Re: [Finale] Little Kazoo Band
David W. Fenton wrote: [snip] Perhaps many of the people who use playback casually never bothered to figure out how to do some of these things, and that's why they found Finale playback inadequate -- not because Finale playback *was* inadequate, but because their knowledge of how to control Finale playback was pretty much non-existent. Which brings us back to where the bulk of Finale's development dollars seem to be going -- to quiet those who didn't search deeper to accomplish what they wanted to do but somehow have a bigger impact on the company with their complaints as well as potential new users so they won't have to look deeply into the program to do what's always been possible (or nearly always been possible), rather than to resolve long-standing issues which those who DO use the deeper aspects of the program (such as EPS export in Windows for those who work with desktop publishing applications, or importing complex midi files for notation from clients, or a hyperscribe with a smart breakpoint which moves as the hands move, or scanning music which actually works with anything other than simple music). Such as GPO playback -- that could very easily have been made much more easy and transparent without actually including GPO with the program. That way those who had actually invested in GPO (how many of them are actually using the included GPO-lite anyway?) could use the two products with no problems, and those of us who aren't the least bit interested in GPO wouldn't have had the fine people at GPO hijack a large part of our upgrade dollars for something we don't use. But it appears that the development dollars get pointed toward the digging-up-from-the-bowels of certain aspects while leaving others broken or buried. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Data-erasing bug in Fin2006 - The facts
Urm. I'm not talking about the overwrite bug. I'm talking about the bug you asked about. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Dussault Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 9:24 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Data-erasing bug in Fin2006 - The facts Thanks Allen, I was talking about the bug that seem to erase data randomly after inserting measures at the end of a document or important mass edit operations, as reported by Hiro, Masao Iikura, Chuck Israels and Javier Ruiz. From your response, you seem to be talking about the overwrite bug. Am I right? Could you clarify this? Le 05-11-04 à 15:58, Fisher, Allen a écrit : Eric-- We can reproduce this in house. We've got a couple of different ways to reproduce it. It most often (notice I said most often, not *always*) happens with multiple documents (not necessarily open all at the same time) during a session. I'm not a programmer so I'm not going to speculate on a cause. Allen Éric Dussault ___ 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] Beaming question
D. Fenton: I don't feel the non-beaming [of old vocal music] conveys anything useful that is not quite clear from word continuation symbols along with judiciously-placed slurs. A problem arises, though, when you have a vocal part with slurs in the original. In the old style of vocal notation, a slur often denotes a portamento--but no exact transcription can be (or ought to be) made because exactly when such a portamento is appropriate is very much a matter of individual interpretation. To transcribe such a piece into modern notation, you'd have to find some way of differentiating editorial slurs from the original slurs, and doing so in a way that neither compelled the use of portamento for the latter, nor discouraged 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] Beaming question
On Nov 6, 2005, at 7:15 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Why would one keep the beam breaks and then discard most of the reversed beams? I don't believe either Johannes or I gave any indication of how many of the reversed beams we discarded. Yes, sometimes these give indications about register or phrasing--in which case I don't discard them. Other times, it seems to be done merely to save space, in which case I feel perfectly free to either keep it or lose it depending on my own editorial requirements and/or esthetic judgement. These same kinds of issues occur with a number of other notational elements such as clef changes, unorthodox stem directions, and cross-staff notation, all of which I will preserve or alter depending on both musical and typographic circumstances. In short: it all depends. 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] Beaming question
On 07.11.2005 Andrew Stiller wrote: Why would one keep the beam breaks and then discard most of the reversed beams? I don't believe either Johannes or I gave any indication of how many of the reversed beams we discarded. Actually, I do discard most of them. The only exception I can think of right now: a) piano or organ parts with beams between the staves, b) Exceptionally large leaps where the beams would be positioned very awquardly far away from the staves, c) polyphonic (violin-) parts on single stave where the voice leading needs to be preserved d) very rarely to preserve the beauty of an original print. None of these cases except for a) has happened in the last year or so. 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] Little Kazoo Band
Which brings up a couple of questions (I'm on mac 2005b): 1. Is there any way to get the jazz HP style to swing and stay swinging at a setting of 75 instead of the default 100? When I try to adjust this in the playback controls I have to reset it over and over again, for almost every playback. Do I need to set up a custom style? Seems like I was even having trouble with that at one point. 2. Using jazz HP style, is there a way to take the swing off a section of music (actually just 5 beats of vln. 2)? I thought the Apply HP plugin would have been able to do this sort of thing but I couldn't immediately make it happen. TIA for any help with this. Don Hart on 11/6/05 8:47 AM, Christopher Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 6, 2005, at 8:43 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: For jazz, it wasn't even a little kazoo band until HP was introduced (when was that?). Listening to the even 8th during proofread was so painful back then. Even in 2002 you could have swing playback in defined amounts (the lighter the better, as far as I am concerned), and maybe before that version too. I didn't use it much at the time, but the lab computers at school still have 2002, and there it is. Christopher ___ 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] Little Kazoo Band
On Nov 7, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Don Hart wrote: Which brings up a couple of questions (I'm on mac 2005b): 1. Is there any way to get the jazz HP style to swing and stay swinging at a setting of 75 instead of the default 100? When I try to adjust this in the playback controls I have to reset it over and over again, for almost every playback. Do I need to set up a custom style? Seems like I was even having trouble with that at one point. Yes, there is a way to do this. Darcy told me how some time ago. You must start with Jazz Style playback with a 75% swing setting (or even less), then choose a custom playback style. The new custom style will be based on the jazz style by default, and will keep the swing setting you have specified. I don't think Darcy is sure why this works, but it does. Darcy also suggests turning off Short syncopations - off beats in the Custom Style dialog, and I concur. 2. Using jazz HP style, is there a way to take the swing off a section of music (actually just 5 beats of vln. 2)? I thought the Apply HP plugin would have been able to do this sort of thing but I couldn't immediately make it happen. I think this is done with a staff style which applies HP, then you can select what parts of the document you want to have swing and what parts not. I haven't tried this yet. I'd be getting into parts of measures and all kinds of fussiness. I'm sure this first part of this answer will solve the first problem. The second oneI don't know. Chuck TIA for any help with this. Don Hart on 11/6/05 8:47 AM, Christopher Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 6, 2005, at 8:43 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: For jazz, it wasn't even a little kazoo band until HP was introduced (when was that?). Listening to the even 8th during proofread was so painful back then. Even in 2002 you could have swing playback in defined amounts (the lighter the better, as far as I am concerned), and maybe before that version too. I didn't use it much at the time, but the lab computers at school still have 2002, and there it is. Christopher ___ 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] Beaming question
On 7 Nov 2005 at 8:49, Johannes Gebauer wrote: In 18th century sources reversed beams can happen (and are likely to happen) whenever there is a larger leap within a beamed group. That's all there is to it, imo. But leaps mean something and the reversed beams, I believe, help mark them clearly. To me, by removing them, you are removing one of the clues to contour that could be helpful to a reader of the music. Also, by removing them for wide leaps, you often have to introduce a beam break or you'll end up with horridly ugly beaming (a steap angle or an extremely long stem for at least one of the notes). By your line of reasoning, I'd think we should remove convert the conventional appaggiatura notation into 4 16th notes. You don't do *that*, so where are you drawing the line on what is meaningful about the original notation and what is not? -- 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] Beaming question
Just so you don't get me wrong: I am not trying to convince you of anything. On 07.11.2005 David W. Fenton wrote: But leaps mean something and the reversed beams, I believe, help mark them clearly. To me, by removing them, you are removing one of the clues to contour that could be helpful to a reader of the music. I actually find them much harder to read, especially in examples like the one you showed (Mozart). Very awquard, bad looking and not helpful to me as a sightreader. Agreed, it's partly because I am simply not expecting them in a modern edition. But it is also largely due to the fact that modern notation looks wrong like that. We are used to certain beam angles and placement which is simply not possible like this. Also, by removing them for wide leaps, you often have to introduce a beam break or you'll end up with horridly ugly beaming (a steap angle or an extremely long stem for at least one of the notes). Well, I already said that I might use such beams under exceptional circumstances, including exceptionally wide leaps. The Mozart example certainly isn't such an exceptionally wide leap. And I don't think it is the actual interval either, it is the question of whether the beam would end up too far away from the staff. That would require leaps from notes on several ledger lines above and below the staff. Which is pretty exceptional. I have never needed to break a beam because of not using reversed beaming, and I think that's simply a silly assumption. By your line of reasoning, I'd think we should remove convert the conventional appaggiatura notation into 4 16th notes. You don't do *that*, so where are you drawing the line on what is meaningful about the original notation and what is not? By your line of reasoning you have no choice but to use old lead engraving with stencils, duplicating every aspect of the original. Actually, the only accurate way of doing it is by means of Facsimiles. Seriously, I don't think appogiatura notation compares in the least with reversed beaming. On the other hand I have got the flu and am too tired to start an argument about it. I draw the line pretty much exactly where every publisher of critical, complete and Urtext editions draws the line. That means no reversed beaming apart from exceptions. But there is no question that appogiatura notation should be maintained. BTW, a lot of people will disagree that the case you are describing as appogiatura notation would translate into 4 16th notes. I am not necessarily one of them, but I do know that there is an example in CPE Bach where he clearly says the appogiatura needs to be a short one. It's a pretty complex problem. I have yet to see any mention of reversed beaming in any text books of the period, let alone an indication of any musical consequences. 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] Data-erasing bug in Fin2006 - The facts
Thanks Allen, that's what I wanted to know. Le 05-11-07 à 10:01, Fisher, Allen a écrit : Urm. I'm not talking about the overwrite bug. I'm talking about the bug you asked about. Éric Dussault ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
