Re: [Finale] Donald Rice's Golden Age font

[Cecil Rigby]

If the OSX (Mac) versions work, can one not use CrossFont on those to get a
Win version?

Cecil Rigby

- Original Message - 
From: "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:08 PM
Subject: RE: [Finale] Donald Rice's Golden Age font


> On 1 Aug 2006 at 17:58, Aaron Sherber wrote:
>
> > While I  believe it's true, as David Fenton says, that Windows has
> > made no changes to TrueType specifications, it also seems to be true
> > that with Win2000SP4 (and also with WinXP, I assume), Microsoft has
> > decided to enforce parts of those specifications which they were lax
> > about before.
> >
> > In particular,  says
> > "Windows 2000 SP4 introduces certain new restrictions to check the
> > validity of font files" and goes on to list 5 specific aspects of the
> > font file which it looks at. I don't know anything about the structure
> > of a font file, but it looks to me that while Windows used to allow
> > the loading of fonts that didn't quite meet the specifications, it
> > doesn't anymore.
>
> While all of the above may be true, there is truly something wrong
> with these font files.
>
> I just fired up my old Win95 PC (c. 1996) and attempted to install
> the fonts on it. It rejected exactly the same fonts that Win2K
> rejected, i.e., it installed the titles font but rejected the others
> as invalid font files.
>
> This suggests to me that in this form they never would have worked on
> Windows at all.
>
> -- 
> 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

[Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[shirling & neueweise]

Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:14:37 +0200

 Weitergeleitete Usenet-Nachricht 
Von: "Ben Finn at Sibelius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: sibelius.users.tech-support
Betreff: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign
Datum: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:21:45 +0200
URL: news://<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

We're proud to announce that today Sibelius Software has become a 
part of Digidesign, developers of Pro Tools, the industry-standard 
system for music and audio production.


Complementing their expertise in audio software and hardware, for 
all kinds of musicians from recording studios to consumers, we will 
now be able to offer you an even wider range of products, and reach 
other new customers too.


Other than that, though, it will be business as usual here at 
Sibelius, with development of our software continuing apace (and no 
planned changes to this chat page either!).


For more information about the deal, see here.

--
Contact Sibelius technical help:
North/Central/South America: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 925-280-2101
UK: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 020 7561 7997
Australia: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Other countries: contact your distributor (www.sibelius.com/buy for
details)


--

shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[Robert Patterson]

I have no idea what Sibelius's customer service is like now, but this merger 
probably dooms it. Digidesign is notorious for hating its customers. It 
requires unrealistically narrow configurations, fails to support core 
technologies (like Quicktime) except on their (limited) terms, uses a 
proprietary hardware/software interface, and has draconian copy protection 
schemes that require the user to produce multi-dozen-digit serial numbers every 
time they upgrade. (Which is often, since this is often the only way it will 
run on your computer.)

For example, to be officially compliant with the ProTools support policy, you 
have to turn off Software Upgrade and never upgrade your OS. Hardly safe or 
user friendly, eh?

Mind you, this for ProTools, which is a giveaway with their hardware and won't 
run on anyone else's hardware. Imagine what the CP might be like for software 
that is not tied to their hardware.

It is nevertheless an interesting development, because I suspect you will begin 
to see ProTools and Sibelius merge. Some 5 years ago when Finale began to go 
towards being everything, I recommended then that a better course would have 
been for them to get in bed with a DAW package. (I recommended Performer.) It 
looks like, once again, Sibelius is showing all the leadership.




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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[A-NO-NE Music]

Robert Patterson / 2006/08/02 / 10:19 AM wrote:

>Mind you, this for ProTools, which is a giveaway with their hardware and
>won't run on anyone else's hardware.

..except PT M-Powered which makes PT a paid product (and price isn't
even right).  I was wondering how they have been handling CS issues on M-
Powered products.

This movement seems to be clear that Sibelius wants to kick Finale out
from film scoring scene.

-- 

- Hiro

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


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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[dhbailey]

Robert Patterson wrote:
[snip]

It is nevertheless an interesting development, because I suspect you
will begin to see ProTools and Sibelius merge. Some 5 years ago when
Finale began to go towards being everything, I recommended then that
a better course would have been for them to get in bed with a DAW
package. (I recommended Performer.) It looks like, once again,
Sibelius is showing all the leadership.


Except that this is leadership by negative example, in my opinion.  I 
have never been in favor of Finale (or Sibelius) trying to be everything 
to all users, and we only have to turn to Windows to see how horrible 
things become when tools become integrated into a monolithic whole which 
removes any/all prerogratives from the end-user.


I recall you making that recommendation at the time, Robert, and much as 
I admire you, I thought you were wrong then and I still think you're 
wrong now.


A notation package should remain that, a notation package.  A sequencer 
should remain that, a sequencer.  If instead of these ass-backwards 
mergers they would simply get their stinking acts together and come up 
with an industry-wide standard for music data files, such that a 
midi-based sequencer could read the same file as a graphic-based 
notation package, with complete transparency and interchangability, THEN 
we'd be on the track of true progress.


As always happens with these mergers, Sibelius is claiming that nothing 
will change, but as we who have been around computers long enough know, 
it won't be long before ProTools, as owner, telling Sibelius what to do, 
cutting back in this department and that department, leaving only the 
skeleton of what used to be a decent notation application as an 
after-thought add-on to ProTools.


But since Finale/MakeMusic has never listened to anything I say, I 
realize that Bob's probably correct in that Sibelius is providing the 
leadership and as has so often happened in the past few years, what 
Sibelius does Finale must do it also, they probably will merge with some 
DAW package.  I would, therefore like to go on record as suggesting 
Sonar instead of Performer.  :-)


Oh well, the notation field USED to be a two-horse race -- maybe if 
Finale holds out and MakeMusic maintains its independence, we'll be back 
to having Finale be the only horse in the race.


Things don't look too optimistic, in my view.  It will be very 
interesting to see if MakeMusic can get Finale2007 out the door anywhere 
near on schedule and whether its linked score/parts feature works as 
we'd all like it to work.


But do pay attention to the nice textured background papers we can use!

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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[dhbailey]

A-NO-NE Music wrote:

Robert Patterson / 2006/08/02 / 10:19 AM wrote:


Mind you, this for ProTools, which is a giveaway with their hardware and
won't run on anyone else's hardware.


..except PT M-Powered which makes PT a paid product (and price isn't
even right).  I was wondering how they have been handling CS issues on M-
Powered products.

This movement seems to be clear that Sibelius wants to kick Finale out
from film scoring scene.



Except that now that ProTools has bought Sibelius, so that what Sibelius 
wants won't matter anymore.  It's what ProTools wants that will count. 
Sibelius already had the film-scoring features a couple of versions ago, 
so it already had an edge on Finale.


It is interesting reading the letter from the Finn brothers on the 
Sibelius web-site, announcing the deal.  They use the over-worked phrase 
"It's a perfect fit."  Yes, it's a perfect fit, Pro-Tools stock and 
money and the Finn brothers' bank accounts.  What's not to be a perfect 
fit in that deal, from the Finn brothers' perspective?  Maybe they'll 
pool their resources and buy a larger yacht than Paul Allen's! ;-)


It certainly changes the whole notation marketplace, and it will be 
interesting to see how things work themselves out in the coming 
months/years.


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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 02.08.2006 dhbailey wrote:

But since Finale/MakeMusic has never listened to anything I say, I realize that 
Bob's probably correct in that Sibelius is providing the leadership and as has 
so often happened in the past few years, what Sibelius does Finale must do it 
also, they probably will merge with some DAW package.  I would, therefore like 
to go on record as suggesting Sonar instead of Performer.   :-)


Well, it certainly won't be Performer (Mac Only) and I sincerely hope it 
won't be Sonar (PC only). What remains?


Personally I agree with David - I'd rather not see Finale merge at all. 
Rather I'd really like old bugs to get fixed. All of them, or at least 
most of them.


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] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[Eric Dannewitz]

Kick Finale out of the film scoring scene? I didn't know Finale was in 
that scene. I think most people use programs like Digital Performer or 
Logic to do most of that. I've never heard of anyone using ProTools to 
do it. Post production, yeah. It is the standard. For for scoring?


I'd say Digidesign is taking a page from Microsoft. Buying a company for 
a feature/product that they need.



A-NO-NE Music wrote:

..except PT M-Powered which makes PT a paid product (and price isn't
even right).  I was wondering how they have been handling CS issues on M-
Powered products.

This movement seems to be clear that Sibelius wants to kick Finale out
from film scoring scene.

  


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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[A-NO-NE Music]

dhbailey / 2006/08/02 / 10:54 AM wrote:

>Except that now that ProTools has bought Sibelius, so that what Sibelius 
>wants won't matter anymore.  It's what ProTools wants that will count. 

I don't think so.  Avid bought Digidesign to help Avid who was going
under.  They successfully restored themselves to dominate the industry,
and they didn't interfere how Digi runs business.  All what they did was
packaging.  Now Avid expanded to notation using the same successful
packaging model.

And that common misconception of the word "ProTools".  Many people
doesn't realize it's a name of a product which has no value without
expensive hardware.  I hate when people ask me if I have ProTools.  Of
course I have but I don't use it since its hardware, AMII and AMIII I
have doesn't sound good as much as my $8+k Metric Halo audio I/O setup
with Digital Performer.

-- 

- Hiro

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


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

[Finale] PDF Annotation Help

[Leigh Daniels]

Hi All,

Adobe seems to have discontinued Acrobat support for Macintosh. Is there
a program for OS X that will allow me to take a PDF from FinMac2006d and
write on it using the pen tool like I could with Acrobat 4 for OS 9? I
tried doing it with Acrobat 4 under OS 9 but the markings don't appear
when printed by Reader 7.0 and I want to send the annotated PDF to a
Windows user.

Any ideas?

**Leigh 

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

Re: [Finale] PDF Annotation Help

[Eric Dannewitz]

What? You have to be kidding. Adobe has not discontinued Acrobat support.

Leigh Daniels wrote:

Hi All,

Adobe seems to have discontinued Acrobat support for Macintosh. Is there
a program for OS X that will allow me to take a PDF from FinMac2006d and
write on it using the pen tool like I could with Acrobat 4 for OS 9? I
tried doing it with Acrobat 4 under OS 9 but the markings don't appear
when printed by Reader 7.0 and I want to send the annotated PDF to a
Windows user.

Any ideas?

**Leigh 


___
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(2): [Finale] PDF Annotation Help

[Leigh Daniels]

Oops! My mistake! Somehow I couldn't find the Mac version of 7 when I
went to the Adobe site. I just checked again and--surprise, surprise--
there is the 7 upgrade!

Thanks. Eric.

**Leigh

On Wed, Aug 2, 2006, Eric Dannewitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>What? You have to be kidding. Adobe has not discontinued Acrobat support.
>
>Leigh Daniels wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Adobe seems to have discontinued Acrobat support for Macintosh. Is there
>> a program for OS X that will allow me to take a PDF from FinMac2006d and
>> write on it using the pen tool like I could with Acrobat 4 for OS 9? I
>> tried doing it with Acrobat 4 under OS 9 but the markings don't appear
>> when printed by Reader 7.0 and I want to send the annotated PDF to a
>> Windows user.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
>> **Leigh 
>>
>> ___
>> 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] PDF Annotation Help

[Aaron Sherber]

At 11:39 AM 8/2/2006, Leigh Daniels wrote:
>Adobe seems to have discontinued Acrobat support for Macintosh.

Heh?



Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[Robert Patterson Finale]

David Bailey:
> I recall you making that recommendation at the time, Robert, and much as 
> I admire you, I thought you were wrong then and I still think you're 
> wrong now.
> 

I think you misunderstand the point of my recommendation. It was precisely that 
Finale *should* stick to being a notation package, rather than reinventing the 
DAW wheel. By getting in bed with ProTools, Sibelius has relieved itself of the 
need (in the long run) of becoming everything. It now has the opportunity to 
focus on notation.




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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[Phil Daley]

At 8/2/2006 12:10 PM, Robert Patterson Finale wrote:

>David Bailey:
>> I recall you making that recommendation at the time, Robert, and much as
>> I admire you, I thought you were wrong then and I still think you're
>> wrong now.
>>
>
>I think you misunderstand the point of my recommendation. It was precisely
>that Finale *should* stick to being a notation package, rather than
>reinventing the DAW wheel. By getting in bed with ProTools, Sibelius has
>relieved itself of the need (in the long run) of becoming everything. It now
>has the opportunity to focus on notation.

Depending upon what the new owners want.  Seems up in the air to me.

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



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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[dhbailey]

Robert Patterson Finale wrote:

David Bailey:

I recall you making that recommendation at the time, Robert, and
much as I admire you, I thought you were wrong then and I still
think you're wrong now.



I think you misunderstand the point of my recommendation. It was
precisely that Finale *should* stick to being a notation package,
rather than reinventing the DAW wheel. By getting in bed with
ProTools, Sibelius has relieved itself of the need (in the long run)
of becoming everything. It now has the opportunity to focus on
notation.



Yes, I did misunderstand you -- to a point we are in complete agreement. 
 But I remain skeptical that Sibelius will remain strictly a notation 
program.  It's already got film sync built into it (2 versions before 
Finale added that capability) and while that aspect is for locking in 
notation to the video, I don't think it's going to be too long before it 
adds audio capabilities, just what you and I are hoping won't happen 
with Finale.


Here's hoping that Sibelius is allowed to focus on notation -- something 
I'm not optimistic about.


I see it more as a front-end/back-end thing.  Eventually things will be 
rolled into one application, and simply marketed with two different 
front-ends for different markets but in reality the same piece of 
software.  One will be a notation program with all the bells and 
whistles of a DAW, and the other will be a full-fledged DAW with one of 
the best notation capabilities available today.  One will be marketed 
towards educators and "serious" (I hate that term, maybe I should use 
"non-pop") composers who will increasingly incorporate audio with their 
notation (like the 20th century works for acoustic instruments and 
electronic tape) and the other will be marketed to the pop/rock/movie 
world which works with audio first and finally gets around to notation 
for those acoustic instruments they wish to include.

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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[David W. Fenton]

On 2 Aug 2006 at 10:48, dhbailey wrote:

> A notation package should remain that, a notation package.  A
> sequencer should remain that, a sequencer.

I'm sorry, but I simply disagree with this.

Any notation package should provide decent tools for controlling 
playback. That's important for proofreading, of course, but also for 
producing any output. It makes no sense whatsoever to fork your 
playback file from your notation file, especially if you're a 
composer, since revisions to the notation file means you have to 
revise a second time in the MIDI file, redoing all the tweaks you've 
done in your sequencer.

Most of my work is not composing, but the few times I do things in a 
sequencer that can't be done well in Finale (such as controlling 
sustain pedal on/off precisely), it makes for more work.

Now, the sequencer in Finale doesn't have to be as capable as a 
standalone sequencer (just as a sequencer should have notation 
capability, but doesn't need to provide as much layout control as a 
notation program), but it ought to be better than it is.

And the market definitely seems to me to demand integration of 
sequencing into Finale, just as it demands the capability of 
producing sound files from Finale (WAV, MP3, etc.). There are a lot 
more people who want the whole shebang in one package than need the 
kinds of high-end notational control that most of this on this list 
require. And it's only those broader masses that will sustain Finale 
as a product so that the notational capabilities can continue be 
developed and extended.

-- 
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] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[Lon Price]

For years I begged MOTU to first fix all of the bugs in their notation program, Mosaic (which had "dynamic part linking," BTW), and then roll it into Digital Performer, creating an all-in-one notation-sequencer-audio recording program.  Why did I want this?  Because I had to do all of my work involving MIDI twice, if I started a project in DP, that is.  That remains the case to this day, only I gave up on Mosaic about 6 years ago, and bought Finale.  If I start a project in DP, I have to start from scratch in Finale to create my printed material.  I'm currently working on a book and play-along CD of alto sax duets with rhythm section accompaniment.  I need only to print out the sax parts.  I do the sax parts in DP as MIDI (replacing them later with real saxes), print the parts from Quickscribe (DP's notation editor) and work from that to enter the music into Finale.  This means I'm doing the work twice.  Why do I have to enter all those notes twice?  Because when I use Finale to open a SMF created in DP, the result is such a mess that it's just easier, and much faster, to start over from scratch.  This is really a nuisance--why should I have to do this?  I've asked the guys at MOTU about it, and all I get is, "DP handles MIDI differently than a notation program.  Rather than feeling that you're doing your work twice, you should think of it as doing half your work in DP and half in Finale."  But when I'm entering exactly the same notes in two different programs, that's doing my work twice, no matter how anyone looks at it.If I start a project in FInale and open the SMF in DP, that works, so I go that way when I can.  But for a project like this one, I need to create the rhythm track first, which would be next to impossible in Finale, because it is not a sequencer.  I use all manner of sequencing "tricks" to create my rhythm track.  So, yeah, I'd like to see some company create an all-in-one program.  I own Sibelius, although I don't use it, unless a client wants it, of course.  (So far that hasn't happened.) As far as Digidesign making an all-in-one program, they have to also address MIDI sequencing, which I hear is pretty clunky in Protools.  But I'm curious to see where this all goes.Lon Price, Los Angeles<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>On Aug 2, 2006, at 10:06 AM, dhbailey wrote:Here's hoping that Sibelius is allowed to focus on notation -- something I'm not optimistic about.  I see it more as a front-end/back-end thing.  Eventually things will be rolled into one application, and simply marketed with two different front-ends for different markets but in reality the same piece of software.  One will be a notation program with all the bells and whistles of a DAW, and the other will be a full-fledged DAW with one of the best notation capabilities available today.  One will be marketed towards educators and "serious" (I hate that term, maybe I should use "non-pop") composers who will increasingly incorporate audio with their notation (like the 20th century works for acoustic instruments and electronic tape) and the other will be marketed to the pop/rock/movie world which works with audio first and finally gets around to notation for those acoustic instruments they wish to include.   ___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[Brian Williams]

> Well, it certainly won't be Performer (Mac Only) and I sincerely hope it
> won't be Sonar (PC only). What remains?
> 
> Personally I agree with David - I'd rather not see Finale merge at all.
> Rather I'd really like old bugs to get fixed. All of them, or at least
> most of them.
> 
> Johannes

It would be great if Finale could incorporate some of the algorithms used by
Performer to generate quick-scribe notation from MIDI files. Finale's
importation and rhythmic interpretation of MIDI files leaves much to be
desired. I often have to tweak the quantization settings on a bar-by-bar
basis in order to get desired results. Thank God for QuicKeys!

Brian

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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[dhbailey]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 2 Aug 2006 at 10:48, dhbailey wrote:


A notation package should remain that, a notation package.  A
sequencer should remain that, a sequencer.


I'm sorry, but I simply disagree with this.

Any notation package should provide decent tools for controlling 
playback. That's important for proofreading, of course, but also for 
producing any output. It makes no sense whatsoever to fork your 
playback file from your notation file, especially if you're a 
composer, since revisions to the notation file means you have to 
revise a second time in the MIDI file, redoing all the tweaks you've 
done in your sequencer.


I agree with this, which was why I made the point about the industry 
getting together and coming up with one file format that would work for 
both notation (all notation programs) and for sequencers (all midi 
applications.)  Thus you wouldn't be tweaking two files and trying to 
keep them straight, there would be one file that you'd work on sometimes 
in a DAW, other times in a more bare-bones sequencer, and other times in 
a notation program.  I do realize that trying to get the players in the 
music application field to actually talk to each other and try to come 
up with such a file format has about as much chance of success as having 
Microsoft actually make software that isn't bloated.  But it's nice to 
dream.  :-)


But when developers start making their program do the work of two 
programs and then three programs and so on (notation becomes notation 
and sequencer becomes notation and sequencer and audio production 
becomes notation and sequencer and audio production and video becomes 
notation and sequencer and audio production and video and audio 
integration) without adding developers at each step of the way, the 
addition of each new major feature simply dilutes the quality of the 
existing features and as we've seen in Finale, new annual upgrades focus 
on one aspect with a few bare bones thrown to those who care more about 
the other aspects, with no single upgrade being a true upgrade for all 
aspects of the program.





Most of my work is not composing, but the few times I do things in a 
sequencer that can't be done well in Finale (such as controlling 
sustain pedal on/off precisely), it makes for more work.


Now, the sequencer in Finale doesn't have to be as capable as a 
standalone sequencer (just as a sequencer should have notation 
capability, but doesn't need to provide as much layout control as a 
notation program), but it ought to be better than it is.




That's the problem -- how much better than it is currently?  Who's to 
decide?  Once this slippery slope is started on, there's no end in 
sight, just further dilution of development staff and money.  When will 
Finale's sequencer be "better enough" so they can put "Finished" to that 
aspect and leave it to improve other aspects of the program?



And the market definitely seems to me to demand integration of 
sequencing into Finale, just as it demands the capability of 
producing sound files from Finale (WAV, MP3, etc.). There are a lot 
more people who want the whole shebang in one package than need the 
kinds of high-end notational control that most of this on this list 
require. And it's only those broader masses that will sustain Finale 
as a product so that the notational capabilities can continue be 
developed and extended.




But are the notational capabilities truly being developed and extended? 
 The past few upgrades have basically taken plug-ins and moved them to 
other menus.  Not since the introduction of Staff Styles has Finale had 
any major notational upgrade.  We will see soon (whenever they get 
Fin2007 out the door) whether the linked scores/parts works as we all 
hope it will.


As the audio production capabilities of Finale have been "improved" 
we've seen our money go to GPO playback and not to notation.


I agree that more and more people want the whole shebang in one package.

I just don't agree that they should be allowed to try to have it because 
I don't think it's possible, and what I see is the failure of a major 
notation package.


Do we really have to go down this road until somebody says "Oh, yeah, 
they was right!  It can't be done!" only to find that there is no 
customer base left and no money for getting things back to where they 
were and what was once a great notation program sits on the auction 
block as the would-be king of the audio-notation-video-midi-DAW 
applications?


We all know that Windows has gotten worse as the OS has tried to be 
everything to everybody.  Shouldn't that alone be lesson enough to stop 
trying to make Finale a one-stop application for every musical need of 
every sort?


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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[dhbailey]

Lon Price wrote:
For years I begged MOTU to first fix all of the bugs in their notation 
program, Mosaic (which had "dynamic part linking," BTW), and then roll 
it into Digital Performer, creating an all-in-one 
notation-sequencer-audio recording program.  Why did I want this?  
Because I had to do all of my work involving MIDI twice, if I started a 
project in DP, that is.  That remains the case to this day, only I gave 
up on Mosaic about 6 years ago, and bought Finale.  

If I start a project in DP, I have to start from scratch in Finale to 
create my printed material.  I'm currently working on a book and 
play-along CD of alto sax duets with rhythm section accompaniment.  I 
need only to print out the sax parts.  I do the sax parts in DP as MIDI 
(replacing them later with real saxes), print the parts from Quickscribe 
(DP's notation editor) and work from that to enter the music into 
Finale.  This means I'm doing the work twice.  Why do I have to enter 
all those notes twice?  Because when I use Finale to open a SMF created 
in DP, the result is such a mess that it's just easier, and much faster, 
to start over from scratch.  This is really a nuisance--why should I 
have to do this?  I've asked the guys at MOTU about it, and all I get 
is, "DP handles MIDI differently than a notation program.  Rather than 
feeling that you're doing your work twice, you should think of it as 
doing half your work in DP and half in Finale."  But when I'm entering 
exactly the same notes in two different programs, that's doing my work 
twice, no matter how anyone looks at it.




And this inability of Finale to properly import all standard midi files 
has been broken since I've been using the program (version 3.5).


MakeMusic has added tons of new features, tweaked things endlessly, 
added terrific playback capabilities, but they won't fix some basic but 
broken aspects of the program.


Maybe all the music programmers are searching for the philosopher's 
stone of programming where they can have fantastic midi capabilities AND 
fantastic notation capabilities.


I don't think it's gonna happen, though.

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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[dhbailey]

Brian Williams wrote:

Well, it certainly won't be Performer (Mac Only) and I sincerely hope it
won't be Sonar (PC only). What remains?

Personally I agree with David - I'd rather not see Finale merge at all.
Rather I'd really like old bugs to get fixed. All of them, or at least
most of them.

Johannes


It would be great if Finale could incorporate some of the algorithms used by
Performer to generate quick-scribe notation from MIDI files. Finale's
importation and rhythmic interpretation of MIDI files leaves much to be
desired. I often have to tweak the quantization settings on a bar-by-bar
basis in order to get desired results. Thank God for QuicKeys!



And this has remained broken while Finale has tried to be more things to 
more people, all the while forgetting to be what it is supposed to be to 
everybody who uses it, which is, to wit: A program where all the 
functions it includes actually work properly.


Micnotator anyone?

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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 02.08.2006 Brian Williams wrote:

It would be great if Finale could incorporate some of the algorithms used by
Performer to generate quick-scribe notation from MIDI files. Finale's
importation and rhythmic interpretation of MIDI files leaves much to be
desired. I often have to tweak the quantization settings on a bar-by-bar
basis in order to get desired results. Thank God for QuicKeys!



In fact, Finale's automatic quantization is really bad.

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] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[David W. Fenton]

On 2 Aug 2006 at 16:09, dhbailey wrote:

> We all know that Windows has gotten worse as the OS has tried to be
> everything to everybody.

We don't know anything of the sort!

Win2K was the best workstation version of Windows ever, and Win2K3 
Server is the best server version ever. It came after WinXP but 
didn't incorporate the features of WinXP that were designed to make 
it "user friendly." The result is that it's a superb version of 
Windows.

I don't see that there's any benefit to having the same kernel used 
for both desktop and server versions of Windows, but there is no OS 
that works any differently (all Linuxen use the same kernel for both, 
and OS X does, as well, so far as I know -- though I could be wrong 
on that).

I don't see the example as comparable to Finale and the question of 
notation and sequencing.

I would be happy if the sequencing capabilities in Finale were just 
updated to reflect the conventions and norms of UI in sequencers 
form, oh, say, 1999. 

Then again, a lot of the tweaking I do is made somewhat unnecessary 
by Human Playback. That's why I'm curious to see if the tweaks to HP 
in Finale 2007 address many of the drawbacks of previous 
implementations (which give insufficient end-user control over how HP 
interprets certain notational aspects).

-- 
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] Fwd: Announcement: Sibelius becomes a part of Digidesign

[Michael Good]

Hi David,

I suspect that you will see MusicXML become the format that lets you
share music between sequencer and notation applications better than
MIDI can do now.

We approached all the major sequencer companies at NAMM and Musikmesse
this year and got a lot of good interest, now that Finale and Sibelius
support MusicXML on both platforms. Still, it wouldn't hurt to send
those MusicXML support requests in to your favorite sequencer company,
be it MOTU, Apple, Steinberg, or Cakewalk. That can help things happen
sooner rather than later.

We didn't approach Digidesign, since we saw much less customer
interest there. That gap on the scoring and MIDI side of things
results in very little overlap between Avid and Sibelius's current
products. It will be most interesting to see what the future holds!

Best regards,

Michael Good
Recordare LLC
www.recordare.com



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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement:

[John Howell]

At 4:09 PM -0400 8/2/06, dhbailey wrote:


Thus you wouldn't be tweaking two files and trying to keep them 
straight, there would be one file that you'd work on sometimes in a 
DAW, other times in a more bare-bones sequencer,


OK, I give.  What's "DAW"?  (I may be overly sensitive.  There are 
tons of acronyms on this campus, which impede communication more than 
they facilitate it.  Hiro's posts are especially difficult to 
translate, because he knows so darned much!  I finally figured out 
that SMF probably means "Standard MIDI File."  Was I right?


John


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

[Finale] FinMac 2003a playback question

[Martin Banner]

I am working on an edition of an 18th Century "Te Deum" for chorus and 
orchestra. Is there a way, for playback purposes only in FinMac 2003a 
to crank up the volume for the two staves that contain the oboe parts? 
If I leave everything as is, it is difficult during playback to hear 
the oboes against the strings. The dynamic marking for all of the 
staves is forte.


Thanks,
Martin




Martin Banner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement:

[Rick Neal]

Hi John,

It means Digital Audio Workstation. You're right about SMF. What gets me 
is when people use acronyms for song titles like IDMATIIAGTS (It Don't 
Mean a Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing)


:-)
Rick


John Howell wrote:


OK, I give.  What's "DAW"?  (I may be overly sensitive.  There are 
tons of acronyms on this campus, which impede communication more than 
they facilitate it.  Hiro's posts are especially difficult to 
translate, because he knows so darned much!  I finally figured out 
that SMF probably means "Standard MIDI File."  Was I right?


John




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

RE: [Finale] FinMac 2003a playback question

[keith helgesen]

Crank the oboe stave marking up to fff (for playback only!)

Cheers K

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

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Martin Banner
Sent: Thursday, 3 August 2006 9:18 AM
To: Finale
Subject: [Finale] FinMac 2003a playback question

I am working on an edition of an 18th Century "Te Deum" for chorus and 
orchestra. Is there a way, for playback purposes only in FinMac 2003a 
to crank up the volume for the two staves that contain the oboe parts? 
If I leave everything as is, it is difficult during playback to hear 
the oboes against the strings. The dynamic marking for all of the 
staves is forte.

Thanks,
Martin




Martin Banner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/406 - Release Date: 2/08/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/406 - Release Date: 2/08/2006
 

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

Re: [Finale] FinMac 2003a playback question

[Martin Banner]

Thanks, I already knew that much. I was hoping there was some 
"invisible" thing I could do without altering the written score.


Martin


On Aug 2, 2006, at 8:31 PM, keith helgesen wrote:


Crank the oboe stave marking up to fff (for playback only!)

Cheers K

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

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of

Martin Banner
Sent: Thursday, 3 August 2006 9:18 AM
To: Finale
Subject: [Finale] FinMac 2003a playback question

I am working on an edition of an 18th Century "Te Deum" for chorus and
orchestra. Is there a way, for playback purposes only in FinMac 2003a
to crank up the volume for the two staves that contain the oboe parts?
If I leave everything as is, it is difficult during playback to hear
the oboes against the strings. The dynamic marking for all of the
staves is forte.

Thanks,
Martin




Martin Banner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/406 - Release Date: 
2/08/2006



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/406 - Release Date: 
2/08/2006



___
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] Fwd: Announcement:

[Bruce E. Clausen]

I'm relatively new to the list . . . and almost all the acronyms are Greek 
to me.



- Original Message - 
From: "Rick Neal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Fwd: Announcement:



Hi John,

It means Digital Audio Workstation. You're right about SMF. What gets me 
is when people use acronyms for song titles like IDMATIIAGTS (It Don't 
Mean a Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing)


:-)
Rick


John Howell wrote:


OK, I give.  What's "DAW"?  (I may be overly sensitive.  There are tons 
of acronyms on this campus, which impede communication more than they 
facilitate it.  Hiro's posts are especially difficult to translate, 
because he knows so darned much!  I finally figured out that SMF probably 
means "Standard MIDI File."  Was I right?


John




___
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] FinMac 2003a playback question

[Don Hart]

You can make a different forte marking for the oboe parts and increase its
key velocity to what you need.  One easy way to do this would be to go to
the Expression Selection dialog box, select the forte marking you're using
in the rest of the piece and click Duplicate.  Select the new marking, click
on Edit and adjust the key velocity.

Don Hart


on 8/2/06 8:51 PM, Martin Banner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Thanks, I already knew that much. I was hoping there was some
> "invisible" thing I could do without altering the written score.
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> On Aug 2, 2006, at 8:31 PM, keith helgesen wrote:
> 
>> Crank the oboe stave marking up to fff (for playback only!)
>> 
>> Cheers K
>> 
>> Keith Helgesen.
>> Director of Music, Canberra City Band.
>> Ph: (02) 62910787. Mob 0417-042171
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of
>> Martin Banner
>> Sent: Thursday, 3 August 2006 9:18 AM
>> To: Finale
>> Subject: [Finale] FinMac 2003a playback question
>> 
>> I am working on an edition of an 18th Century "Te Deum" for chorus and
>> orchestra. Is there a way, for playback purposes only in FinMac 2003a
>> to crank up the volume for the two staves that contain the oboe parts?
>> If I leave everything as is, it is difficult during playback to hear
>> the oboes against the strings. The dynamic marking for all of the
>> staves is forte.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Martin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Martin Banner
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 
>> ___
>> Finale mailing list
>> Finale@shsu.edu
>> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>> 
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/406 - Release Date:
>> 2/08/2006
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/406 - Release Date:
>> 2/08/2006
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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

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