Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts

[Raymond Horton]

Richard Yates wrote:


The Fin2K7 brochure says that a feature of linked parts is "Show different
enharmonic spellings between the score and part."

Can someone explain to me how this would ever be a useful feature?

Richard Yates




 

If you had a concert pitch score, you might want to simply some 
enharmonics in Eb or A parts, perhaps.  Or alternate Bb and A clarinet 
parts (A parts in score, alternate Bb parts for the player would often 
have a few simplified enharmonics)



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

[Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts

[Richard Yates]

The Fin2K7 brochure says that a feature of linked parts is "Show different
enharmonic spellings between the score and part."

Can someone explain to me how this would ever be a useful feature?

Richard Yates




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

[Finale] Part Extraction problems & other oddities

[Giz Bowe]

I opened a score from WinFin2005 in my newly installed WinFin2k7. I 
generated parts from Manage Parts, and then extracted. The part appears 
with the staff spacing terribly squashed, even though I took care to 
specify the spacing in Page Formats for Parts (in Part Creation Preferences).


Also, in moving a staff expression, it now appears in 2 places. I tried 
redraw & update - to no avail. I have to delete the first instance. This 
doesn't, however, happen with all expressions.


The part opens in studio view, even though my preference is (supposedly) 
set to Page View. WOOPS - the preference has to be set in Program 
Options|New|New Document windows, not the drop-down View menu - maybe this 
will help someone else.


I see that the ToolBar is still screwed - I can't seem to get rid of the 
quantization button in the Options toolbar. I never use it & it takes up 
valuable space. I don't want 2 rows of buttons.


I like the idea of an inset coda staff, but this doesn't seem to work the 
way it should. The "Horizontal Space Before Coda" box is grayed out.


Am I going to have recreate all my templates from scratch with WinFin2k7? 
I've had success in the past merely migrating my "archive" file (containing 
ALL my music) from old version to new.


Thanks for y'all's help!

Giz


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 8/11/2006


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

Re: [Finale] Printing problem - garbage for noteheads!

[Eric Dannewitz]

Get a Mac?

Just Kidding.
So it displays ok and prints all messed up?

Try disabling the Maestro Postscript Font in Control Panels->Fonts and 
see if that does anything. (Quit out of Finale, then do that, then run 
it again). You might have a messed up postscript font.




Brad Nelson wrote:

HELP!! I have a commission deadline due tomorrow

I cannot print my score correctly. All of the noteheads print as 
fortisstissimo (FFF’s) rather than regular noteheads. Other symbols 
are also strange (ie, whole rest appears as a diamond). I’ve been 
using Finale for 9 years with no problemsame computer with Win 98 
(2^nd Edition), same printer (HP5000). I’ve always used the default 
font (Maestro). 10% of the time it will print a page correctly, but 
90% of the timeno dice!


The ONLY difference is that this is the first time I’ve created a 
score and printed with 2006c. I’ve reinstalled Finale and reloaded 
fonts to no avail. I’ve also shut down all programs running in the 
background to maximize system resources.


Any fixes?

Brad Nelson


___
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] Printing problem - garbage for noteheads!

[Raymond Horton]

Select: "Options" "Document Options" "Fonts" "Notation" "Noteheads" Then 
scroll and selct a notehead font that you have, probably 
"EngraverFontSet" or "Maestro." Default size is "24 regular". Click 
"OK", and that should fix it.



Hope this helps!


Raymond Horton


Brad Nelson wrote:


HELP!! I have a commission deadline due tomorrow

I cannot print my score correctly. All of the noteheads print as 
fortisstissimo (FFF’s) rather than regular noteheads. Other symbols 
are also strange (ie, whole rest appears as a diamond). I’ve been 
using Finale for 9 years with no problemsame computer with Win 98 
(2^nd Edition), same printer (HP5000). I’ve always used the default 
font (Maestro). 10% of the time it will print a page correctly, but 
90% of the timeno dice!


The ONLY difference is that this is the first time I’ve created a 
score and printed with 2006c. I’ve reinstalled Finale and reloaded 
fonts to no avail. I’ve also shut down all programs running in the 
background to maximize system resources.


Any fixes?

Brad Nelson




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

[Finale] Printing problem - garbage for noteheads!

[Brad Nelson]

HELP!!  I have a commission
deadline due tomorrow
I cannot print my score correctly.  All of the noteheads print as
fortisstissimo (FFF’s) rather than regular noteheads.  Other symbols
are also strange (ie, whole rest appears as a diamond).  I’ve been
using Finale for 9 years with no problemsame computer with Win 98
(2nd
 Edition), same printer
(HP5000).  I’ve always used the default font (Maestro).  10% of
the time it will print a page correctly, but 90% of the timeno
dice!
The ONLY difference is that this is the first time I’ve created a score
and printed with 2006c.  I’ve reinstalled Finale and reloaded fonts
to no avail.  I’ve also shut down all programs running in the
background to maximize system resources.
Any fixes?
Brad Nelson

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

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[David W. Fenton]

On 14 Aug 2006 at 17:52, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> FWIW, here's MacWorld's Mac Pro vs. Dell price shooutout:
> 
> 
> 
> They used a different model Dell than I did (Precision 690).  
> Apparently the reviewer felt that the 490 I used "isn’t really  
> comparable to the Mac Pro in terms of expandability."
> 
> An interesting and perhaps relevant passage:
> 
> > What makes the Dell so much more expensive? Surprisingly, a big 
> > chunk of the cost is the second processor. If you need only a 
> > single 2.66GHz Xeon, the Dell’s price drops a whopping $869; it’s 
> > still more expensive than the Mac Pro, but at least they’re in the 
> > same ballpark. Which means one of two things: Either Apple is 
> > getting an amazing deal on the Xeon processors used in the Mac 
> > Pros, or Dell is soaking dual-processor customers.

I don't know why anyone should be surprised at this. 

Apple is making this high-end workstation the base model for their 
high-end product line. Dell is selling it only to a tiny number of 
customers who are buying in the workstation market. I don't know what 
percentage of Dell customers buy this product line, but my guess is 
that it's not a very large group. One could finagle the market share 
and customer numbers to try to come up with a situation where Dell is 
buying more Xeon processors than Apple, but I don't think it's likely 
that the chips used by Dell in this product line are purchased in 
numbers as high as those that Apple will be purchasing.

Secondly, Dell is already a captive of Intel, while this may very 
well be part of the continuing deal that Apple made with Intel to 
make the switch. Intel may be subsidizing part of the price here to 
help Apple make the transition. Then again, maybe not, as that would 
probably violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The point is that a dual Xeon workstation on the PC side is a very 
very rare purchase, whereas Apple is making it the flagship model at 
the top of their product line, with nothing really comparable to most 
of Dell's product line anywhere else. That is, Dell is selling into 
different market segments than Apple, so the cost basis for their 
purchases from Intel is likely to be different.

-- 
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] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

More on the Core 2 rumor front:



Appleinsider reports that Apple is preparing for product launches  
as early as September:
Based on various reports from around the world, the Cupertino,  
Calif.-based company this week is placing WWDC '06 in the rear-view  
mirror and shifting gears towards its fall product line refreshes,  
which are due to start turning up next month.
This along with reports end-of-life notices for Apple's current  
iPod nano are suggestive of imminent product refreshes. This  
correlates with a recent Chinese report that Apple is readying both  
of its laptop models for Core 2 Duo "Merom" CPUs next month.


Readers will remember that pre-WWDC reports also claimed that Apple  
had placed large orders of Core 2 Duo processors, with analyst  
speculation of the same.



Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



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

Re: Tech support was Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

[Christopher Smith]

Never ask more than one question: apparently they stop after the  
first one. You have to open another inquiry to get any more answers  
after the first one.


The tech people do NOT get the info that you so painstakingly filled  
in at the start of the procedure: apparently this info is for  
statistics only, so you have to tell them what platform, computer,  
system, Finale version, etc., all over again in your question. This  
is just nuts.


Christopher


On Aug 14, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Don Hart wrote:

Recently I got through to tech support and received their initial  
reply
relatively easily.  I'm pretty sure I replied with an additional  
question (I
could be mistaken) but never heard anymore from them.  Looking up  
the case

archive, it ends with their first reply.

Anyway, my question to you, and anyone else who has experienced the  
problems
you're describing is where does the process actually break down?   
Is the
initial contact easy, like in my experience, and the real, nitty- 
gritty
answers hard to come by?  Or have you found the whole process  
difficult,

from start to finish?


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

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

FWIW, here's MacWorld's Mac Pro vs. Dell price shooutout:



They used a different model Dell than I did (Precision 690).  
Apparently the reviewer felt that the 490 I used "isn’t really  
comparable to the Mac Pro in terms of expandability."


An interesting and perhaps relevant passage:

What makes the Dell so much more expensive? Surprisingly, a big  
chunk of the cost is the second processor. If you need only a  
single 2.66GHz Xeon, the Dell’s price drops a whopping $869; it’s  
still more expensive than the Mac Pro, but at least they’re in the  
same ballpark. Which means one of two things: Either Apple is  
getting an amazing deal on the Xeon processors used in the Mac  
Pros, or Dell is soaking dual-processor customers.

And, uh, this:

(If you’re looking to find all the technical differences between  
the two, good luck. If you go to Dell’s basic tech specs page for  
the 690—the one you encounter while building it—you get one set of  
specs; however, if you go to the more complete page, available  
before you start building, and linked at the top of the above  
table, you get a very different set of specs. For example, the  
maximum RAM for the 690 is stated as either 8GB or 64GB; that’s  
like Toyota saying its new Camry gets either 12mpg or 70mpg! I’ve  
attempted to make sense of these conflicting specs; with such a  
significant difference in price, at least I’ve got a good margin of  
error if one or two mistakes would result in a smaller or larger  
difference in capability or price.)

And finally, this:

I’m sure some Dell fans will also quibble with my choice of video  
cards. It’s true that less expensive cards available from Dell will  
be adequate for many users, and some of those will even offer  
comparable performance to the Mac Pro’s Nvidia GeForce 7300 GT.  
However, the Quadro FX 3450 was the least expensive video card from  
Dell that offers both dual-link and single-link ports, allowing you  
to drive a 30-inch Apple or Dell display along with another smaller  
display—something the Mac Pro’s stock card can also do, and a task  
that’s more popular than you might think among professional users.

Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



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

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[David W. Fenton]

On 14 Aug 2006 at 15:45, A-NO-NE Music wrote:

> I just took a look at the accelerator slider.  There are 6 positions.
> Here is what it says (in Japanese, me translating to English, forgive
> me), #1 being max, by the way. 

Here are the original English captions:

> 1) Enable all the accelerator functions.  
> Use this if your computer has no issue (bad Japanese!  Who
> translated this?)

All accelerations are enabled. Use this setting if your computer has 
no problems. (Recommended)

> 2) Disable cursor and bitmap accelerator
> Use this to fix mouse pointer and/or damaged image (huh?)

Disable cursor and bitmap accelerations. Use this setting to correct 
problems with the mouse pointer, or to correct problems with corrupt 
images.

> 3) Disable cursor and Extended Drawing.
> Use this to fix display (huh?  What is Extended Drawing?)

Disable all cursor and advanced drawing accelerations. Use this 
setting to correct drawing problems.

> 4) Not only cursor and Extended Drawing, disable all the DirectDraw
> and Direct3D accelerator
> Use this to fix application(s) which uses DirectX accelerator. 

Disable all DirectDraw and Direct3D accelerations, as well as all 
cursor and advanced drawing accelerations. Use this setting to 
correct severe problems with DirectX accelerated applications.

> 5) Disable all but basic accelerator
> Use this to fix fatal problems (huh?)

Disable all but basic accelorations. Use this setting to correct more 
severe problems.

> 6) Disable all the accelerators.
> Use this when computer freezes frequently or when you have server
> problem (the only sentence made sense to me!)

Disable all accelerations. Use this setting only if your computer 
frequently stops responding or has other severe problems.

-- 
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] Logic to Finale

[David W. Fenton]

On 14 Aug 2006 at 6:52, dhbailey wrote:

> (I wonder why they don't eliminate this the 
> way that Sibelius ships without it, precisely to make moving from
> Finale to Sibelius more difficult?)

I've posted this URL before, but there's a good reason for software 
vendors to make it easy to interoperate with the files created by 
their competition:

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog52.html

Interoperability makes switching to the newer software risk-free.

Now, Finale and Sibelius can never reach that point, but I think it's 
a very good thing for Finale to ship with the MusicXML plugin. 

-- 
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] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[David W. Fenton]

On 14 Aug 2006 at 11:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 17:41 -0400, James Gilbert wrote:
> > Why should a notation software program require sooo much RAM in the
> > first place?
> 
> True, if all we expected of FINALE was purely notation; no
> conversions, no links from parts to the score, etc.  then it could run
> in less memory.  Every time some fuctionality is added, additional
> run-time memory is required for the additional lines of code in the
> application.  

That's an awfully naïve view of the way computer applications work.

The architecture of the newly added features will determine whether 
or not they require more memory, not the number of newly added lines 
of code (which are present in the compiled executable, anyway). If 
new features are implemented as modules that are loaded as needed, 
they won't increase the memory footprint until called.

> I believe that Finale NotePad runs with much lower RAM requirements,
> if memory is a greater issue than enhancements.
> 
> If your complaint is that they do not make it clear before you
> purchase, then I agree, but then 90% of business software on the
> market today falls short in the disclosure of performance
> requirements.  But that's just my humble opinion..

He's not complaining about performance. I doubt he was expecting 
blazing performance installing on a machine that met only the minimum 
requirements. The problem is that MM says it will install on his 
machine and the installer won't do it.

-- 
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] Using plugins with parts

[Robert Patterson]

Aaron Sherber wrote:

I think the TGTools part extraction 
plugin will cause problems because it usually results in adding staves, 
and adding staves from within a part is a bad thing for Fin07. I'm also 
not sure how JW Space Systems will work (haven't tried it).


JW Space Systems works great on parts. You must have the latest version 
of PDKTools or it will crash Finale (at least on Macs). You can get 
PDKTools at the TGTools site.


You can set up TGTools part extraction not to add staves. This you 
should do. I don't understand the need to run it in part view.  It is 
perfectly possible to run it in the full score by selecting only the 
staves you are interested in. I find this to be a much preferable 
procedure. (I'm always finished with TGTools Smart Explosion before ever 
I extract any parts, even in pre-Fin07.)


--
Robert Patterson

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

Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

[Robert Patterson]

Andrew Stiller wrote:

If 
I start from score  view will I  be able to shift into an individual 
part and use a) JW Space Systems, b)TGTools/Spacing/Measure Widths, 
c)Patterson/Tie Mover, d) TGTools/Parts/Intelligent Extraction of Parts?




Yes to all. However, only the latest version of Patterson Tie Mover is 
modal. Earlier versions will not allow you to shift. (I changed my 
plugins to be modeless because of the new limitation in Finale.)


If not, am I correct in understanding that the old part-extraction 
paradigm is still functional, so I could go that way and use any plugin 
I like?




Yes (essentially).

Also, it is quite easy to switch back and forth between score & part 
view, so switching back to score view to run a plugin is not necessarily 
too painful, depending on what you are doing. (Some situations are more 
painful than others.)


--
Robert Patterson

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

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

Very interesting. Thanks, Hiro.

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



On 14 Aug 2006, at 3:45 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:


Darcy James Argue / 2006/08/14 / 12:42 PM wrote:


But
this is why I wanted to know what those features *were* -- the slider
should (theoretically) be smart enough not to swamp your video card
with a bunch of unnecessary extra work.


I am not really getting back into this thread, but I too was curious
about the slider which I have never even though of moving it.  I  
have a

loaner DELL Precision 370 P4 3.4GHz with 1.5GB RAM, XP Pro.  The video
card is ATI FireGL V3100.

I just took a look at the accelerator slider.  There are 6 positions.
Here is what it says (in Japanese, me translating to English, forgive
me), #1 being max, by the way.
1) Enable all the accelerator functions.
Use this if your computer has no issue (bad Japanese!  Who
translated this?)
2) Disable cursor and bitmap accelerator
Use this to fix mouse pointer and/or damaged image (huh?)
3) Disable cursor and Extended Drawing.
Use this to fix display (huh?  What is Extended Drawing?)
4) Not only cursor and Extended Drawing, disable all the DirectDraw  
and

Direct3D accelerator
Use this to fix application(s) which uses DirectX accelerator.
5) Disable all but basic accelerator
Use this to fix fatal problems (huh?)
6) Disable all the accelerators.
Use this when computer freezes frequently or when you have server
problem (the only sentence made sense to me!)

It looks as if my translation is bad, especially the word "fix"  
doesn't

really fit in the context, but this is exactly what it is saying in
Japanese.  Don't ask me what they really mean :-)

By the way, Pshop rendering on this machine is definitely slower  
than my

AlBook1.5/2GB.

--

- Hiro

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


___
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] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[A-NO-NE Music]

Darcy James Argue / 2006/08/14 / 12:42 PM wrote:

>But  
>this is why I wanted to know what those features *were* -- the slider  
>should (theoretically) be smart enough not to swamp your video card  
>with a bunch of unnecessary extra work.

I am not really getting back into this thread, but I too was curious
about the slider which I have never even though of moving it.  I have a
loaner DELL Precision 370 P4 3.4GHz with 1.5GB RAM, XP Pro.  The video
card is ATI FireGL V3100.

I just took a look at the accelerator slider.  There are 6 positions. 
Here is what it says (in Japanese, me translating to English, forgive
me), #1 being max, by the way.
1) Enable all the accelerator functions.  
Use this if your computer has no issue (bad Japanese!  Who
translated this?)
2) Disable cursor and bitmap accelerator
Use this to fix mouse pointer and/or damaged image (huh?)
3) Disable cursor and Extended Drawing.
Use this to fix display (huh?  What is Extended Drawing?)
4) Not only cursor and Extended Drawing, disable all the DirectDraw and
Direct3D accelerator
Use this to fix application(s) which uses DirectX accelerator.
5) Disable all but basic accelerator
Use this to fix fatal problems (huh?)
6) Disable all the accelerators.
Use this when computer freezes frequently or when you have server
problem (the only sentence made sense to me!)

It looks as if my translation is bad, especially the word "fix" doesn't
really fit in the context, but this is exactly what it is saying in
Japanese.  Don't ask me what they really mean :-)

By the way, Pshop rendering on this machine is definitely slower than my
AlBook1.5/2GB.

-- 

- Hiro

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


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

Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

[Aaron Sherber]

At 03:01 PM 8/14/2006, Andrew Stiller wrote:
>I confess I don't understand what "modal" is,

A modal window is one which must be closed before you can use the 
rest of the program. For example, the Document Options window is 
modal -- while it is open, you can't do anything else with Finale. 
Same with most of the built-in Finale plugins. The opposite of this 
is a modeless window, which can sit open on screel while you do other 
things. FinaleScript is modeless, as is the Edit System Margins dialog.


>I start from score  view will I  be able to shift into an individual
>part and use a) JW Space Systems, b)TGTools/Spacing/Measure Widths,
>c)Patterson/Tie Mover, d) TGTools/Parts/Intelligent Extraction of
>Parts?

Yes to all of these. At least, all are modeless windows and will stay 
open when you shift to a part. I think the TGTools part extraction 
plugin will cause problems because it usually results in adding 
staves, and adding staves from within a part is a bad thing for 
Fin07. I'm also not sure how JW Space Systems will work (haven't tried it).


>If not, am I correct in understanding that the old part-extraction
>paradigm is still functional, so I could go that way and use any plugin
>I like?

This is also true.

Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

[Andrew Stiller]

On Aug 14, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Tyler Turner wrote:


While obviously not ideal from a user's perspective,
blocking plug-ins from being run while in a linked
part is a fairly effective means of protecting the
majority of users. None of the included Finale
plug-ins that would have been likely to catch
unsuspecting users are modal.


I confess I don't understand what "modal" is, so let me be specific: If 
I start from score  view will I  be able to shift into an individual 
part and use a) JW Space Systems, b)TGTools/Spacing/Measure Widths, 
c)Patterson/Tie Mover, d) TGTools/Parts/Intelligent Extraction of 
Parts?


If not, am I correct in understanding that the old part-extraction 
paradigm is still functional, so I could go that way and use any plugin 
I like?


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

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

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[Dean M. Estabrook]

Oh yeah ... even with 512 MB, I don't think there would be much  
happiness in playing back GPO sounds.


Dean

On Aug 13, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:


On 13.08.2006 James Gilbert wrote:

Anyone else find that even with a computer that has 256Meg of RAM you
cannot install Finale 2007?? When trying to install, I get a  
message that
says that since I don't have 256meg of RAM (I do) the install does  
not
continue.  (The system requirments that MakeMusic advertises says  
nothing
about having a 'minimum' of 256, just 256 minimum). Why should a  
notation

software program require sooo much RAM in the first place?


Sooo much RAM? You must be joking. The standard these days is at  
least 512 MB. I think Finale's requirements are low if anything.


However, if you really think you have 256 MB I don't know why  
Finale doesn't seem to recognize it. But I guess you are on  
Windows, and I don't know much about windows...


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

___
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] Best method of re-authorizing?

[toronado455]

I called the 800 number and talked to support. Then I essentially re-registered directly from Finale using the "Internet" choice. Then the software just confirmed my registration and that was all.At no time did I need to enter an "authorization" code, and none was given to me, neither by tech support nor via eMail. Not sure if that was because I talked to them on the phone first or not. As far as I can tell it's because when you use the "Internet" choice it automates the authorization part somehow. The support tech did mention something about "resetting" my authorization so perhaps it would have been a different process if I hadn't called first. But all I know is that now when I log into my account on the finale web page and look at my
registration history, there is no longer a record of my original
registration, just the current one.On 8/13/06, Eric Dannewitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Under HELP->Register Finale. I believe there are a couple of optionsthere. I can't tell as mine is already registered.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> It's a different computer so I probably need a new auth code. But
> regardless of whether I call to get one or request it be eMailed to me> on the web site, I don't understand how or where to enter the new auth> code into Finale.___
Finale mailing listFinale@shsu.eduhttp://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

On 14 Aug 2006, at 2:15 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:


Oops -- sorry, I definitely misread the memory speed
thing (it's
given differently at each Wiki page). The X600 does
not have 2.4
times the memory speed, it has 1.2 times the memory
speed. My bad.


It's not even 1.2 times. I don't trust this Wikipedia
page. It's not reporting the same speeds as reported
by my system, and it's not reporting the same speeds I
see listed in other internet articles about the card.


It also seems to be missing some cards... so I agree, on closer  
investigation, it's probably not the best resource for this info.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



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

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

On 14 Aug 2006, at 2:00 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:


No Darcy. It is the 9000 Pro (or at least was
advertised as such by the manufacturer)


Okay -- I didn't see a mobility version of the 9000 Pro listed in the  
Wikipedia pages, but I guess the entries aren't as complete as we'd  
like.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_9000


but the X600
is not the Pro version. As I said before, the memory
speeds reported are very close between the two cards.


Similarly, I didn't see any non-pro versions of the X600 in  
Wikipedia. They show only two models, the X600 Pro and the X600 XT  
(which is actually faster than the Pro).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_X600


I said that I don't see a difference visually, but
considering we're talking about black and white
graphics in PrintMusic/Finale (not SmartMusic), it's a
little hard to conclude that nothing is different.


Fair enough.


Not if certain enhancements are being applied that
just aren't terribly obvious.


Also fair enough -- but it seems to me that if the visual  
enhancements aren't terribly obvious, but totally kill performance,  
then they shouldn't really be implemented on cards that can't handle  
the extra workload -- and that either the OS or the driver should  
really take this factor into account. Ideally, if your video card was  
crawling along at 2 fps, the OS would adjust the graphics  
acceleration features on the fly to improve performance. Most games  
are capable of these automatic adjustments.


I also had several people who seemed to be in a position to know  
assure me that ATI uses the same set of drivers across the line. Not  
just the same installer -- the same exact drivers. According to them,  
if your drivers are up-to-date, you can pop out one ATI card and  
replace it with another without needing to reinstall any drivers.  
(They said the same was true of nVidia, as well.) So I think it's at  
least within the realm of possibility that maxing out the slider is  
causing your X600 to enable features it is *technically* capable of,  
but not really designed to do very efficiently.



I'm pretty positive that I can try this on just about
any PC and find that there will be a decrease in
performance.


I'm actually quite curious what would happen if you tried messing  
with this slider on a PC with a 7300 GT or better!



Making guesses at this point is just silly though. The
key test would be to get a hold of a computer that has
a video card with memory that runs at 3 to 4 times the
speed of these cards (which today's best cards have)
and see how it performs with two cards of 2 different
memory speeds.


Yes -- on this point, we are in absolute agreement.

Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



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

Re: Tech support was Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

[Tyler Turner]

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > Contact the techsupport people at makemusic's
> web-site, but be
> > forewarned that they designed it so as to
> discourage any but the most
> > irate and determined customers from actually
> completing the process.
> > Unless they have revamped it recently, that is.
> 

Actually they've designed it so that they don't get
completely ridiculous amounts of spam. It was getting
worse by the day when I left support 3 years ago. I'd
easily spend 30 minutes or more in the morning just
going through and deleting spam e-mails, e-mails with
virus attachments, etc. As I understand it, the
problem had become exponentially worse. The new system
is nice in that it actually assigns case numbers and
gets people to include useful information which
results in more productive support. It also ensures
that the people who are paying for products are
getting first priority - something that was never
possible to achieve with the old e-mail system. You
spend a little extra time filling out your support
request, but you get your answers faster in return.

Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Tyler Turner]

--- Darcy James Argue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Oops -- sorry, I definitely misread the memory speed
> thing (it's  
> given differently at each Wiki page). The X600 does
> not have 2.4  
> times the memory speed, it has 1.2 times the memory
> speed. My bad.

It's not even 1.2 times. I don't trust this Wikipedia
page. It's not reporting the same speeds as reported
by my system, and it's not reporting the same speeds I
see listed in other internet articles about the card.

Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Tech support was Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

[Don Hart]

Recently I got through to tech support and received their initial reply
relatively easily.  I'm pretty sure I replied with an additional question (I
could be mistaken) but never heard anymore from them.  Looking up the case
archive, it ends with their first reply.

Anyway, my question to you, and anyone else who has experienced the problems
you're describing is where does the process actually break down?  Is the
initial contact easy, like in my experience, and the real, nitty-gritty
answers hard to come by?  Or have you found the whole process difficult,
from start to finish?

Thanks,

Don Hart


on 8/14/06 10:02 AM, dhbailey at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Contact the techsupport people at makemusic's web-site, but be
> forewarned that they designed it so as to discourage any but the most
> irate and determined customers from actually completing the process.
> Unless they have revamped it recently, that is.

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

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Tyler Turner]

--- Darcy James Argue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> According to this  Radeon_9000#Mobility>, the Radeon 9000 Mobility is
> based on the R200  
> core, has a fillrate of just 800 MT/s, its clock
> speed is 200 MHz and  
> its memory speed is 250 MHz. (I'm assuming you have
> the 9000 and not  
> the 9000 Pro). Whereas the X600 Pro is based on a
> more powerful  
> chipset (R300 core), has twice the clock speed and
> (from what I can  
> tell) 2.4 times the memory speed, and twice the
> fillrate.

No Darcy. It is the 9000 Pro (or at least was
advertised as such by the manufacturer), but the X600
is not the Pro version. As I said before, the memory
speeds reported are very close between the two cards.


> Since you said there was no difference in image
> quality from having  
> the graphics acceleration slider down vs. up, it
> sure sounds like  
> *something* (badly written driver? Some quirk of
> SmartMusic?) is  
> causing a massive and unnecessary slowdown on your
> X600 -- so much so  
> that it's getting spanked by a much slower graphics
> card.

I said that I don't see a difference visually, but
considering we're talking about black and white
graphics in PrintMusic/Finale (not SmartMusic), it's a
little hard to conclude that nothing is different.

> If the  
> extra work being asked of your X600 is killing
> performance and not  
> actually improving image quality, to me that sounds
> like a software  
> problem and not a hardware problem, especially if
> the slowdown is  
> only in selected applications. 

Not if certain enhancements are being applied that
just aren't terribly obvious. And keep in mind that I
said that both cards exhibit a dramatic decrease in
speed. It's just a greater decrease in the case of the
X600 with all features enabled than with the 9000 Pro
with all features enabled. Even with the 9000 Pro the
decrease is going from around 10fps down to about
2fps.

> When I did my own Googling on this, I found lots of
> references to  
> people who found that backing off one notch on the
> graphics  
> acceleration slider dramatically increased
> performance in selected  
> applications. According to these user reports, in
> some cases, an  
> update to the application fixed the problem; in
> other cases, an  
> updated driver did. I know you have the latest ATI
> drivers, but of  
> course that's not to say they are necessarily 100%
> bug-free.

I'm pretty positive that I can try this on just about
any PC and find that there will be a decrease in
performance. We're clearly adding more work for the
GPU. Since my cards are similar in memory speed
performance, and since we've read that this is a key
factor for 2D performance, it's not far-fetched to
guess that any extra work repeated many times over
could be enough to switch things around.

Making guesses at this point is just silly though. The
key test would be to get a hold of a computer that has
a video card with memory that runs at 3 to 4 times the
speed of these cards (which today's best cards have)
and see how it performs with two cards of 2 different
memory speeds.


Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

[Michael Good]

> I wonder how MusicXML export works for linked score/parts in Finale?

If you use the MusicXML export on the File menu, then it exports
whatever is in your current document - either the score or the part.

With the full version of Dolet 3 for Finale, you can only export the
score since Finale 2007 disables the Plug-ins menu when you view a
part. It would work fine for the part if the Plug-ins menu worked.

MusicXML 1.1 has no concept of "linked parts" or "dynamic parts", so
the score and each part need to be in separate MusicXML files.

Best regards,

Michael Good
Recordare LLC
www.recordare.com



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

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

According to this , the Radeon 9000 Mobility is based on the  
R200 core, has a fillrate of just 800 MT/s, its clock speed is 200  
MHz and its memory speed is 250 MHz. (I'm assuming you have the  
9000 and not the 9000 Pro). Whereas the X600 Pro is based on a more  
powerful chipset (R300 core), has twice the clock speed and (from  
what I can tell) 2.4 times the memory speed, and twice the fillrate.


Oops -- sorry, I definitely misread the memory speed thing (it's  
given differently at each Wiki page). The X600 does not have 2.4  
times the memory speed, it has 1.2 times the memory speed. My bad.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



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

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

[Darcy James Argue]

Hey all,

The client eventually decided to prepare the parts himself using  
Logic's notation capabilities. He's a good and literate musician and  
knows exactly what the notation should look like, so that was never  
an issue. He was just looking to shave some time off the project, but  
after discussing it with him, it seemed like going from Logic to  
Finale would burn more time than it saved.


He knows that the parts won't look as good as they would if I did  
them in Finale, but time is extremely short and that seemed like the  
most streamlined solution, at least to the client.


Thanks for all the tips, though. I will save these emails, as I'm  
sure this situation will come up again.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY


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

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

On 14 Aug 2006, at 4:17 AM, Tyler Turner wrote:


Oh, one more question...

I don't believe you ever specified, but all along
I've been assuming
that the computer with the Radeon X600 is
outperforming the computer
with the Radeon 9000 (in Finale, with the hardware
acceleration
slider up). Do I have that right?


No, it went the other way. The 3.0 GHz machine with
the Radeon 9000 was significantly slower than the
3.2GHz machine with the X600 with the acceleration
off. After turning on all of the features, the 3.0GHz
machine outperforms the 3.2GHz machine. This is the
reason I believe that we're seeing the effect of more
features being enabled for the X600. It's not a
dramatically faster card than the 9000 (especially in
terms of memory speed, which that article told us is
the critical factor for 2D performance), and the
PrintMusic file I tested has a ton of material on the
page that would make any extra work being performed on
a particular object be performed a great number of
times.


Okay, so what you're saying is that the *slower* video card (Radeon  
9000) is actually outperforming the *faster* video card (Radeon  
X600)... that's a pretty pertinent point, don't you think?


According to this , the Radeon 9000 Mobility is based on the R200  
core, has a fillrate of just 800 MT/s, its clock speed is 200 MHz and  
its memory speed is 250 MHz. (I'm assuming you have the 9000 and not  
the 9000 Pro). Whereas the X600 Pro is based on a more powerful  
chipset (R300 core), has twice the clock speed and (from what I can  
tell) 2.4 times the memory speed, and twice the fillrate.


[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units]


So if the slower card is dramatically outperforming the faster card,  
it would appear that something very screwy is going on. I think  
you're right that more features are being enabled via the slider. But  
this is why I wanted to know what those features *were* -- the slider  
should (theoretically) be smart enough not to swamp your video card  
with a bunch of unnecessary extra work.


Since you said there was no difference in image quality from having  
the graphics acceleration slider down vs. up, it sure sounds like  
*something* (badly written driver? Some quirk of SmartMusic?) is  
causing a massive and unnecessary slowdown on your X600 -- so much so  
that it's getting spanked by a much slower graphics card. If the  
extra work being asked of your X600 is killing performance and not  
actually improving image quality, to me that sounds like a software  
problem and not a hardware problem, especially if the slowdown is  
only in selected applications. (You did mention that other apps on  
your computer required the hardware slider to be all the way up for  
maximum performance.)


When I did my own Googling on this, I found lots of references to  
people who found that backing off one notch on the graphics  
acceleration slider dramatically increased performance in selected  
applications. According to these user reports, in some cases, an  
update to the application fixed the problem; in other cases, an  
updated driver did. I know you have the latest ATI drivers, but of  
course that's not to say they are necessarily 100% bug-free.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



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

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[Phil Daley]

At 8/14/2006 11:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>If your complaint is that they do not make it clear before you purchase,
>then I agree, but then 90% of business software on the market today falls
>short in the disclosure of performance requirements.  But that's just my
>humble opinion..

Probably one of the few places Microsoft is far better than others.

Vista requires 512MB RAM.

I installed it on a system with only 384MB.  No problems with the install 
and no problems running it, even with a memory hog like AutoCAD.


It does run slowly, I assume because of all the Virtual Memory swapping stuff.

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



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

Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

[Robert Patterson]

Tyler Turner wrote:



While obviously not ideal from a user's perspective,
blocking plug-ins from being run while in a linked
part is a fairly effective means of protecting the
majority of users.


Perhaps it is fairly effective for the majority of users. I doubt if it 
will be very effective for the majority of those users who use plugins.


I can count on one hand the number of plugins that add staves, including 
one of mine. It is the simplest change in the world to modify those 
plugins to hit the "Score" menu item to force the file into score view 
before executing. I submit that this would have been no more difficult 
to implement and far more effective at preventing the problem. (And 
since I could do it, it obviously didn't require any PDK changes.)


The current implementation is an annoying barrier yet utterly 
ineffectual at preventing the problem. I hope MM gets trounced for it. 
As far as I can tell, they consulted no one outside the company before 
making this fool's choice.


--
Robert Patterson

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

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[richard.bartkus]

> On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 17:41 -0400, James Gilbert wrote:
> Why should a notation software program require sooo much RAM in the first 
> place?

True, if all we expected of FINALE was purely notation; no conversions, no 
links from parts to the score, etc.  then it could run in less memory.  Every 
time some fuctionality is added, additional run-time memory is required for the 
additional lines of code in the application.  

I believe that Finale NotePad runs with much lower RAM requirements, if memory 
is a greater issue than enhancements.

If your complaint is that they do not make it clear before you purchase, then I 
agree, but then 90% of business software on the market today falls short in the 
disclosure of performance requirements.  But that's just my humble opinion..

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

Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

[Tyler Turner]

--- dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
> The fact that the plug-ins are grayed out in parts
> mode was discussed on 
> this list this past week.  Nobody on the list knows
> whether it's a bug 
> or a feature, but we're hoping that Finale will fix
> things in the 
> interim release they always bring out (some years
> sooner than others).

It was definitely intentional, and the reasoning was
because the ability for plug-ins to add staves to
linked parts could cause data corruption. If you add a
staff to a linked part, you'll see that the staff
doesn't exist in the score. It doesn't even show up in
all of the same places as normal staves in the Manage
Parts dialog. Originally they intended to disable only
the plug-ins that could add staves, but it turned out
to not be technically possible for them to do this.

I'll be surprised if we don't see more work done in
this area in a 2007 update.

While obviously not ideal from a user's perspective,
blocking plug-ins from being run while in a linked
part is a fairly effective means of protecting the
majority of users. None of the included Finale
plug-ins that would have been likely to catch
unsuspecting users are modal. FinaleScript is the only
included plug-in that can do this, and I'm guessing
the number of users that are using FinaleScript to run
an Add Staff command can probably be counted on one
hand. And even if a few people figure out that they
can sneak a staff in by starting in score view,
starting FinaleScript, switching to a part and using
an Add Staff script, as far as I can tell it's not
going to be a definite disaster for their file (I had
experimented with using added staves to create some
interesting workarounds).

-Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

[dhbailey]

Paul Copeland wrote:

G’day everyone.

 


I have just installed Finale 2007.

 


I have Windows XP Home edition.

 

When I create parts and then go to plugins for a part, none of the 
plugins are highlighted.


 


How can I get the plugins to work with parts?



The fact that the plug-ins are grayed out in parts mode was discussed on 
this list this past week.  Nobody on the list knows whether it's a bug 
or a feature, but we're hoping that Finale will fix things in the 
interim release they always bring out (some years sooner than others).


Some modeless plug-ins (I guess those are the ones which remain visible 
on screen even when not in use?) apparently will work on the parts, but 
you have to start them in score view.


Contact the techsupport people at makemusic's web-site, but be 
forewarned that they designed it so as to discourage any but the most 
irate and determined customers from actually completing the process. 
Unless they have revamped it recently, that is.


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

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

[Christopher Smith]

On Aug 13, 2006, at 7:35 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:


Hello,

It's possible I may need to create Finale files based on a client's  
Logic (sequencer) files. I've never done this before, so I have  
some questions:


1) I assume the fasted way to go would be to have Finale import  
MIDI files exported from Logic. Is there anything the client should  
do (in terms of quantization or whatever) to make this process easier?




THe client should quantize everything in Logic to within an inch of  
its life, to the exact rhythmic values and lengths that the musicians  
will be seeing on the parts, before exporting the MIDI file. This is  
actually impossible, as the client probably doesn't know what you  
know about communicating note lengths to musicians (quarter with  
stacatto, or eighth note eighth rest?) so the best bet is for YOU to  
have Logic and the original file and change quantizations inside  
Logic before exporting. If the client is as rushed as they usually  
are, they won't even be able to do that, so you will have to do it,  
basing your decisions on your ears. In fact, I don't think it is  
possible to do this job properly without Logic and the client's file,  
and an audio file as well, because there are octave displacements to  
worry about and note lengths, and countless other musical questions  
that might be different on your system.


Someone else mentioned overlapped (legato) notes, which are a huge  
pain, and can be minimised by using a legato edit function. I don't  
know what this would be in Logic, but I used it extensively in Cubase  
on single-note parts. Chorded parts are impossible.


In files I have gotten, sometimes the composer "freetimes", that is  
to say, ignores the click for a short passage. Good luck with these  
passages!


2) What would be the recommended settings for importing the MIDI  
files into Finale?




There is no such thing. My advice is to create hotkeys for the  
Quantise dialogue box, and also for the Rettranscribe option in Mass  
Edit, as you will be doing these two things quite a bit on individual  
measures once the file is imported. You might even re-open the entire  
file with new quantise options, as it would be quicker than editing  
every measure.


You will quickly get very good at selecting quantise options, I predict.

You will also edit individual measures extensively, sometimes to the  
point of getting out a pencil and staff paper (say for piano or harp  
parts), as one other respondent mentioned. String parts are often  
entered as blocks of chords, and you have to work out divisions and  
voice-leading from these blocks, as the number of pitches often changes.



3) Does anyone have any useful tips for efficiently cleaning up the  
notation of the imported MIDI files?


Finale uses the settings in the Maestro Default file for importing  
MIDI files, so my usual second step is copying the staves to my own  
score template.


If you think you can work from your own Maestro Default, then so much  
the better.


Charge by the hour, as this will encourage the client to give you  
files that are as clean as possible.


Karen (sorry I don't know her last name, is it Guthery? goes by  
laloba in her email) does a lot of this, and we had a long exchange a  
year and a half ago on this subject.


I will forward you our exchanges off list. One thing she said is that  
the client expects the results to sound good, so you do what you can,  
even if it takes you outside the realm of strict transcription. I  
take this to mean things like a single flute line in a fortissimo  
sequence might be transcribed as octaves in a full woodwind section,  
etc.


Christopher



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

[Finale] Using plugins with parts

[Paul Copeland]

G’day everyone.

 

I have just installed Finale 2007.

 

I have Windows XP Home edition.

 

When I create parts and then go to plugins for a part, none
of the plugins are highlighted.

 

How can I get the plugins to work with parts?

 

Many thanks for your help.

 

Paul Copeland

http://members.sibeliusmusic.com/pianoedition

www.mp3.com.au/paulcopeland

www.geocities.com/Vienna/1153

http://www.lulu.com/pianoedition

 

 






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

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 14.08.2006 Richard Smith wrote:

I respond to Finale much as you do to Sibelius. I think it's just that I am 
more familiar with Sibelius. Having customized Finale to reflect your own 
manner of working is best. Similarly I have programmed Sibelius keyboard 
commands for my laptop to accommodate the absence of the number keypad.


I just wished that Finale's keyboard commands other than Simple were 
programmable as well...


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] Finale 2007 review

[Robert Patterson]

Richard Smith wrote:


I would like the first two beats of the measure to have the second 
violin part in voice 2. I don't want the entire bar in voice 2 because 
it's a piano part and I don't want unneeded stems hanging around. 


For this kind of short polyphony I would use V1/V2 rather than layers. 
V1/V2 is an entirely different mechanism than layers, with its own set 
of quirks and limitations, but it handles the situation Richard 
described very well.


You can also do it with layers by filling only half the 2nd layer and/or 
hiding rests and freezing stems & ties as needed. But V1/V1 is so easy, 
why bother.


It seems many do not know about v1/v2. This was Finale's original 
mechanism for showing polyphony on a single staff. Since layers were 
introduced (fairly early on), the program always pushes you towards 
layers. But v1/v2 is still fully supported.


In your particular example, in Speedy enter the half note first. Then 
position the Speedy cursor back over the half note you just entered. 
(Over, because the half note will be the second part.) Hit the 
single-quote key. This toggles you to V2, and you should see "V2" in a 
corner of the Speedy window. Now enter the top part, the dotted quarter 
8th. Then toggle back to V1 (with the single-quote key) and enter the 
rest of the measure as 2-note chords, or whatever.


--
Robert Patterson

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

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

[Aaron Sherber]

At 08:59 AM 8/14/2006, Richard Smith wrote:
>I hesitate to point out that simple entry
>was a response to Sibelius' note entry methods (v. 2004 I believe). When
>I upgraded to 2005 it was specifically to get simple entry.

Well, Simple Entry had been around in Finale for a long time before 
that. But you're right that the way it works was greatly revised in 
2004, largely following the lead of Sibelius.


Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

[Richard Smith]

My Finale experience goes back about 1991 or so. I remember when nearly 
everyone used speedy entry nearly all of the time. Finale's new simple 
entry is indeed quite good. I hesitate to point out that simple entry 
was a response to Sibelius' note entry methods (v. 2004 I believe). When 
I upgraded to 2005 it was specifically to get simple entry.


I respond to Finale much as you do to Sibelius. I think it's just that I 
am more familiar with Sibelius. Having customized Finale to reflect your 
own manner of working is best. Similarly I have programmed Sibelius 
keyboard commands for my laptop to accommodate the absence of the number 
keypad.


This is exactly what I mean when I say Sibelius "thinks" like me. In 
your case, it sounds like Finale "thinks" more like you.


Richard Smith
www.rgsmithmusic.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Tyler Turner wrote:

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

  

I think I was unclear about the Keypad in Sibelius.
Most of the time 
(laptop on the go excluded) I use the 10 key pad on
the keyboard. 
Clicking on the "toolbar" on the screen is slower.
The features I like 
to have close at hand are almost all on the top tab
on the keypad (or in 
the right click context menu). Others working
differently or with 
different musical requirements might have a
different experience. In 
general, Sibelius works better with more keyboard
and less mousing and 
has extensive keyboard shortcuts.



Keyboard shortcuts are a big reason that I prefer
Finale to Sibelius. The keypad system in Sibelius is
not as efficient as Simple Entry in Finale. There are
some elements that Sibelius allows to be entered via
keystroke that Finale does not, but these are not the
most common elements. For the most common elements,
Finale's system is faster. (and actually, for the
other elements, I've created my own system for working
with Finale that is more efficient than Sibelius).

Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___

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



  
begin:vcard
fn:Richard Smith
n:Smith;Richard
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
url:http://www.rgsmithmusic.com
version:2.1
end:vcard

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

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[Phil Daley]

At 8/14/2006 06:43 AM, dhbailey wrote:

>Since James' machine appears to meet the stated RAM requirements, I'm
>beginning to wonder if one of the following is actually the case:
>1) in typical fashion (typical of programs more than just Finale) the
>actual problem is something else and the wrong error message has popped up;
>2) James misread the error message and it was actually referring to
>available hard-disk space;
>3) James was trying to install the Garritan stuff, which may require
>more RAM to be available (in addition to more hard disk space);
>
>Perhaps he could be more exact in the wording of the error message?

Also, he could try boosting the Virtual Memory setting.

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



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

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

[dhbailey]

Richard Smith wrote:
I'm not sure Sibelius is better than Finale at midi import. Both seem to 
make quite a mess of it. in my experience, Sibelius seems to leave more 
"debris" around while Finale gives a cleaner initial look but tends to 
"truncate" complex data.


MusicXML is very effective but, unlike Finale, Sibelius requires you to 
buy the full plug-in to export MusicXML. So if you don't have the 
plug-in, this may not be a good choice.  Importing MusicXMLis, however, 
free and has become the best method for moving from Finale to Sibelius.




And I'm convinced they licensed this technology from Recordare precisely 
because it was becoming much harder to get the ETF format to import 
correctly -- Sibelius was always a couple of versions behind the current 
Finale, when it came to importing.  With MusicXML, especially since 
Finale has MusicXML export (I wonder why they don't eliminate this the 
way that Sibelius ships without it, precisely to make moving from Finale 
to Sibelius more difficult?), there is no need for Sibelius to waste 
development dollars trying to keep up with Finale's file format.


With Finale2007, that would have become near to impossible, what with 
the linked scores/parts in the same file and no more export-to-ETF 
capability.


I wonder how MusicXML export works for linked score/parts in Finale?

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

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

[dhbailey]

Richard Smith wrote:
[snip]> because one of the two comes closer to the way we think about 
music. I'm

glad both [Sibelius and Finale] are so mature and capable.

[snip]

Amen to that, Richard -- without Sibelius, Finale wouldn't have become 
anything near the program it is today, and without Finale, Sibelius 
wouldn't have any reason to keep on working to improve.


The computer notation field is very different today (and far better than 
it might otherwise be) because of it, compared to when I first bought 
Finale, back in 1992 or so.


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

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[dhbailey]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 13 Aug 2006 at 19:30, Tyler Turner wrote:


--- "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


None of that makes any sense. Why would an installer
check the RAM 
available when it's *running* rather than the
*installed* RAM? 
Perhaps you're right, though, if the system RAM
grabbed by the 
onboard devices is showing up as unavailable. I
don't know how those 
kinds of things work, since I'd never buy a system
that is so poorly 
designed as to be using system RAM for those

purposes.

I believe if you look at the amount of memory reported
by Windows as being installed on the system, system
memory that has been dedicated to video will not be
reported. So a system with 256MB of Ram with
integrated video that uses 32MB from this will only
report that it has 224MB of memory. If the program
isn't installing and is reporting that the computer
doesn't have enough memory, this would be my guess as
to what's going on.


James has already reported that this does not apply to his system, 
that there are no devices utilizing system RAM, so it's not the 
reason Finale is refusing to install.


I have no experience with such machines, as I would never buy one or 
allow one of my clients to buy one.




Since James' machine appears to meet the stated RAM requirements, I'm 
beginning to wonder if one of the following is actually the case:
1) in typical fashion (typical of programs more than just Finale) the 
actual problem is something else and the wrong error message has popped up;
2) James misread the error message and it was actually referring to 
available hard-disk space;
3) James was trying to install the Garritan stuff, which may require 
more RAM to be available (in addition to more hard disk space);


Perhaps he could be more exact in the wording of the error message?

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

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

[Matthew Hindson Fastmail acct]

Darcy James Argue wrote:



It's possible I may need to create Finale files based on a client's  
Logic (sequencer) files. I've never done this before, so I have some  
questions:


1) I assume the fasted way to go would be to have Finale import MIDI  
files exported from Logic. Is there anything the client should do (in  
terms of quantization or whatever) to make this process easier?


2) What would be the recommended settings for importing the MIDI  
files into Finale?


3) Does anyone have any useful tips for efficiently cleaning up the  
notation of the imported MIDI files?


Answers to these questions, plus any other advice/input, would be  
greatly appreciated.


I do this regularly.  Honestly, the quickest way is to print out all the 
parts individually and then re-enter them into Finale.


Then send a feature request to Apple requesting MusicXML import/export 
from Logic.


Logic has a semi-nice feature called "Interpret" which makes pretty good 
sense of the normal MIDI mumbo-jumbo.  I'm not sure if there's a way to 
imprint this interpretation onto the MIDI itself.


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

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Tyler Turner]

--- Darcy James Argue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Oh, one more question...
> 
> I don't believe you ever specified, but all along
> I've been assuming  
> that the computer with the Radeon X600 is
> outperforming the computer  
> with the Radeon 9000 (in Finale, with the hardware
> acceleration  
> slider up). Do I have that right?

No, it went the other way. The 3.0 GHz machine with
the Radeon 9000 was significantly slower than the
3.2GHz machine with the X600 with the acceleration
off. After turning on all of the features, the 3.0GHz
machine outperforms the 3.2GHz machine. This is the
reason I believe that we're seeing the effect of more
features being enabled for the X600. It's not a
dramatically faster card than the 9000 (especially in
terms of memory speed, which that article told us is
the critical factor for 2D performance), and the
PrintMusic file I tested has a ton of material on the
page that would make any extra work being performed on
a particular object be performed a great number of
times.

-Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale