[Finale] Staves will not follow new order (Finale 2002)
I have changed the order of two staves in a multi-stave work by dragging the stave and then using sort and respace while in scroll view. The staves are as I want them in scroll view, but when I go to page view, the staves are in the original order. When I try dragging and respacing the staves in page view, the dragging only works fully on the stave I drag (other systems are moved to a lesser extent) and respacing has no effect. I have done this on another file with exactly the same layout and it worked as expected, so I do not know what has gone wrong here. Any suggestions? Michael Lawlor ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Staves will not follow new order (Finale 2002)
Have you optimised the score? If so then reordering staves in scroll view will have no effect on optimised systems. You need to unoptimise, re-order, then re-optimise. Gary Griffiths -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 January 2006 12:47 To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: [Finale] Staves will not follow new order (Finale 2002) I have changed the order of two staves in a multi-stave work by dragging the stave and then using sort and respace while in scroll view. The staves are as I want them in scroll view, but when I go to page view, the staves are in the original order. When I try dragging and respacing the staves in page view, the dragging only works fully on the stave I drag (other systems are moved to a lesser extent) and respacing has no effect. I have done this on another file with exactly the same layout and it worked as expected, so I do not know what has gone wrong here. Any suggestions? Michael Lawlor ___ 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] Staves will not follow new order (Finale 2002)
Michael, reoptimizing should help. Best wishes for 2006 to all on this marvellous list Raimund Lintzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: > I have changed the order of two staves in a multi-stave work by dragging the > stave and then using sort and respace while in scroll view. The staves are > as I want them in scroll view, but when I go to page view, the staves are in > the original order. When I try dragging and respacing the staves in page > view, the dragging only works fully on the stave I drag (other systems are > moved to a lesser extent) and respacing has no effect. > I have done this on another file with exactly the same layout and it worked > as expected, so I do not know what has gone wrong here. Any suggestions? > > Michael Lawlor > ___ > 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] Fin2006b update update
Hi all, A couple of days ago, a few of us were complaining that Finale 2006b wanted us to download an update, even though it looks like we already have the latest version. I submitted a support request about this, and the response was: >There was an updated 2006b updater posted, which is what Finale 2006 >is asking you to download. You should do so, as the first 2006b >updater used an older file which causes playback problems for some customers. And sure enough, http://www.finalemusic.com/finale/update.aspx says: >Note: The Windows version of Finale 2006b was updated on December 21 >to include an updated AIOLIB file. The updated AIOLIB file resolves a >problem with distortion when saving audio files. If you downloaded >Finale 2006b for Windows before December 21, you may also want to >download this newer version. Of course, this raises a couple of questions: 1. If they've changed the 2006b update so that it includes a new bug fix, why aren't they calling it 2006c? 2. Because we have to log in to download updates, Makemusic knows who has downloaded 2006b and *when* they downloaded it. Why weren't we all notified by email that there was a "new" update available. Anyway, at least it seems that the "Check for Updates" feature is working properly Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fin2006b update update
Does this affect Mac users as well? Martin On Jan 3, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Aaron Sherber wrote: Hi all, A couple of days ago, a few of us were complaining that Finale 2006b wanted us to download an update, even though it looks like we already have the latest version. I submitted a support request about this, and the response was: >There was an updated 2006b updater posted, which is what Finale 2006 >is asking you to download. You should do so, as the first 2006b >updater used an older file which causes playback problems for some customers. And sure enough, http://www.finalemusic.com/finale/update.aspx says: >Note: The Windows version of Finale 2006b was updated on December 21 >to include an updated AIOLIB file. The updated AIOLIB file resolves a >problem with distortion when saving audio files. If you downloaded >Finale 2006b for Windows before December 21, you may also want to >download this newer version. Of course, this raises a couple of questions: 1. If they've changed the 2006b update so that it includes a new bug fix, why aren't they calling it 2006c? 2. Because we have to log in to download updates, Makemusic knows who has downloaded 2006b and *when* they downloaded it. Why weren't we all notified by email that there was a "new" update available. Anyway, at least it seems that the "Check for Updates" feature is working properly Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Martin Banner [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fin2006b update update
At 11:53 AM 1/3/2006, Martin Banner wrote: >Does this affect Mac users as well? As I quoted in my earlier post: >Note: The Windows version of Finale 2006b was updated on December 21 >to include an updated AIOLIB file. Apparently the Mac version is not affected. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] more than 8 instruments in Garritan
Apologies if this has already been covered. I finally took the plunge and updated to winFin 2006 and have spent an hour or so playing with the Garritan feature. However, in applying it to existing orchestral files, only the first 8 channels are playing, the others are silent. Am I doing something wrong or is this a feature of the reduced version. When I make a new file with the same number of instruments, they all seem to play ok. Thanks, Lawrence "þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.ukDulcian Wind Quintet: http://dulcianwind.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] more than 8 instruments in Garritan
Hi Lawrence,Are you loading the instruments in the correct slots 1 - 8, 17 - 24, etc.?Have you tweaked the mod wheel on the Native Instruments editor as you load each instrument?Please check Darcy's excellent tutorial. Taking a few minutes to go through it thoroughly will save time in the long run.ChuckOn Jan 3, 2006, at 10:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apologies if this has already been covered. I finally took the plunge and updated to winFin 2006 and have spent an hour or so playing with the Garritan feature. However, in applying it to existing orchestral files, only the first 8 channels are playing, the others are silent. Am I doing something wrong or is this a feature of the reduced version. When I make a new file with the same number of instruments, they all seem to play ok. Thanks, Lawrence "þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.ukDulcian Wind Quintet: http://dulcianwind.co.uk___Finale mailing listFinale@shsu.eduhttp://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] more than 8 instruments in Garritan
Hi, Lawrence -- Your problem/query is precisely the substance of a posting I sent the list about a week ago; unfortunately I received no replies. However, over the weekend I did find Darcy's absolutely great GPO playback tutorial; it's the first link found at this page: http://garritan.com/GPO-FinalePage.html Click on Darcy's .pdf tutorial and then scroll down to "GPO set-up." Open that chapter and then select "Setting up GPO Playback for existing scores." You'll find the answers and solutions to your problem there, as did I. And MANY thanks to Darcy for this great tool - it's outstanding and greatly appreciated. Best, Les Les MarsdenFounding Music Director and Conductor, The Mariposa Symphony OrchestraMusic and Mariposa? Ah, Paradise!!! http://arts-mariposa.org/symphony.htmlhttp://www.sierratel.com/mcf/nprc/mso.htmhttp://www.geocities.com/~jbenz/lesbio.html - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:01 AM Subject: [Finale] more than 8 instruments in Garritan Apologies if this has already been covered. I finally took the plunge and updated to winFin 2006 and have spent an hour or so playing with the Garritan feature. However, in applying it to existing orchestral files, only the first 8 channels are playing, the others are silent. Am I doing something wrong or is this a feature of the reduced version. When I make a new file with the same number of instruments, they all seem to play ok. Thanks, Lawrence "þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.ukDulcian Wind Quintet: http://dulcianwind.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fin2006b update update
Hi, Aaron -- Yeah, this is not really great behavior on the part of MM. I got the autoreminder upon opening yesterday and was about to ignore it when I decided to check MM and saw the really fine print regarding this being the 2006b UPDATE - a NEW version of 2006b as of December 21, which was certainly after I had already downloaded the previous 2006b updater. And so I installed it. Really pretty lame on their part - why NOT call it 2006C and (more important) send out an e-mail to Win users? Or at least (in keeping with their apparent fondness for the absurd) "2006-b.2"! After all: when it's time to release/SELL the next annual version, we're inundated with a non-ending stream of e-mailed reminders. Howzabout a simple INFORMATIVE notice to (at the very least) allow long-time users the appearance of some semblance of customer service? Oh well...so many fish to fry; so little oil. Best, Les Les MarsdenFounding Music Director and Conductor, The Mariposa Symphony OrchestraMusic and Mariposa? Ah, Paradise!!! http://arts-mariposa.org/symphony.htmlhttp://www.sierratel.com/mcf/nprc/mso.htmhttp://www.geocities.com/~jbenz/lesbio.html - Original Message - From: Aaron Sherber To: finale@lists.shsu.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:31 AM Subject: [Finale] Fin2006b update update Hi all,A couple of days ago, a few of us were complaining that Finale 2006b wanted us to download an update, even though it looks like we already have the latest version.I submitted a support request about this, and the response was: >There was an updated 2006b updater posted, which is what Finale 2006 >is asking you to download. You should do so, as the first 2006b >updater used an older file which causes playback problems for some customers.And sure enough, http://www.finalemusic.com/finale/update.aspx says: >Note: The Windows version of Finale 2006b was updated on December 21 >to include an updated AIOLIB file. The updated AIOLIB file resolves a >problem with distortion when saving audio files. If you downloaded >Finale 2006b for Windows before December 21, you may also want to >download this newer version.Of course, this raises a couple of questions:1. If they've changed the 2006b update so that it includes a new bug fix, why aren't they calling it 2006c?2. Because we have to log in to download updates, Makemusic knows who has downloaded 2006b and *when* they downloaded it. Why weren't we all notified by email that there was a "new" update available.Anyway, at least it seems that the "Check for Updates" feature is working properlyAaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fin2006b update update
At 01:47 PM 1/3/2006, Mariposa Symphony Orchestra wrote: >updater.And so I installed it. Really pretty lame on their >part - why NOT call it 2006C and (more important) send out an e-mail >to Win users? Or at least (in keeping with their apparent fondness >for the absurd) "2006-b.2"! I'm going to guess that they didn't give it a new name because then the current Win and Mac versions would have different numbers, and they didn't want endless questions from Mac users wondering when *their* 2006c would arrive. Not the best of reasons, IMHO. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fin2006b update update
On 3 Jan 2006 at 10:47, Mariposa Symphony Orchestra wrote: > Really pretty lame on their part - why NOT > call it 2006C and (more important) send out an e-mail to Win users? > Or at least (in keeping with their apparent fondness for the absurd) > "2006-b.2"! Well, from the point of view of someone who writes software for a living, the reasoning is perfectly clear: 1. in general, you don't increment your major subversion except for a major update. Thus, it would make no sense whatsoever to call this 2006c, since that would falsely imply that the update was one with significant features in it. 2. there is nothing at all absurd about 2006b2 as a release number. Microsoft uses subversions and build numbers, such as Microsoft Windows 2000 5.00.2195. That means that it's the 5.00 release of Windows, but build number 2195. For my own programs I use version and build, e.g., 1.0115. That means that the software is the 115th build of version 1. "Build" indicates that it's the 115th compiled version of the code. My projects are much simpler than Finale, so I can have a single build number for my apps. But I also sometimes release version 1.0115a, 1.0115b, 1.0115c, and each of these are releases that fix one bug in release 1.0115. What this system means is that any two versions with the same build number are identical in functionality, though later instances of that build number have bug fixes that the original lacks. This is important when I'm having to recommend upgrades to users -- I need to know which variation of build 115 is in use to know whether or not an upgrade will help them. But from the end user point of view, all variations on build 115 are identical. In this case, this was just a single-file bug fix for 2006b, so it makes perfect sense that it not be given a new version number (i.e., 2006c). Secondly, since the fix was Windows-only, if it had been named 2006c, then the latest updates for Mac and Windows would end up with different numbers, which would be a nightmare for end users as well as for Finale tech support. If you think that's silly, just let me tall you about how many times my clients have asked me why they aren't upgrading to the latest version of MS Offices, such as Office 98 (which was the *Mac* version between Office 97 and Office 2000). Now, I'm not sure what MakeMusic could do to make this seem more logical to an end user not accustomed to the vagaries of software development. From a software developer's point of view, the two updates are identical except that one of the support files has a bug fix. From an end user's point of view, they are identical except that the later one has a bug fix. Clearly, to me, the later update should completely supersede the original one, and thus it makes complete sense to me to re-use the same release number (though somewhere there has to be a build number that tracks the difference between the original release of 2006b and the fixed release). For people who haven't yet downloaded 2006b, there would be no utility in distinguishing the fix from the original. Now, it's clear to me that the user interface for the update feature ought to handle this. If they are going to keep the same version number, then they have to have some mechanism of informing the end user that there's a change to the update that's already been installed. It sounds to me as though one is directed to a web page to download the update, and the web page has the explanation. But I believe it would be better if explanatory text, build numbers and release dates were included in the update notification (along with your currently installed build and release date) to make it clear. But I really don't think the problem is with the release numbers at all, which seem to me to be used completely properly, but with a UI that doesn't make it clear exactly what you're being urged to download. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fin2006b update update
In the "Taking care of #1 mode", is the Mac version involved in the update update issue? On Jan 3, 2006, at 8:31 AM, Aaron Sherber wrote: Hi all, A couple of days ago, a few of us were complaining that Finale 2006b wanted us to download an update, even though it looks like we already have the latest version. I submitted a support request about this, and the response was: >There was an updated 2006b updater posted, which is what Finale 2006 >is asking you to download. You should do so, as the first 2006b >updater used an older file which causes playback problems for some customers. And sure enough, http://www.finalemusic.com/finale/update.aspx says: >Note: The Windows version of Finale 2006b was updated on December 21 >to include an updated AIOLIB file. The updated AIOLIB file resolves a >problem with distortion when saving audio files. If you downloaded >Finale 2006b for Windows before December 21, you may also want to >download this newer version. Of course, this raises a couple of questions: 1. If they've changed the 2006b update so that it includes a new bug fix, why aren't they calling it 2006c? 2. Because we have to log in to download updates, Makemusic knows who has downloaded 2006b and *when* they downloaded it. Why weren't we all notified by email that there was a "new" update available. Anyway, at least it seems that the "Check for Updates" feature is working properly Aaron. ___ 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] Fin2006b update update
it's Finale 2006c, anyway, I'm just updating... Kurt At 21:10 03.01.2006, you wrote: In the "Taking care of #1 mode", is the Mac version involved in the update update issue? On Jan 3, 2006, at 8:31 AM, Aaron Sherber wrote: Hi all, A couple of days ago, a few of us were complaining that Finale 2006b wanted us to download an update, even though it looks like we already have the latest version. I submitted a support request about this, and the response was: >There was an updated 2006b updater posted, which is what Finale 2006 >is asking you to download. You should do so, as the first 2006b >updater used an older file which causes playback problems for some customers. And sure enough, http://www.finalemusic.com/finale/update.aspx says: >Note: The Windows version of Finale 2006b was updated on December 21 >to include an updated AIOLIB file. The updated AIOLIB file resolves a >problem with distortion when saving audio files. If you downloaded >Finale 2006b for Windows before December 21, you may also want to >download this newer version. Of course, this raises a couple of questions: 1. If they've changed the 2006b update so that it includes a new bug fix, why aren't they calling it 2006c? 2. Because we have to log in to download updates, Makemusic knows who has downloaded 2006b and *when* they downloaded it. Why weren't we all notified by email that there was a "new" update available. Anyway, at least it seems that the "Check for Updates" feature is working properly Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] more than 8 instruments in Garritan
Thank you, the tutorial is terrific and no doubt I'll be using it a lot - thanks for the pointer. Just one question though, am I being picky in thinking that maybe it should have been in the box with my CD? Thanks again, Lawrence "þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.ukDulcian Wind Quintet: http://dulcianwind.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Automatic check for updates
I finally got a reply from MakeMusic tech support, and the case is that the original 2006b updater contained an incorrect file, so there was a NEW 2006b updater posted, and that is why my computer didn't think that even though I have 2006b it isn't the most recent 2006b. If that isn't total confusion, then I don't know what is! Shouldn't the "new" 2006b have been posted as 2006c so that everybody could be sure they have the most recent? I dunno . . . David H. Bailey Michael Cook wrote: You should certainly tell tech support about this. Are you on Windows or Mac? I just tried checking for an update with Mac 2000b and was told that I have the current version, so at least on my system the feature seems to be working. Michael On 1 Jan 2006, at 15:15, dhbailey wrote: I just ran Fin2006b and had it check for updates. It told me that there was an update available at the MakeMusic web-site, so I clicked on the option to get the new update (figuring of course that it must be Fin2006C -- but don't get excited, there is no new update!) It took me to the page which showed the 2006B update! Why doesn't Finale2006b know that I already have it? Did MakeMusic simply hard-code into this great new feature that it is Finale2006 and that it should check to see if there is anything more recent than Finale2006, so everytime I check for automatic updates it's simply going to waste my time by telling me that 2006b is available? Why didn't MakeMusic code into this routine the ability to check and see which actual version is actually running, and then compare it against the update patches? Is it me being hyper-picky, or shouldn't Finale2006b only tell me there's a new update available when Finale2006c comes out? It seems like it's another great idea not properly implemented. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Automatic check for updates
I finally got a reply from MakeMusic tech support, and the case is that the original 2006b updater contained an incorrect file, so there was a NEW 2006b updater posted, and that is why my computer didn't think that even though I have 2006b it isn't the most recent 2006b. If that isn't total confusion, then I don't know what is! Shouldn't the "new" 2006b have been posted as 2006c so that everybody could be sure they have the most recent? I dunno . . . David H. Bailey It's all moot anyway. Finale 2006c was just posted. -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] more than 8 instruments in Garritan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you, the tutorial is terrific and no doubt I'll be using it a lot - thanks for the pointer. Just one question though, am I being picky in thinking that maybe it should have been in the box with my CD? What, you expect a software manufacturer to actually provide you with proper instructions on how to use the product? :-) No, you're not being picky -- this whole GPO thing was rather hurried and not well thought out, as far as ensuring that the end-user who is brand-new to GPO knows how to make things work. In light of Sibelius' new offering of a GPO-Sibelius version, I wonder if MakeMusic was hurrying/scurrying to get it out the door so that the 2006 upgrade wouldn't be completely trumped by Sibelius. But we should be grateful to Darcy for taking the time to write a comprehensive guide. I would hope that MakeMusic and Garritan would split the cost of recompensing him for doing what they should have gotten together to do in the first place! Another picky point is that it it is on the GPO web-site, not the MakeMusic web-site! Or did I misread things? I just followed the link, and another picky point is that at least in Netscape, the only link is the tiny red dot, while all the other links on that page are linked for the entire name, complete with underline. Oh well, at least I found it and downloaded it and as with many others on this list, I owe a deep debt of gratitude to Darcy! Thank you Darcy! -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fin2006b update update
Now it IS listed as Finale2006C! Go figure! David H. Bailey Martin Banner wrote: Does this affect Mac users as well? Martin On Jan 3, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Aaron Sherber wrote: Hi all, A couple of days ago, a few of us were complaining that Finale 2006b wanted us to download an update, even though it looks like we already have the latest version. I submitted a support request about this, and the response was: >There was an updated 2006b updater posted, which is what Finale 2006 >is asking you to download. You should do so, as the first 2006b >updater used an older file which causes playback problems for some customers. And sure enough, http://www.finalemusic.com/finale/update.aspx says: >Note: The Windows version of Finale 2006b was updated on December 21 >to include an updated AIOLIB file. The updated AIOLIB file resolves a >problem with distortion when saving audio files. If you downloaded >Finale 2006b for Windows before December 21, you may also want to >download this newer version. Of course, this raises a couple of questions: 1. If they've changed the 2006b update so that it includes a new bug fix, why aren't they calling it 2006c? 2. Because we have to log in to download updates, Makemusic knows who has downloaded 2006b and *when* they downloaded it. Why weren't we all notified by email that there was a "new" update available. Anyway, at least it seems that the "Check for Updates" feature is working properly Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Martin Banner [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Automatic check for updates
Randolph Peters wrote: I finally got a reply from MakeMusic tech support, and the case is that the original 2006b updater contained an incorrect file, so there was a NEW 2006b updater posted, and that is why my computer didn't think that even though I have 2006b it isn't the most recent 2006b. If that isn't total confusion, then I don't know what is! Shouldn't the "new" 2006b have been posted as 2006c so that everybody could be sure they have the most recent? I dunno . . . David H. Bailey Yeah, I just found that out, and after installing it, ran the "check for updates" thing, and it actually told me that I had the most recent version. The list of what they claimed to have fixed in 2006c looks suspiciously like the list for 2006b, so I think they may have simply decided to go with 2006c rather than 2006b2 (maybe they didn't leave enough spaces in their code to be able to handle a version with that extra subversion indicator.) Anyway, as you say, it's all moot now. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Automatic check for updates
Hi David -- To answer your question, absolutely this update should have had some discrete name. But then, it should have contained an incorrect file to begin with. How much y'all wanna bet there will be some sort of tardy announcement from MM to Win users to alert us all to this 'new' 2006B maintenance updater? With (un)bated breath, Les Les MarsdenFounding Music Director and Conductor, The Mariposa Symphony OrchestraMusic and Mariposa? Ah, Paradise!!! http://arts-mariposa.org/symphony.htmlhttp://www.sierratel.com/mcf/nprc/mso.htmhttp://www.geocities.com/~jbenz/lesbio.html - Original Message - From: dhbailey To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] Automatic check for updates I finally got a reply from MakeMusic tech support, and the case is that the original 2006b updater contained an incorrect file, so there was a NEW 2006b updater posted, and that is why my computer didn't think that even though I have 2006b it isn't the most recent 2006b.If that isn't total confusion, then I don't know what is! Shouldn't the "new" 2006b have been posted as 2006c so that everybody could be sure they have the most recent?I dunno . . .David H. Bailey ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] mp3
I'm sorry to trouble you again with another question which I know was raised earlier this week but which I cannot find in my archives. In the instruction manual it shows the option to save special as either wav or mp3 I am only offered wav. Am I doing something wrong again? I have already updated to version 2006c All the best, Lawrence "þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.ukDulcian Wind Quintet: http://dulcianwind.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fin2006b update update
2006c for mac up on versiontracker.com -A ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Automatic check for updates
-Randolph Peters said "It's all moot anyway. Finale 2006c was just posted."Unbelievable. I just 'checked for updates' and found that 2006C is indeed a brand-new update - and not merely a rename of the 'improved' second version of 2006B which I downloaded and installed only last night. This would be mildly amusing if -- perhaps -- MM had had the decency to alert us it was coming out with a third update. I mean: they HAD to have known they were coming out with a new update last night; why not a simple e-mailed courtesy notice which would've saved me a couple hours' time? Okay, I'm downloading 'C' right now with a mixture of distrust that it might be replaced by 2006D tomorrow, disgust with MM's remarkably bad communications/customer respect and dismay at the (according to the downloader) 2 Hrs 19 mins I have remaining with a mere 11% downloaded. Hope my next new car won't need a replacement engine after a couple of months because the manufacturer rushed an unready model onto the market simply to compete with Mercedes Oh, greatonly another 2Hrs 17 mins to go Les Les MarsdenFounding Music Director and Conductor, The Mariposa Symphony OrchestraMusic and Mariposa? Ah, Paradise!!! http://arts-mariposa.org/symphony.htmlhttp://www.sierratel.com/mcf/nprc/mso.htmhttp://www.geocities.com/~jbenz/lesbio.html - Original Message - From: Randolph Peters To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] Automatic check for updates >I finally got a reply from MakeMusic tech support, and the case is >that the original 2006b updater contained an incorrect file, so >there was a NEW 2006b updater posted, and that is why my computer >didn't think that even though I have 2006b it isn't the most recent >2006b.>>If that isn't total confusion, then I don't know what is! Shouldn't >the "new" 2006b have been posted as 2006c so that everybody could be >sure they have the most recent?>>I dunno . . .>>David H. Bailey___ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fin2006b update update
Ok ... so, is 2006c different from 2006b, and if so, how and, if so, is 2000c for both PC and Mac? Dean On Jan 3, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Adriel wrote: 2006c for mac up on versiontracker.com -A ___ 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] Piano Reduction Plug in
I'm writing a piece for E.H., Flute, strings and Chorus. My score, naturally, has all those parts in it. I want to produce a score in which all the instrumental parts are reduced to a 2 stave piano part, but leave out the vocal parts. The Piano Reduction Plug in does not allow me to select just those instrumental parts ... it just lets me highlight contiguous parts. I set the score up to have E.H. and Fl. on top, then SATB, then strings. Perhaps that was a mistake, now that I think about it, but it would be a hassle to change it now. Any thoughts? Dean ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fin2006b update update
At 06:58 PM 1/3/2006, dhbailey wrote: >Now it IS listed as Finale2006C! Go figure! No, that's actually a different update. It includes a fix for a lyric baseline positioning bug that was introduced in 2006b. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fin2006b update update
At 07:59 PM 1/3/2006, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: >Ok ... so, is 2006c different from 2006b, and if so, how and, if >so, is 2000c for both PC and Mac? Dean, with all due respect, the web page with information on updates is easily accessible, and the URL has been posted in this thread at least a couple of times. (It's http://www.finalemusic.com/finale/update.aspx ) It takes you less time to visit the page and find out for yourself than it does for someone else to respond to your question. I don't mean to pick on Dean, but I do wish some listers would be a little more self-reliant when it comes to publicly accessible information -- and would also take a little more time to read the pending posts in a given thread before asking a question that someone else has already asked. Just my $.02. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] more than 8 instruments in Garritan
Hi Lawrence,The tutorial was written mostly after the "packaging" had been done. Gary was looking for this kind of documentation, and my relationship with Darcy, developed through this extraordinary list, made it a no brainer to recommend him to Gary. So we all got a really good tutorial, Darcy made a buck, and Gary has the kind of good documentation he wanted all along. It's just the sequence of events that took time for everything to come together (to the extent that it has - I'm sure there's more in the works).ChuckOn Jan 3, 2006, at 3:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you, the tutorial is terrific and no doubt I'll be using it a lot - thanks for the pointer. Just one question though, am I being picky in thinking that maybe it should have been in the box with my CD? Thanks again, Lawrence "þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.ukDulcian Wind Quintet: http://dulcianwind.co.uk___Finale mailing listFinale@shsu.eduhttp://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] Piano Reduction Plug in
You could duplicate the score, delete the choral parts, and reduce from there. Then, copy into the other file. I've found, though, that it takes too much editing from the plug-in to make a good, playable piano reduction, so I do them by hand. I would move the SATB on top of all instruments in the score. Unless it is for choir and full orchestra, in which case your placement is traditional, I prefer voices on top. -Carolyn On 1/3/06, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm writing a piece for E.H., Flute, strings and Chorus. My score, > naturally, has all those parts in it. I want to produce a score in > which all the instrumental parts are reduced to a 2 stave piano part, > but leave out the vocal parts. The Piano Reduction Plug in does not > allow me to select just those instrumental parts ... it just lets me > highlight contiguous parts. I set the score up to have E.H. and Fl. > on top, then SATB, then strings. Perhaps that was a mistake, now that > I think about it, but it would be a hassle to change it now. Any > thoughts? > > Dean > > ___ > 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] Fin2006b update update
On 3 Jan 2006 at 15:30, Mariposa Symphony Orchestra wrote: > David Fenton wrote: > > "Secondly, since the fix was Windows-only, if it had been named 2006c, > then the latest updates for Mac and Windows would end up with > different numbers, which would be a nightmare for end users as well as > for Finale tech support. If you think that's silly, just let me tall > you about how many times my clients have asked me why they aren't > upgrading to the latest version of MS Offices, such as Office 98 > (which was the *Mac* version between Office 97 and Office 2000)." > > I ask: > > Wasn't that out-of-sync formula precisely the case with Fin2004 or '05 > maintainence upgrades? . . . Beats me. I haven't upgraded since 2003. > . . . I seem to recall they did just that and > subsequently ended up with (i.e.) WinFin'04b and MacFin '04c or some > such outcome. . . . Well, perhaps the lesson MM learned from that was that it wasn't a good idea to get the update versions out of synch on the two different platforms. Perhaps they did incur extra support problems because of the different update numbers and that's why they don't want to do it that way now. All is speculation on our part, but from the standpoint of best practices for software, I think they were completely correct for the file-fixed version of 2006b to have the same number as the original. > . . . It might have been a case of intentionally-terminal > upgrades - or an intention on their part that that 'c' upgrade would > be one.If so, (and yes, this is pure conjecture) might the > opposite presumption be possible here? That they clearly have more > maintainence updates planned for us in '06 and thus need to keep both > alpha extensions alike? I doubt one can make any such guesses just from the numbers. > In any case, my main point(s) of irritation were the facts that 1) it > took a bit of investigative work on our part to determine that there > WERE two (slightly) different Win'06b updates.And that the second > one was announced to us in any way as a distinctly different or > improved version and its existence was thus made all the more obscure > by the fact that it didn't bear differentiation by name from > the...previous 'b.'And as well, 2) the fact that I then had to > waste another 1.5 hours to download a maintainance upgrade to repair > the previous maintainance upgrade I had already had to waste 1.5 hours > to -- well, you get my point. I agree that all of those things are problems. Certainly the UI of the update checker ought to make clear to you that the fixed 2006b is *not* the same one you'd already. But I'm not sure what could be done about the impending release of the next update. There will always be someone who downloads the previous update the day before the next one comes out. Is it better to be told "a new update is coming soon, could be tomorrow, could be next week" or is it better to just download it and be done with it? Obviously, for broadband users it's a different issue than for dialup users. But I'm not sure that telling you an update is coming is going to be terribly helpful -- how many times have software vendors promised an update that didn't come for months, even years? Do you really want to continue with a buggy version because another version is coming Real Soon Now? > Sure - by all means call it 2006b-2 or 2006b.2 or 2006b-and-a-half. > But call it different to justify it as a new update so as > not to appear to be the little "Check for Updates" that cried > wolf. I think the naming of the update is not at all the problem. It *should* have been called 2006b. But the sub-version (or build number, however MM does this) should be different. The whole problem was that the update UI didn't give enough information to distingish the fixed 2006b from the original. That's entirely a user interface issue and completely independent of update numbering. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Reverse Piano Reduction (sort of)
I have been plugging away at a project over the holidays to arrange a piece for 4 string parts as an organ piece. It's worked out quite well. In the process of trying to prepare a MIDI file to produce an MP3 demo, because it's for organ, one of the things I really needed to do was double lines at the octave. but I could find no easy and manageable way to do this. Yes, I could copy to another staff, transpose, then copy back to the original staff in a different layer, but what I really wanted was to have the line doubled in octaves in the same layer. Is there some simple way to do this with some of the tools Finale provides? I ended up putting the octaves by hand, which was pretty tedious. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reverse Piano Reduction (sort of)
In the transpose dialogue box check "preserve original notes." Then transpose by an octave and you'll get the old and the new pitches. -Carolyn On 1/3/06, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have been plugging away at a project over the holidays to arrange a > piece for 4 string parts as an organ piece. It's worked out quite > well. > > In the process of trying to prepare a MIDI file to produce an MP3 > demo, because it's for organ, one of the things I really needed to do > was double lines at the octave. but I could find no easy and > manageable way to do this. Yes, I could copy to another staff, > transpose, then copy back to the original staff in a different layer, > but what I really wanted was to have the line doubled in octaves in > the same layer. > > Is there some simple way to do this with some of the tools Finale > provides? I ended up putting the octaves by hand, which was pretty > tedious. > > -- > David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com > David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ > > ___ > 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] Reverse Piano Reduction (sort of)
On 1/3/06, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there some simple way to do this with some of the tools Finale > provides? I ended up putting the octaves by hand, which was pretty > tedious. Yes... just use the Transpose function from Mass Edit, and check "Preserve Original Notes." This will keep the originals, and add in the transposition at the octave. I have no idea if this function exists in Fin2003, though... I'm not sure when it was added. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: 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] Reverse Piano Reduction (sort of)
Couldn't you use the (octave) transpose function in mass edit, and check the "preserve original notes" checkbox?Le 06-01-03 à 21:13, David W. Fenton a écrit : Yes, I could copy to another staff, transpose, then copy back to the original staff in a different layer, but what I really wanted was to have the line doubled in octaves in the same layer. Is there some simple way to do this with some of the tools Finale provides? I ended up putting the octaves by hand, which was pretty tedious. Eric DussaultFinale 2006c for MacPowerMac G5 Dual 1.8 GHz2GB Ram ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Automatic check for updates
Ultimately all that really matters is did they fix the data deletion issue (among other bugs but, that's a biggie). -A > From: dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: > Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:11:11 -0500 > To: > Subject: Re: [Finale] Automatic check for updates > > Randolph Peters wrote: > >>> I finally got a reply from MakeMusic tech support, and the case is >>> that the original 2006b updater contained an incorrect file, so there >>> was a NEW 2006b updater posted, and that is why my computer didn't >>> think that even though I have 2006b it isn't the most recent 2006b. >>> >>> If that isn't total confusion, then I don't know what is! Shouldn't >>> the "new" 2006b have been posted as 2006c so that everybody could be >>> sure they have the most recent? >>> >>> I dunno . . . >>> >>> David H. Bailey >> > > Yeah, I just found that out, and after installing it, ran the "check for > updates" thing, and it actually told me that I had the most recent version. > > The list of what they claimed to have fixed in 2006c looks suspiciously > like the list for 2006b, so I think they may have simply decided to go > with 2006c rather than 2006b2 (maybe they didn't leave enough spaces in > their code to be able to handle a version with that extra subversion > indicator.) > > Anyway, as you say, it's all moot now. > > > -- > 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] Reverse Piano Reduction (sort of)
On 3 Jan 2006 at 18:22, Brad Beyenhof wrote: > On 1/3/06, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is there some simple way to do this with some of the tools Finale > > provides? I ended up putting the octaves by hand, which was pretty > > tedious. > > Yes... just use the Transpose function from Mass Edit, and check > "Preserve Original Notes." This will keep the originals, and add in > the transposition at the octave. > > I have no idea if this function exists in Fin2003, though... I'm not > sure when it was added. It's definitely there, thankfully for the next such project that I'm about to embark on. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reverse Piano Reduction (sort of)
On 3 Jan 2006 at 18:20, Carolyn Bremer wrote: > In the transpose dialogue box check "preserve original notes." Then > transpose by an octave and you'll get the old and the new pitches. How counterintuitive is that? It never would have occurred to me to notice that. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Reverse Piano Reduction (sort of)
RTFM > In the transpose dialogue box check "preserve original notes." Then > transpose by an octave and you'll get the old and the new pitches. How counterintuitive is that? It never would have occurred to me to notice that. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
