
jumping to OSX (which I loathe, hate, and  despise, but what ya gonna 
do?) I now do most of my work in 2K4, which is nice and stable, and has 
only minor bugs. 2K5, by all reports, is similar.


Given the bugs in 2K6, you should by no means purchase it, discount or 
no. You *should* however get 2K5 because sooner or later you're not 
going to be able to use System 9, or any application tied to it, and 
will need to update all your Finale files with an OSX-ready version--a 
job better done now than later.


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] Fin2006a now available!

2005-11-03 Thread Eric Dannewitz

The only way I'd upgrade to 2007 is for it to have some compelling 
features. I debated about upgrading to 2006, but they were pushing it 
(and still are) has having performance gains.


Ha!

2007 needs dynamic parts, or something like it. That would be the only 
thing I'd upgrade for now. I'm not going to be lured into MakeMusic's 
marketing again. And I am not going to put my system at risk with their 
crappy installers and crappy testing practices.


Andrew Stiller wrote:
A lot of contributors to this thread seem to be operating under the 
assumption that almost everyone in the Finale community purchased 2K6, 
but I don't believe that is the case.


I am one of many who turned down 2K5 and/or 2K6 because the new 
features offered were not worth the price of the upgrade. Given that 
2K6 is so disastrously buggy, and that MakeMusic has made no move to 
fix it in a timely fashion, I will, obviously, be extremely leery of 
2K7 no matter what features it offers, and simply won't buy it until 
it has been vetted and found clean by its early adopters.  I am sure 
that I am not the only 2K4 or 2K5 user thinking along these lines. 
Those committed to 2K6 may be stuck for now, but when 2K7 comes out 
they will be faced with the choice of whether to trade the devil they 
know for the devil they don't, and a great many will, at the very 
least, hesitate before (allegedly) upgrading.


In other words, MakeMusic's abusive behavior toward its customers is 
going to turn around and bite them in just a few months. Count on it.


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


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

Re: [Finale] Fin2006a now available!

2005-11-03 Thread Andrew Stiller



On Nov 2, 2005, at 3:02 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:



People bought Finale 2006 under the assumption it would work as well 
as 2005 and then some. It's anything BUT right now..




A lot of contributors to this thread seem to be operating under the 
assumption that almost everyone in the Finale community purchased 2K6, 
but I don't believe that is the case.


I am one of many who turned down 2K5 and/or 2K6 because the new 
features offered were not worth the price of the upgrade. Given that 
2K6 is so disastrously buggy, and that MakeMusic has made no move to 
fix it in a timely fashion, I will, obviously, be extremely leery of 
2K7 no matter what features it offers, and simply won't buy it until it 
has been vetted and found clean by its early adopters.  I am sure that 
I am not the only 2K4 or 2K5 user thinking along these lines. Those 
committed to 2K6 may be stuck for now, but when 2K7 comes out they will 
be faced with the choice of whether to trade the devil they know for 
the devil they don't, and a great many will, at the very least, 
hesitate before (allegedly) upgrading.


In other words, MakeMusic's abusive behavior toward its customers is 
going to turn around and bite them in just a few months. Count on it.


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

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

On 11/3/05, dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hopefully all of us who have upgraded kept our installations of Fin2005and added a second installation for Fin2006, so we can continue to doreal work in Fin2005 while waiting to see what happens with Fin2006.
Like you, I kept my Fin2005 around on Windows. (I tried to get a refund
and return the still shrink-wrapped Fin2006, but they said I had waited
too long and the return period had expired.) I have since installed
Fin2006, but don't dare use it for any real work.
I'm on Windows, so the "let's trash some data when he's not looking" bug
hassn't bitten me, but even as I installed it I didn't have a greatfeeling of trust (especially when some things which were supposed towork in GPO, such as preset ambience settings selection) in it and have
continued to do any "can't have any screwups" work in Finale2005.
I am in the process of switching to my iBook G4 that I purchased in
August. Although Tiger is an incredible platform for everything else, I
just don't have the courage to install software that will delete entire
folders and "trash data when I'm not looking."
I wonder what would happen if they simply took out all the hooks to GPOplayback and released a version where playback was like it was in
Fin2005 but any engraving improvements are left.
Finale has become severely bloated. One of the challenges of bloatware
development is keeping it from collapsing under its own weight. (I
know--I've worked on such projects [sigh]). I hope MakeMusic rethinks
its current strategy, or they will lose lots of customers. (Speaking
for myself, I won't buy any more updates until they address their
stability problems.)
Or what if they released a version without the"manipulate-temp-files-in-memory-rather-than-on-disk" supposed improvements.
But as for being able to jump to a different product, there's nothingother than Fin2005 that will do for many of us.
I am (still) seriously considering upgrading my Sibelius 2
(Windows) to version 4 (Mac). For the present, though, I'll stick with
FinWin2005, and use my Mac for
"everything-else-but-desktop-music-publishing."-- Morris Inouye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. --Hanlon's Razor
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] PDFs

2005-11-03 Thread Charles Small



In response to my query for help making PDF versions of my Finale files, using Finale 
2000c and Mac OS 9.1,


Dave Cushman wrote:


I'm still using 2001 on MAC 9.1.

In the print dialog box (for a laser printer), I save to file and 
"include all fonts." I drag the postscript file to  macps2pdf, the 
result a .pdf that works fine on all platforms.




   Thanks for this, and for other replies. BUT when I try it here, I get only an error 
message: "GhostScript 9.216656 has encountered an error (-100) rendering the file . 
The page may not be displayed completely!" and the only option is a button ominously 
labeled Abort, which does exactly what it promises  :-(
 The only difference between what I'm doing and what Dave describes above is that I have 
MacGSview instead of macps2pdf, but it's clearly supposed to work exactly as he describes.

  What am I doing wrong? Could I have the bits and pieces in the wrong places 
or something?
Thanks, Ch.S.







--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 267.12.6 - Release Date: 28/10/2005

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

Re: [Finale] Mac Finale 5, 6 or 7. That is the question

2005-11-03 Thread Eric Dannewitz

I wouldn't touch 2006 with a 20 foot pole. It is really buggy, slow, and 
generally a waste of money in my opinion. 2005 was the last version that 
was any good (in my opinion). However, I do think that 10.4 is the 
system to use. I've noticed speed gains on my aging systems.


It also depends on your system. I have a G4 933Mhz, and a MiniMac. Both 
are maxed out in ram. With Finale 2006, both are unstable, the MiniMac 
being the most unstable (crashes when printing). The 933 G4 also will 
randomly dump out of Finale 2006.


I cannot remember if Finale 2005 did that, but I'm pretty sure it was 
way more stable than 2006. Basically, you are getting GPO with 2006. 
Which, in my opinion, is fluff.


Thurletta Brown-Gavins wrote:
I currently use Finale 2002 in OS 9.2.2 on a dual-boot (OS 9.2.2 and 
10.3.9) G4 with a MidiMan 1x1 and Yamaha PSR-79 keyboard. I use it 
only six or seven times a year for choir/organ music (inserting 
paraphrased lyrics into hymns, transposing, putting refinishing 
touches on my Christmas anthem, creating a decent funeral-recessional 
based on "Caisson Song" [I kid you not!], etc., but when I use it, I 
need it to work *perfectly* without any problems. That's the case now 
with 2002, but it sure would be nice to be able to work in OS 10.3.9 
(don't plan to touch 10.4 with a ten-foot pole).


Have been reading about bugs in 2006...and today some folks were 
talking about bugs in 2005. The question is: Since resources are 
tight, do I upgrade to 2005, spring for the buggy 2006 before the 
upgrade offer expires in December and pray things will be resolved, or 
wait for 2007? (As an illustration of tight resources, I used Finale 
3.7 until the "amnesty upgrade offer" for $99 came into being for 2002!)


Your thoughts would be appreciated before the current 2006 upgrade 
offer expires in December and all the 2005's disappear from eBay. I'll 
probably not be lucky enough to get another "$99 amnesty offer" from 
MakeMusic in this lifetime. ;o)

Thanks,
Thurletta M. Brown-Gavins
___
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] Mac Finale 5, 6 or 7. That is the question

2005-11-03 Thread Robert Patterson

I use Fin05b under 10.3.9 with few problems.

There is no getting around that fact that Fin02 under 9.2.2 runs faster and 
more responsively on the same hardware than any OSX version of Finale under OSX 
(including the vaunted Fin06). But this is more than offset by the stability of 
OSX and the removal of the need to reboot any time you want to go into Finale, 
especially since you use Finale so infreqently.

I would not adopt Fin06 before the 2006b update, assuming such a thing happens. 




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

Re: [Finale] Mac Finale 5, 6 or 7. That is the question