date:20060817

The CD installation is 2 discs. Given a choice I would have chosen DVD.

> -Original Message-
> From: Dean M. Estabrook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 09:04 PM
> To: finale@shsu.edu
> Subject: Re: [Finale] Installation diffs
> 
> Tyro question, I know ... what's the diff/advantages between CD ROM  
> and DVD installation disks? I ordered the first.
> 
> Dean
> 
> 
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
> 


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

Re: [Finale] Installation diffs

2006-08-17 Thread Dean M. Estabrook

Tyro question, I know ... what's the diff/advantages between CD ROM  
and DVD installation disks? I ordered the first.


Dean


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

Re: [Finale] 2K4-->2K7

Especially if you have a whole industry which survives on upgrades 
dragging on your coattails!  ;-)


David H. Bailey




Eric Dannewitz wrote:
True. But Steve also knows that to move forward you need to leave the 
past behind.


dhbailey wrote:

Phil Daley wrote:
And, I'll just point out that, my Windows Finale V3 runs perfectly on 
Vista.


Mac users are forced to upgrade all the time . . .




that's because Steve Jobs has such a long way to go before his wealth 
will equal Bill Gates's.  ;-)




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




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

Re: [Finale] 2K4-->2K7

2006-08-17 Thread Eric Dannewitz

True. But Steve also knows that to move forward you need to leave the 
past behind.


dhbailey wrote:

Phil Daley wrote:
And, I'll just point out that, my Windows Finale V3 runs perfectly on 
Vista.


Mac users are forced to upgrade all the time . . .




that's because Steve Jobs has such a long way to go before his wealth 
will equal Bill Gates's.  ;-)




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

Re: [Finale] update staff distance


On 17.08.2006 dhbailey wrote:

Can't you just use the staff tool in page view and drag the upper handle to 
move the bass staff down to where you need it, while still optimized?


You are of course correct, my mind was just blank...

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] update staff distance


On 17.08.2006 Dejan Badnjar wrote:

Just drag the top box down or use stuff usage box to set it to -300 from the
viola stuff.



I forgot about the top box.

The staff usage box doesn't seem to work that way though, it seems to 
work from the top.


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] update staff distance


Johannes Gebauer wrote:

Is there a solution to this:

I have an optimized score, and I cannot un-optimize. However, after 
entering figures I need more space between the lowest two systems, ie I 
want to set the distance between the bass staff and the viola staff to 
300 EVPUs for all (optimized) systems. Is there a way to do this without 
losing the optimization (ie hidden parts)?


Johannes


I thought that in page view, on an optimized score there were two 
handles at the left end of the staff -- the lower one would affect only 
that particular staff in that particular system, while the upper handle 
would affect all of those staves throughout all the systems.


Can't you just use the staff tool in page view and drag the upper handle 
to move the bass staff down to where you need it, while still optimized?


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

Re: [Finale] 2K4-->2K7


Phil Daley wrote:
And, I'll just point out that, my Windows Finale V3 runs perfectly on 
Vista.


Mac users are forced to upgrade all the time . . .




that's because Steve Jobs has such a long way to go before his wealth 
will equal Bill Gates's.  ;-)


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

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

Well, they might if you sent the request to MakeMusic.  This list is 
completely independent of MakeMusic.  To place a request for tech 
support with MakeMusic, you have to go to www.finalemusic.com and click 
on the support link and follow the appropriate links to place your request.


David H. Bailey

P.S. I thought I read some helpful hints and suggestions for possible 
solutions in replies to your message on this list, although I don't know 
if any of them would actually have helped you.


Brad Nelson wrote:
I sent the message below on Monday Aug. 14.  I received an automated 
response from you saying I would hear back with 1 business day.  It's 
been 4 dayscan someone at MakeMusic give me some help?


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 (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



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

Re: [Finale] 2K4-->2K7


dc wrote:

Andrew Stiller écrit:
All versions of FinMac older than 2K4 are absolutely unusable on any 
computer currently manufactured. Small or not, antiquarian interest is 
the only reason I can fathom to keep any of them around.


But when you get your new Intel Mac, you can go back to any old version 
of Finale, way back to... what is the oldest version that will run on 
current versions of Windows?


Dennis


Remember, though, that only the recent versions have shipped with both 
Windows and Mac on the same installation disks.  Until then, you had to 
get either the Mac or Windows version, and I believe had to pay a 
cross-grade fee to switch platforms (although I may be remembering this 
wrong.)


So Andrew may well not be able to install versions as early as you are 
suggesting because he wouldn't have the appropriate windows installation 
disks.



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

RE: [Finale] update staff distance

2006-08-17 Thread Dejan Badnjar

Just drag the top box down or use stuff usage box to set it to -300 from the
viola stuff.

Dejan Badnjar
Musette Desktop Music Publishing
1 Eastview Cres.
Orangeville, Ontario
L9W 4X3
CANADA
Tel.: (519) 942-0407
Fax: (519) 942-4417
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Johannes Gebauer
Sent: August 17, 2006 12:59 PM
To: Finale
Subject: [Finale] update staff distance

Is there a solution to this:

I have an optimized score, and I cannot un-optimize. However, after 
entering figures I need more space between the lowest two systems, ie I 
want to set the distance between the bass staff and the viola staff to 
300 EVPUs for all (optimized) systems. Is there a way to do this without 
losing the optimization (ie hidden parts)?

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

[Finale] Finale 2007 demo available?

2006-08-17 Thread shirling & neueweise



anyone know when?

--

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] 2K4-->2K7

2006-08-17 Thread Darcy James Argue

When did .mus files become cross-platform? For all files created  
before that date, you would have to first save all your Mac .mus  
files as ETF on a classic-capable Mac, and then somehow obtain a copy  
of the older Finale version(s) for Windows, and finally convert the  
ETF file to a Windows .mus. Not only is all of this an enormous pain,  
I don't think it actually gives you a cleaner conversion then just  
updating your .mus files the usual way.


Cheers,

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



On 17 Aug 2006, at 1:04 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:


On 17.08.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote:
No, you can't. The MacIntels do not run Classic at all. The oldest  
version of Finale that will run on a MacIntel is Fin2004.


Not using BootCamp.
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] 2K4-->2K7


On 17.08.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote:

No, you can't. The MacIntels do not run Classic at all. The oldest version of 
Finale that will run on a MacIntel is Fin2004.


Not using BootCamp.
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] Enharmonic spelling and parts

2006-08-17 Thread John Howell


At 6:58 AM -0400 8/17/06, dhbailey wrote:


I think that this is the dichotomy between "classical" (or Dennis's 
"non-pop") music and pop/jazz music.


In a string quartet or a recorder consort or a brass quintet or 
orchestra, I agree with Johannes that it would lead to confusion.


Case in point:  Some years back I was coaching a student recorder 
consort (and playing tenor with them).  I didn't realize how well I 
had coached them to adjust their intonation to pure intervals until 
we decided to try a 20th century trio, and nothing worked!  The music 
required equal temperament, and we had to make a real effort to 
adjust our pitches.  Good lesson for us all.


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

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


Yes...
But, this list does not send automated responses.
Except to say you are not a list member?
That's why I wondered where he sent the original message to.

At 8/17/2006 12:59 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
  
MakeMusic doesn't run this list.
There are just a bunch of interested users here. If you didn't get an
answer, it's most likely that nobody knew what to tell you.
For a problem of this magnitude, I would get on the phone to MakeMusic
tech support, wait through the hold, and get an answer fast.
(952) 937-9703, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm CST Monday to Friday. You pay only
long distance charges. Have your serial number ready.
Christopher

On Aug 17, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Brad Nelson wrote:
I sent the
message below on Monday Aug. 14.  I received an automated response
from you saying I would hear back with 1 business day.  It's been 4
dayscan someone at MakeMusic give me some help?



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




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

[Finale] update staff distance


Is there a solution to this:

I have an optimized score, and I cannot un-optimize. However, after 
entering figures I need more space between the lowest two systems, ie I 
want to set the distance between the bass staff and the viola staff to 
300 EVPUs for all (optimized) systems. Is there a way to do this without 
losing the optimization (ie hidden parts)?


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] 2K4-->2K7

At 8/17/2006 12:53 PM, dc wrote:

>Eric Dannewitz écrit:
>>I think he meant that you can use an Intel Mac, put Windows on it, and
>>then, if you really wanted, run a Windows version of Finale
>
>Yes, that's what I meant. Actually, I don't think there's any version too
>old to run under Windows. Of course, that means converting files to ETF for
>anything older than... (fill in the blank).

Interesting . . .

I think I might have the Windows Finale V1 disks . . . somewhere.

Since I am a pack rabbit, I have a zillion floppy disks dating back to 1982.

The more I think about it, they may be V2.

Anyway, if I run across them, I will try an install on Vista.

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

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

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

MakeMusic doesn't run this list. There are just a bunch of interested users here. If you didn't get an answer, it's most likely that nobody knew what to tell you.For a problem of this magnitude, I would get on the phone to MakeMusic tech support, wait through the hold, and get an answer fast.(952) 937-9703, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm CST Monday to Friday. You pay only long distance charges. Have your serial number ready.ChristopherOn Aug 17, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Brad Nelson wrote: I sent the message below on Monday Aug. 14. I received an automated response from you saying I would hear back with 1 business day. It's been 4 dayscan someone at MakeMusic give me some help? 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 listFinale@shsu.eduhttp://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!


At 8/17/2006 12:45 PM, Brad Nelson wrote:
  
I sent the
message below on Monday Aug. 14.  I received an automated response
from you saying I would hear back with 1 business day.  It's been 4
dayscan someone at MakeMusic give me some
help?
Where did you send the message to?


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




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

Re: [Finale] 2K4-->2K7


And, I'll just point out that, my Windows Finale V3 runs perfectly on Vista.

Mac users are forced to upgrade all the time . . .


At 8/17/2006 12:41 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:

>It's a true statement on the Mac side. All the Macs currently being made
>are Intel, and do not boot into OS 9 anymore.
>
>Robert Patterson wrote:
>> Andrew Stiller écrit:
>>
>>> All versions of FinMac older than 2K4 are absolutely unusable on any
>>> computer currently manufactured. Small or not, antiquarian interest is 
the

>>> only reason I can fathom to keep any of them around.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know about that. Is the Mac line now completely Intel? PPC macs
>can run any version back to Finale v2 (under Classic). It can't run them
>very well, of course. Possibly not even well enough to print from, depending
>on the version.
>>
>> Of course, once Mac has completely converted to Intel, Andrew's statement
>will be true for new Macs. In fact, I'm not sure the registration can run
>properly on Intel for versions before MacFin06d. You may only be able to run
>unregistered versions of Fin04 and Fin05 on Intel Macs. If registration is
>possible for these versions, I'd like to know about it.

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




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

Re: [Finale] 2K4-->2K7


On 17.08.2006 Eric Dannewitz wrote:

I think he meant that you can use an Intel Mac, put Windows on it, and then, if 
you really wanted, run a Windows version of Finale


Which would also require ownership of such an old Windows version, which 
Andrew almost certainly doesn't have. Crossplatform Installer Discs are 
relatively new...


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] Cued Linked Parts


On 17.08.2006 Andrew Stiller wrote:

In 15 years of intensive Finale use, I have not had occasion to use the Mirror 
tool even once.


I guess you might have had the occasion, but decided to not use it...

I don't actually have to use the mirror _tool_ much, since all I do is 
use MassEdit to mirror, and MassEdit to convert mirrors. Those are the 
two things that are useful, the rest has such an awful UI that I don't 
really spend any time on it.


I actually think the MirrorTool could be useful if it was ever developed 
to its full potential.


Cue notes could well be a subset.

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] Cued Linked Parts

On 17.08.2006 Robert Patterson wrote:

Don Hart:

> Robert, what are your continuing concerns?  Others, to what extent do you
> use mirrors and how does the tool actually perform?

One of the biggest was one that Johannes says has been fixed. Smart shapes did 
not mirror.

Actually, that is not correct. Smart Shapes did mirror, but they were 
lost when extracting parts, and the warning only showed up after 
extraction (I could never see the logic in that). However, the 
workaround was easy enough, as a final step before extracting, select 
all and convert mirrors. This step seems no longer necessary, although I 
have not tried extracting, nor printing parts. But everything looks good 
on screen in part view.

I guess for me the value is not apparent. Copy and paste is much easier than 
mirrors, and by the time I am ready to copy and paste, the chance that I'll be 
revising again is small. Also, I am completely uncomfortable with making 
changes the results of which I don't see on screen, yet that is exactly what 
can happen with mirrors.

Well, I only use mirrors for parts which are identical. The typical 
situation is an 18th century manuscript, where the second violin part 
just doubles the first and is not even written out.

I never used partial mirrors, though, and hardly ever any of the other 
options. Yet, I find the benefit of being able to see the full score 
right from the beginning, and deciding what can be mirrored while 
entering the notes, immense. Mirrors are simply great for this kind of 
thing, but they are definitely only worth the effort for longer passages.

I never use mirrors to mirror a repeated passage, I find that indeed 
copying works better for that. The amount of thinking necessary to use 
them for repeated passages is too much for me...

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] 2K4-->2K7


On 17.08.2006 dc wrote:

But when you get your new Intel Mac, you can go back to any old version of 
Finale, way back to... what is the oldest version that will run on current 
versions of Windows?


Only, since Andrew owns only the Mac versions, he won't actually have 
the Windows versions. Not sure whether MM will let him have them for 
free. Plus, I usually find that the cross-platform troubles with Finale 
files are far greater than the problems updating them. At least as far 
as older Finale versions go.


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] 2K4-->2K7


On 17.08.2006 Andrew Stiller wrote:

Even when you update them, why would you ever discard them ie delete them? 
Finale files take up hardly any space.



All versions of FinMac older than 2K4 are absolutely unusable on any computer 
currently manufactured. Small or not, antiquarian interest is the only reason I 
can fathom to keep any of them around.


I meant the .mus files. But I see what you are talking about. I have 
only got Finale versions back to 2k4 still on my computer, and I am 
about to dump 2k4 and 2k5. But then I had little trouble updating older 
files in the past.


My workflow is different from yours, though. I don't usually have to 
open older files just for printing them, when I do get back to them I 
revise 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] 2K4-->2K7

2006-08-17 Thread Eric Dannewitz

I think he meant that you can use an Intel Mac, put Windows on it, and 
then, if you really wanted, run a Windows version of Finale


Andrew Stiller wrote:


On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:45 AM, dc wrote:


Andrew Stiller écrit:
All versions of FinMac older than 2K4 are absolutely unusable on any 
computer currently manufactured. Small or not, antiquarian interest 
is the only reason I can fathom to keep any of them around.


But when you get your new Intel Mac, you can go back to any old 
version of Finale, way back to... what is the oldest version that 
will run on current versions of Windows?


Dennis


No version of FinMac older than 2K4 will run on Windows, TTBOMK.

--Andrew

___
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] 2K4-->2K7

2006-08-17 Thread Eric Dannewitz

It's a true statement on the Mac side. All the Macs currently being made 
are Intel, and do not boot into OS 9 anymore.


Robert Patterson wrote:

Andrew Stiller écrit:
  
All versions of FinMac older than 2K4 are absolutely unusable on any 
computer currently manufactured. Small or not, antiquarian interest is the 
only reason I can fathom to keep any of them around.



I don't know about that. Is the Mac line now completely Intel? PPC macs can run 
any version back to Finale v2 (under Classic). It can't run them very well, of 
course. Possibly not even well enough to print from, depending on the version.

Of course, once Mac has completely converted to Intel, Andrew's statement will 
be true for new Macs. In fact, I'm not sure the registration can run properly 
on Intel for versions before MacFin06d. You may only be able to run 
unregistered versions of Fin04 and Fin05 on Intel Macs. If registration is 
possible for these versions, I'd like to know about it.
  


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

[Finale] Printing problem - garbage for noteheads!

2006-08-17 Thread Brad Nelson



I sent the message below on Monday Aug.
14.  I received an automated response from you saying I would hear
back with 1 business day.  It's been 4 dayscan someone at
MakeMusic give me some help?
Brad Nelson


HELP!!  I have a commission deadline due tomorrow
I cannot print my score correctly.  All of the noteheads print as
fortisstissimo (FFFs) rather than regular noteheads.  Other symbols
are also strange (ie, whole rest appears as a diamond).  Ive been
using Finale for 9 years with no problemsame computer with Win 98
(2nd Edition), same
printer (HP5000).  Ive 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 Ive created a score
and printed with 2006c.  Ive reinstalled Finale and reloaded fonts
to no avail.  Ive 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] 2K4-->2K7

2006-08-17 Thread Darcy James Argue

No, you can't. The MacIntels do not run Classic at all. The oldest  
version of Finale that will run on a MacIntel is Fin2004.


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



On 17 Aug 2006, at 11:45 AM, dc wrote:


Andrew Stiller écrit:
All versions of FinMac older than 2K4 are absolutely unusable on  
any computer currently manufactured. Small or not, antiquarian  
interest is the only reason I can fathom to keep any of them around.


But when you get your new Intel Mac, you can go back to any old  
version of Finale, way back to... what is the oldest version that  
will run on current versions of Windows?


Dennis


___
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] 2K4-->2K7

2006-08-17 Thread Darcy James Argue


On 17 Aug 2006, at 12:11 PM, Robert Patterson wrote:


Andrew Stiller écrit:

All versions of FinMac older than 2K4 are absolutely unusable on any
computer currently manufactured. Small or not, antiquarian  
interest is the

only reason I can fathom to keep any of them around.


I don't know about that. Is the Mac line now completely Intel?


Yes.

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] If I only had an option



On Aug 17, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Dejan Badnjar wrote:

Can you imagine if Finale 2007 had an option to draw hairpins in  
the Smart Shape Tool/Tab Slide/Smart Line Designer so that you can  
be able to make all instances of dynamic changes (eg. Pf>pp, etc) and display them in a separate menu for selection (with  
metatools), applying them as Pedal markings attached to notes. Talk  
about consistency and accuracy. In my long experience with  
engraving scores this is where you spend most time, and more when  
you do the same thing for extracted parts. I have asked Tobias  
years ago about this. This should really be easy to implement.  
Music Press has similar feature but with separate dynamics and  
hairpins.




Yes, great idea! And probably very easy to implement, as you said.

I experimented with creating a Shape expression with P on one end and  
F on the other and two hand-drawn lines between. It worked, more or  
less, and I could manually stretch it to fit, but I want better  
control over the distances between items than this method gives me.  
The point of the V tends to change as it is dragged, either  
separating or crossing, and the lines increase distance from the P  
and F as it grows. A Smart Shape most likely would not have this  
problem. Plus it is a mighty pain to create in the Shape Designer, a  
primitive tool if I ever saw one.


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] 2K4-->2K7

Andrew Stiller écrit:
>All versions of FinMac older than 2K4 are absolutely unusable on any 
>computer currently manufactured. Small or not, antiquarian interest is the 
>only reason I can fathom to keep any of them around.

I don't know about that. Is the Mac line now completely Intel? PPC macs can run 
any version back to Finale v2 (under Classic). It can't run them very well, of 
course. Possibly not even well enough to print from, depending on the version.

Of course, once Mac has completely converted to Intel, Andrew's statement will 
be true for new Macs. In fact, I'm not sure the registration can run properly 
on Intel for versions before MacFin06d. You may only be able to run 
unregistered versions of Fin04 and Fin05 on Intel Macs. If registration is 
possible for these versions, I'd like to know about it.

As for the 2k4-->2k7 conversion itself, I doubt you will see any problems. I've 
been bringing forward files from as far back as Fin2k without issues. Typically 
I only see significant issues for pre-Fin97 files.

You do need to bring older files forward in stages. I usually import into Fin02 
before bringing into later versions. Fin02 seems to have the best import for 
old files, especially FinV2. And you should convert early FinV2 or FinV1 to the 
last FinV2 before bringing those forward.

In any case, disc space is cheap and Finale files are small. I keep all my 
older file versions in archive folders. I've been glad to have them at times, 
esp. when the re-editing is extensive.





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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts



On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:00 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:


Christopher Smith / 2006/08/17 / 10:42 AM wrote:


Actually, if you want to get really picky, the #9 in the
"theoretically correct" version is not really correctly spelled--it
should be spelled in most contexts as a b10, or Cnat.


Sorry man, I can't accept b10th.  Did we not discuss this before?   
b9th

and #9th are altered tension 9th.  10th is an octave above 3rd, and I
never understood how 10th can be a tension.  The chair for the most
important note, the 3rd is already taken so 10th can't sit there :-)


Also in extreme pickiness mode, the top tetrachord of the altered
scale is whole-tone, which means it could be "correctly" spelled in a
scalar context with either sharps or flats, making either version
correct in the last beat of the first bar.


Not in my book.  Sorry again.  Db is lowered 5th, and Eb is tension
b13th, they can't be spelled in sharps theoretically.




Well, the problem there is that the altered scale doesn't behave as a  
traditional scale; it behaves more like a hybrid. Two second degrees  
(or two third degrees), and no 4th (or 5th, or 6th, depending on how  
you spell it.)


Your points about the altered 9th is not really valid, I think,  
because the so-called #9 was traditionally an appogiatura resolving  
down a tone to the b9 (examples I know of as far back as Mozart) and  
was spelled always as the b10. My opinion is that it was named #9 by  
jazz musicians to ease communication, but in most cases it is  
correctly spelled as b10. If it resolved up a semitone instead of the  
traditional downwards resolution, I would consider the #9 spelling.


One gets similar spelling problems with whole tone and diminished  
scales, there is no 100% correct spelling in all contexts, so you do  
your best.


However, for traditional (one letter, one note) scales, I would go  
with traditional spelling in most cases.


One possiblility for the altered scale is to spell it like the  
melodic minor ascending which is a semitone higher (G altered = Ab  
mel minor) but that only really works in melodic contexts, and of  
course the all-important 3rd Bnat gets spelled like a flat 4th Cb,  
which is not really right.





OK, but I also admit theory is sorta religion, that, I believe what I
believe :-)


Ha ha! That's for sure!

Further to the problem is that 20th century theory has not really  
settled yet the way that earlier periods have, and everyone has their  
own ideas about how it works (just listen to us two for proof!)


Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] 2K4-->2K7



On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:45 AM, dc wrote:


Andrew Stiller écrit:
All versions of FinMac older than 2K4 are absolutely unusable on any 
computer currently manufactured. Small or not, antiquarian interest 
is the only reason I can fathom to keep any of them around.


But when you get your new Intel Mac, you can go back to any old 
version of Finale, way back to... what is the oldest version that will 
run on current versions of Windows?


Dennis


No version of FinMac older than 2K4 will run on Windows, TTBOMK.

--Andrew

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

Re: [Finale] Cued Linked Parts


to what extent do you
use mirrors and how does the tool actually perform?


In 15 years of intensive Finale use, I have not had occasion to use the 
Mirror tool even once.


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] Cued Linked Parts


Don Hart:
> Robert, what are your continuing concerns?  Others, to what extent do you
> use mirrors and how does the tool actually perform?

One of the biggest was one that Johannes says has been fixed. Smart shapes did 
not mirror.

I guess for me the value is not apparent. Copy and paste is much easier than 
mirrors, and by the time I am ready to copy and paste, the chance that I'll be 
revising again is small. Also, I am completely uncomfortable with making 
changes the results of which I don't see on screen, yet that is exactly what 
can happen with mirrors.

YMMV.




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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts



On Aug 17, 2006, at 10:49 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:


Christopher Smith / 2006/08/17 / 10:27 AM wrote:

I certainly hope you would not spell that outline
C# F G# B

but rather
C# E# G# B

or even
Db F Ab Cb

but you said you avoid Cb's too.


Oo, you were talking about spelling out a chord?!  Vertically?
That's totally different story.  You can't respell enharmonically that
results in different interval, i.e., b7th has to be minor 7th interval
from the root no matter what, unless it is not supposed to suggest a
functional chord.

But,
With all due respect,
I found no chance I would need to spell a chord in 1-3-5-7 voicing.
When I spell a voicing, it is because there was no way to do so with
chord symbols.




I was talking about a melodic outline, but as a chord spelling I  
think the point stands.


I'm glad we agree.

Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts



On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:09 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

On the other hand, there's very little advantage to spelling chords 
"properly" in the score if you've already decided to sacrifice 
harmonic "correctness" for linear readability. The conductor will just 
have to deal with it.




Then there's the issue of harp parts, which should *always* reflect the 
actual strings to be played, but often appear harmonically correct in 
the score.


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] Cued Linked Parts

2006-08-17 Thread Don Hart

Thanks, Johannes.  (Sorry, I didn't see your post before I sent mine.)  Your
take on this is good to know.  Others?

Don Hart


on 8/17/06 9:22 AM, Johannes Gebauer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> On 17.08.2006 Robert Patterson wrote:
>> I am not a fan of mirrors. In the early years they were responsible for
>> horrific file corruption. Although they continue to be supported, it is an
>> old feature that has not received much attention, so they don't work very
>> well, especially with many new features. Whether MM views them this way or
>> not, I view mirrors as deprecated.
>> 
> 
> Mirrors are a priceless tool in 18th century orchestral music with lots
> of doubling parts. And linked parts have corrected a problem which was
> present in mirrors for years - whether by accident or not I don't know.
> Mirrored parts now correctly display smart shapes.
> 
> I find that mirrors can save me hours of error checking.
> 
> Johannes

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

Re: [Finale] 2K4-->2K7



On Aug 16, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:


On 16.08.2006 Andrew Stiller wrote:
but it feels very strange after all the trauma I continue to be going 
through as I discard about 5 older versions.



Even when you update them, why would you ever discard them ie delete 
them? Finale files take up hardly any space.




All versions of FinMac older than 2K4 are absolutely unusable on any 
computer currently manufactured. Small or not, antiquarian interest is 
the only reason I can fathom to keep any of them around.


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] Cued Linked Parts

2006-08-17 Thread Don Hart

I share this older assessment of Finale mirrors, which is akin to the
lessons a one year old learns about a stove being hot.  So, not caring to
get burned for the last 17 years or so, I have been curious to see users on
this list make mention of the mirror tool and their apparently positive
experiences using it.

Robert, what are your continuing concerns?  Others, to what extent do you
use mirrors and how does the tool actually perform?

Thanks,

Don Hart

on 8/17/06 9:11 AM, Robert Patterson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I am not a fan of mirrors. In the early years they were responsible for
> horrific file corruption. Although they continue to be supported, it is an old
> feature that has not received much attention, so they don't work very well,
> especially with many new features. Whether MM views them this way or not, I
> view mirrors as deprecated.

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

Re: [Finale] Cued Linked Parts


On 17.08.2006 Robert Patterson wrote:

I am not a fan of mirrors. In the early years they were responsible for 
horrific file corruption. Although they continue to be supported, it is an old 
feature that has not received much attention, so they don't work very well, 
especially with many new features. Whether MM views them this way or not, I 
view mirrors as deprecated.






Mirrors are a priceless tool in 18th century orchestral music with lots 
of doubling parts. And linked parts have corrected a problem which was 
present in mirrors for years - whether by accident or not I don't know. 
Mirrored parts now correctly display smart shapes.


I find that mirrors can save me hours of error checking.

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] Enharmonic spelling and parts

2006-08-17 Thread A-NO-NE Music

Christopher Smith / 2006/08/17 / 10:42 AM wrote:

>Actually, if you want to get really picky, the #9 in the  
>"theoretically correct" version is not really correctly spelled--it  
>should be spelled in most contexts as a b10, or Cnat.

Sorry man, I can't accept b10th.  Did we not discuss this before?  b9th
and #9th are altered tension 9th.  10th is an octave above 3rd, and I
never understood how 10th can be a tension.  The chair for the most
important note, the 3rd is already taken so 10th can't sit there :-)

>Also in extreme pickiness mode, the top tetrachord of the altered  
>scale is whole-tone, which means it could be "correctly" spelled in a  
>scalar context with either sharps or flats, making either version  
>correct in the last beat of the first bar.

Not in my book.  Sorry again.  Db is lowered 5th, and Eb is tension
b13th, they can't be spelled in sharps theoretically.

OK, but I also admit theory is sorta religion, that, I believe what I
believe :-)

-- 

- Hiro

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

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

[Finale] If I only had an option

2006-08-17 Thread Dejan Badnjar

Can you imagine if Finale 2007 had an option to draw hairpins in the Smart 
Shape Tool/Tab Slide/Smart Line Designer so that you can be able to make all 
instances of dynamic changes (eg. Ppp, etc) and display them in a 
separate menu for selection (with metatools), applying them as Pedal markings 
attached to notes. Talk about consistency and accuracy. In my long experience 
with engraving scores this is where you spend most time, and more when you do 
the same thing for extracted parts. I have asked Tobias years ago about this. 
This should really be easy to implement. Music Press has similar feature but 
with separate dynamics and hairpins. 

Just a thought.

Dejan Badnjar
Musette Desktop Music Publishing
1 Eastview Cres.
Orangeville, Ontario
L9W 4X3
CANADA
Tel.: (519) 942-0407
Fax: (519) 942-4417
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts

2006-08-17 Thread A-NO-NE Music

Christopher Smith / 2006/08/17 / 10:27 AM wrote:
>I certainly hope you would not spell that outline
>C# F G# B
>
>but rather
>C# E# G# B
>
>or even
>Db F Ab Cb
>
>but you said you avoid Cb's too.

Oo, you were talking about spelling out a chord?!  Vertically? 
That's totally different story.  You can't respell enharmonically that
results in different interval, i.e., b7th has to be minor 7th interval
from the root no matter what, unless it is not supposed to suggest a
functional chord.

But,
With all due respect,
I found no chance I would need to spell a chord in 1-3-5-7 voicing. 
When I spell a voicing, it is because there was no way to do so with
chord symbols.

-- 

- Hiro

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

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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts



On Aug 17, 2006, at 9:53 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:




Anyway, aside from Tonal Gravity thing, I just thought of the  
situation

you all might be able to relate to.  See this:


And let's assume no chord names are written above since this is a part
for someone, and the comping parts are playing these chord
progressions.  What do you think?



Actually, if you want to get really picky, the #9 in the  
"theoretically correct" version is not really correctly spelled—it  
should be spelled in most contexts as a b10, or Cnat.


Also in extreme pickiness mode, the top tetrachord of the altered  
scale is whole-tone, which means it could be "correctly" spelled in a  
scalar context with either sharps or flats, making either version  
correct in the last beat of the first bar. You chose to spell it like  
the first three notes of a major scale, which is quite readable in  
the context.


Which leaves only the first note of the second bar under contention,  
C# or Db? While the C# agrees with the chord and I would use it, I  
would have no problems in a sixteenth-note passage if it were  
respelled to Db to make it easier to read. The harmonic cue one would  
get from C# is of negligible benefit here.


But I am picky about correct harmonic usage, and in my music I would  
use the C#.


Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts



On Aug 16, 2006, at 10:31 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:


Christopher Smith / 2006/08/16 / 09:14 PM wrote:


Even in a piece without a key signature, if you had a C#7 chord
resolving to F#m, and the melody outlined the C#7 chord, how could
you spell it except with an E#? Anything else would be MORE
confusing, not less.


As I said "psychologically correct", I don't write functional harmony.
It has been more than 15 years since I stop writing V-I motion, not to
mention II-V.  I mimic the resolution using Lydian Chromatic Concept's
Tonal Gravity.



Thus neatly sidestepping my original point, which is how to spell an  
outline of a C#7: with E# or Fnat.


Even if there is no functional harmony, and the melody is not  
reflecting what harmony there is, I certainly hope you would not  
spell that outline (and it COULD show up, with or without function!)


C# F G# B

but rather

C# E# G# B

or even

Db F Ab Cb

but you said you avoid Cb's too.

Even if the harmony (and melody) are non-functional, an augmented  
second/diminished fourth are much weirder than the tonal chord  
outline, which everyone has practiced and has under their fingers.


I still maintain that E#, Fb, and double sharps and flats are needed  
and necessary at times. I recognise that they are not read as quickly  
in some contexts as the enharmonic equivalents, but they DO  
communicate what they communicate, and sometimes you need that.


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts

2006-08-17 Thread Dennis Bathory-Kitsz

At 06:58 AM 8/17/06 -0400, dhbailey wrote:
>I think that this is the dichotomy between "classical" (or Dennis's 
>"non-pop") music and pop/jazz music.

Hey, hey, no hyphen! :)

Dennis

Oh, and on topic: Dam the rhursal consekwenses, just spel the notes write
so they make grimatical cents. Theirs just as much to be lurnt from proper
speling as ezy reding.

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

Re: [Finale] Cued Linked Parts

I'm finding cues to be less & less of a problem. You basically need two staff 
styles. One that uses the new Alternate "Default Rest" Notation and hides 
everything else. Ane one that hides only the layer the cues are in. (I always 
use Layer 4.) Applying both in score view, you apply the former to full 
measures and the latter to partial measures to hide cues. (I still haven't 
fully thought through rest positioning in partial measures. That still probably 
presents something of a challenge.)

As for clef changes, Tyler suggested somewhere the perfect solution. Create a 
staff style that "tranposes" by forcing to clef without changing anything else. 
Applying it to the score view hides any clef changes in the cue. (Actually, any 
clef changes at all.)

As far as some magic tool for creating linked cues automatically, this seems 
even more unlikely than linked parts did. FWIW: I use TGTools to start cues, 
because it saves a great deal of initial re-entry time. Then I edit them to 
taste. It's a pain, yes, but I don't care about making cues as pretty as 
doubtless Johannes does.

I am not a fan of mirrors. In the early years they were responsible for 
horrific file corruption. Although they continue to be supported, it is an old 
feature that has not received much attention, so they don't work very well, 
especially with many new features. Whether MM views them this way or not, I 
view mirrors as deprecated.




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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts



On Aug 16, 2006, at 10:48 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:


On 16 Aug 2006, at 9:14 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:


Even in a piece without a key signature, if you had a C#7 chord  
resolving to F#m, and the melody outlined the C#7 chord, how could  
you spell it except with an E#?


Well, let's say the progression is C#7 - F#mi7 and the line is  
(descending) C# - B - G# - E#, going to E nat. on the F#-7. In that  
case, I *would* probably use F instead of E#. But either way, if it  
were a transposed score, I'd definitely make sure it was spelled  
the same way in the part as the score.


On the other hand, if this was a Bb trumpet part derived from a  
concert pitch score, I might want D#-C#-A#-G-F# on the part, but  
it's also possible I might prefer Eb-Db-Bb-G-Gb, or even  Eb-Db-Bb- 
G-F#. In any event, when using a concert pitch score, the conductor  
must always assume that the part might sometimes make use of  
enharmonic equivalents to create a more readable linear passage for  
the player.



Your last two solutions are far preferable to the first two (for me),  
as they both agree with the harmony. Respelling an entire passage is  
fine with me (it's easier to adjust an entire passage for tuning, and  
easier to read)—it's respelling a note or two that leads to  
confusion. The second-to-last solution would have to preserve Gb for  
the rest of the duration of the chord, though.


Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts



On Aug 17, 2006, at 6:29 AM, dhbailey wrote:


Christopher Smith wrote:


Even in a piece without a key signature, if you had a C#7 chord  
resolving to F#m, and the melody outlined the C#7 chord, how could  
you spell it except with an E#? Anything else would be MORE  
confusing, not less. I understand that some unusual accidentals  
(like double sharps and flats) are not to be thrown around lightly  
so as to avoid obscuring communication, but sometimes you need  
them, darn it!
Even more so in works WITH key signatures, which I say use key  
sigs if the piece is in a key, don't use them otherwise.

[snip]

I think that's terrific for you, Christopher, but I'm not so sure  
there can be such apparently hard-nosed "rules."





"Sometime you need them (double sharps and flats)" is a hard-nosed  
rule? Avoiding them completely seems much harder-nosed to my way of  
thought!



Not all situations are similar and we each need to follow our own  
inclinations to produce music which fits the situation.


For any music for which there will be plenty of rehearsal time,  
where any confusions will be able to be clarified through  
explanation and rehearsal and lots of private practice time, I  
agree with you.


But for other situations, I try to make the individual parts be the  
easiest to understand for quick accurate reading.


Again, for top-notch professionals I would never simplify the note  
spelling, but for amateurs I wouldn't hesitate at all.  And I'd add  
an explanatory note in the conductor's score which would explain  
that for certain pitches, the parts had been simplified for easier  
reading.



I agree that amateurs would not get much of a communications  
advantage out of double sharps, as they most likely wouldn't tune it  
closely enough to matter much. As you said, easiest to understand is  
best, which we both agree is different for pros and amateurs.


Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts

2006-08-17 Thread A-NO-NE Music

dhbailey / 2006/08/17 / 06:32 AM wrote:

>Are you trying to tell us that it's alright to fly in the face of 
>tradition, and write music the exact way you conceive of it, independent 
>of 500 years of harmonic evolution and chordal progressions?  You sly 
>dog, you!  :-)

Ha-ha.  Lydian Chromatic Concept is actually based on the music before
Ionian mode became tonic center :-)

Anyway, aside from Tonal Gravity thing, I just thought of the situation
you all might be able to relate to.  See this:

And let's assume no chord names are written above since this is a part
for someone, and the comping parts are playing these chord
progressions.  What do you think?

-- 

- Hiro

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

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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts



On Aug 17, 2006, at 12:50 AM, Raymond Horton wrote:


John Howell wrote:



I really appreciate the comments on this question, and I am  
learning from them, but I just realized something.  Every one of  
us, even those of us who know better, are assuming that 20th  
century bane, equal temperament.  In any other tuning or  
temperament, G# and Ab are NOT the same frequencies, and sensitive  
musicians make those adjustments.  (Except keyboard players, poor  
babies!)  Which makes proper MELODIC enharmonic spellings even  
more important, but for more than just mechanical reasons.



No sensitive musician plays in a vacuum, or constantly in equal  
temperament.  I mentioned horn as a frequent user of enharmonic  
equivalents - one should very rarely write a B# for horn, yet if a  
good horn player hears their written C sounding as the third of a  
chord, that player will adjust accordingly.  If the same player  
sees a written B#, the player will be too busy cursing at the  
composer/arranger to be playing the note sensitively.  
___



I completely disagree with your conclusion, not the premise.

Unless the horn player has a long note value, the chord will be half  
over (or entirely over) before the pitch gets adjusted. Spelling it  
correctly at least gives the player a fighting chance to play it in  
tune.


I have gone off on this topic before. Musicians often know what key  
they are in (even horn players, who traditionally do not see key  
signatures), and seeing mis-spelled enharmonics sends the wrong message.


To give a completely banal example, any of the black notes in the key  
of C could be spelled correctly as flats or sharps, depending on  
whether they serve as the major or minor 3rd or 7th of a chord (Hiro  
and others of his ilk will expand this to include other chord  
functions according to the tonal gravity). As soon as you are in a  
different key, all those cranky B#'s and the like start cropping up.  
What to do? Spell it correctly, more often than not, though  
adjustments can be made in a scalar context on fast note values to  
help reading. This should not be done lightly, IMO, as sharps to the  
key will generally be played lower than flats to the key. As always,  
the composer has to ask himself, "What am I communicating to the  
player by notating it like this? Is it what I WANT to communicate?"


Christopher


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

RE: [Finale] O. T. : Fiddling around?

2006-08-17 Thread Owain Sutton

Title: Message



You'd 
be surprised the state a violin can get into, in some people's 
hands!
 
 

  
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  Erica BuxbaumSent: 17 August 2006 14:13To: 
  finale@shsu.eduSubject: Re: [Finale] O. T. : Fiddling 
  around?
  Even so, you wouldn't find rosin on the part of the fingerboard where you 
  play in third position, or even fifth. Maybe for some stratospheric positions, 
  but not those.
  Erica Johannes Gebauer 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  On 
16.08.2006 Owain Sutton wrote:> Visible wear on the fingerboard? 
Certainly possible to see in a> photograph if, for example, rosin has 
been allowed to build up on the> remainder of its length.> 
Well, depending on the age of the violin it only really tells you 
about the last few years. Rosin builds up in weeks. If the violin is 
older than a few years the rosin doesn't tell you much. Sometimes real 
treasures hide underneath thick layers of dirt and rosin... not very 
often, though.Johannes-- 
http://www.musikmanufaktur.comhttp://www.camerata-berolinensis.de___Finale 
mailing 
listFinale@shsu.eduhttp://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
  
  
  Get your email and more, right on the new 
  Yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] O. T. : Fiddling around?

2006-08-17 Thread Erica Buxbaum

Even so, you wouldn't find rosin on the part of the fingerboard where you play in third position, or even fifth. Maybe for some stratospheric positions, but not those.  Erica Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  On 16.08.2006 Owain Sutton wrote:> Visible wear on the fingerboard? Certainly possible to see in a> photograph if, for example, rosin has been allowed to build up on the> remainder of its length.> Well, depending on the age of the violin it only really tells you about the last few years. Rosin builds up in weeks. If the violin is older than a few years the rosin doesn't tell you much. Sometimes real treasures hide underneath thick layers of dirt and rosin... not very often, though.Johannes--
 http://www.musikmanufaktur.comhttp://www.camerata-berolinensis.de___Finale mailing listFinale@shsu.eduhttp://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale 
		Get your email and more, right on the  new Yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Cued Linked Parts


On 17.08.2006 Aaron Sherber wrote:

At 04:02 AM 8/17/2006, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

Please, please, MakeMusic, design a better solution for cue notes. A
mirrored Cue notes layer would be ideal in my opinion.


I think this would solve some problems and cause others. For example, it is 
common to write cue notes with all notes above the midline with stems up and 
all notes below the midline with stems down. A true mirror wouldn't let you do 
this.


Who says? Obviously the cue notes layer needs every way to influence the 
exact look. I am not talking about the existing mirror tool, in case 
that was unclear, I am talking about a new tool, one which could build 
on the current mirror functionality, but would need many more options.


Cue notes should work a little like linked parts themselves, in that 
they offer a new view, which also has options to unlink items, change 
things around, move whatever...



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


On 17.08.2006 Tyler Turner wrote:

How so? If you needed an additional part, you'd create
it. There would be times that you could change the
staves that were in a part and preserve the work that
had been done to the part from the score. I don't
understand how having a linked part from the beginning
could possibly slow you down. Worst case scenario, you
click Generate Parts to create new parts, as you would
have done anyway. Any other scenario, by the time you
get to cleaning up your parts, you will have less to
do.



The way I see this, it wouldn't actually help me at all. The moment I 
have to recreate a part I would be in even more dangerous territory, 
since previously unlinked items will be linked again, but I might forget.


I also simply don't like the idea of having parts around before I have 
actually started to think about them. It's similar to doing the layout 
before having entered the music. I have not even drafted which parts I 
might need, and which are going to be combined. Carrying all this extra 
baggage around seems to be counter intuitive. I would almost certainly 
make the wrong decisions, and then forget. I'd rather only have to think 
about certain things once.


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

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

[Finale] enharmonic spelling

2006-08-17 Thread cisraels

This is a topic that deserves careful, case by case, consideration.  I have 
found what I believe to be good reasons to adhere to correct "harmonic" 
spelling, and to abandon it sometimes in favor of easier melodic reading.  I 
have not found that "incorrect" spelling leads to intonation difficulties, as 
long as the players are good.  If the players are not listening, no amount of 
correct spelling will cure it.

I have written passages for E flat saxophones in pieces that modulate 
temporarily to E major (passages that "should" be written for the saxes in C#) 
in D flat major, because they "read"  better in the transposed part.  However, 
I usually do so in the transposed score as well.  There is a dichotomy when 
seeing chord symbols and other sharp key indications (accidentals) in some 
instruments while also seeing a preponderance of flats in others.  It is still 
the best solution sometimes.

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

Re: [Finale] Cued Linked Parts

2006-08-17 Thread Aaron Sherber

At 04:02 AM 8/17/2006, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>Please, please, MakeMusic, design a better solution for cue notes. A
>mirrored Cue notes layer would be ideal in my opinion.

I think this would solve some problems and cause others. For example, 
it is common to write cue notes with all notes above the midline with 
stems up and all notes below the midline with stems down. A true 
mirror wouldn't let you do this.

Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts


Johannes Gebauer wrote:

On 17.08.2006 A-NO-NE Music wrote:

I respectfully disagree.  Most of the situations I get in is where music
is read on site.  I avoid B#, Cb, E# and Fb on parts including chord
names, but the score needs to stay correct.  In my compositions, the
'correct' means psychologically speaking, because my music never have
key sig, even for transposed parts.  It is very important to me.



In my experience this kind of approach will eventually lead to a lot of 
confusion in rehearsals, and a lot of waisted time.


Johannes


I think that this is the dichotomy between "classical" (or Dennis's 
"non-pop") music and pop/jazz music.


In a string quartet or a recorder consort or a brass quintet or 
orchestra, I agree with Johannes that it would lead to confusion.


But in a jazz/pop setting I don't think it would create any sort of 
wrinkle at all.


And it also depends on the situation -- writing for a published edition 
where the editor/composer/arranger isn't going to be present at all the 
rehearsals or performances, Johannes is correct.


But I think Hiro is writing for his own group, so he's right there to 
explain any confusion which might arise.  But from the way he writes in 
his messages, it really sounds as if he's found the right point of view 
in his writing for his own  musicians.




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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts


Darcy James Argue wrote:
I agree with Raymond. For non-string players, my experience is that the 
relationship between the choice of enharmonic spelling and the 
corresponding intonation has been wildly overstated, especially when it 
comes to post-1900 music. As he says, a good player tunes his note using 
his ears, not his eyes.




Very true -- unfortunately, not all of us get to work with musicians of 
that caliber and so we find people who will play a G# a certain way, 
which will be the same way as they play the Ab, totally regardless of 
the position within the harmony.




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

Re: [Finale] test

I got this post, and I saw the one the other day.  But I didn't have an 
answer for you on that one, so I didn't reply.  As a matter of fact, I 
got two different copies of that other message, one 7KB in size, the 
other one 10KB in size.


David



Dejan Badnjar wrote:
I have posted a topic couple of day ago that had not been delivered to 
everyone after joining the list. Can anyone reply if this one goes through.


 


Thanks

 


Dejan Badnjar

Musette Desktop Music Publishing

1 Eastview Cres.

Orangeville, Ontario

L9W 4X3

CANADA

Tel.: (519) 942-0407

Fax: (519) 942-4417

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 





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



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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts


John Howell wrote:

At 10:48 PM -0400 8/16/06, Darcy James Argue wrote:

On 16 Aug 2006, at 9:14 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:


Even in a piece without a key signature, if you had a C#7 chord 
resolving to F#m, and the melody outlined the C#7 chord, how could 
you spell it except with an E#?


I really appreciate the comments on this question, and I am learning 
from them, but I just realized something.  Every one of us, even those 
of us who know better, are assuming that 20th century bane, equal 
temperament.  In any other tuning or temperament, G# and Ab are NOT the 
same frequencies, and sensitive musicians make those adjustments.  
(Except keyboard players, poor babies!)  Which makes proper MELODIC 
enharmonic spellings even more important, but for more than just 
mechanical reasons.


Geez, why does music have to be so complicated?!

John




Why?  Because if it weren't, we music teachers would be out of work!

I've remarked before, and will repeat here, that we, each of us, needs 
to individually analyze the situation and act accordingly.


For an ensemble or a work which will be performed by an ensemble capable 
of other than equal temperament, the "real" pitch names need to be used, 
regardless of ease of reading.


But if we're writing something for community band usage with minimal 
rehearsal time available, there's no problem with using enharmonic names.


The fact that we can call them enharmonic equivalents presupposes equal 
temperament.  In any other temperament, there are no enharmonics in the 
sense that most of us think of them.


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

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review


Tyler Turner wrote:


--- Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


I might be missing something, but what is wrong with
having items which 
can be set to only display in the score, even before
parts exist. Ok, an 
additional benefit might be to include a mechanism
which could 
selectivly link them to certain parts, but as a
start I'd be quite happy 
to have an object category which is permanently not
present in the 
parts. I can see no problems with such objects. It
would be extremely 
useful for footnotes and the likes.


For this option to not hurt my work, it would have to
have some sort of checker that I could run to hunt for
items with this setting. It would be difficult enough
for me to remember if I had enabled this setting for
an object in one of my own scores several months after
dealing with it. But for working on scores made by
other people it would be a real problem. If the option
was made available, I'd really hope that they'd also
give us a command that could help us find each of
these objects. It's one thing for a part to have
something visible on it that shouldn't be there - this
I have a good shot of spotting and correcting. It's
another thing if it's something that's missing.

Seriously though, there's a great amount of time to be
saved by creating the linked parts at the time the
score is initially created. We can begin our part
editing while we're working on the score. There are
many occasions that we can now move an object only
once because of this rather than the multiple times we
used to.

Perhaps something that would benefit you would be to
have a unique color for items which are unlinked in
some parts but not all parts.



Having installed and just barely begun to explore Fin2007, I can see 
already how easy it is to create the linked parts right at the start of 
a new project, so that might be the best answer to Johannes's concern.


But I wonder if we create the parts initially, then create the score and 
include some unlinked items, what happens if we decide to redo the parts 
and turn them off and then recreate them?  Will the items in the score 
which we placed as unlinked regain the links with new part generation so 
they would have to be unlinked manually, each one?


Tyler raises a very nice point, and one which I hope MakeMusic includes 
in an upgrade to the whole linked parts/score feature (maybe in version 
2 next year?) and that would be something which could be added to the 
DataCheck routine -- it would return a list of unlinked items in the 
score along with measure number and staff name.  And could optionally be 
run while looking at an individual part, in which case it would return a 
list of all the unlinked items in that part, by measure number.


Or maybe a plug-in which would be view-independent, as many of us hope 
the plugins will gain that capability.


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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts


A-NO-NE Music wrote:

Christopher Smith / 2006/08/16 / 09:14 PM wrote:

Even in a piece without a key signature, if you had a C#7 chord  
resolving to F#m, and the melody outlined the C#7 chord, how could  
you spell it except with an E#? Anything else would be MORE  
confusing, not less.


As I said "psychologically correct", I don't write functional harmony. 
It has been more than 15 years since I stop writing V-I motion, not to

mention II-V.  I mimic the resolution using Lydian Chromatic Concept's
Tonal Gravity.

Here is one of the examples which will be included in our next CD:

There is no V-I motion, no progression that you can analyze in
traditional sense, but full of Tonal Gravity, which is a very
psychological direction.

On the other hand, the melody can be totally horizontal to the gravity,
and shouldn't be spelled according to the harmony which is vertical. 
The performer shouldn't consider the underneath harmony in this case.




Are you trying to tell us that it's alright to fly in the face of 
tradition, and write music the exact way you conceive of it, independent 
of 500 years of harmonic evolution and chordal progressions?  You sly 
dog, you!  :-)


It sounds as if you have this stuff thought out very well, Hiro, through 
experience as well as through much thought.


Keep on doing what you do, since it obviously works well for you and 
your musicians!


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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts


Christopher Smith wrote:


On Aug 16, 2006, at 7:50 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:


Darcy James Argue / 2006/08/16 / 03:09 PM wrote:


For transposed scores, I disagree. The conductor should normally have
the same spelling as the players. If you make readability adjustments
to the enharmonics in the part, those should be included in the score
as well.


I respectfully disagree.  Most of the situations I get in is where music
is read on site.  I avoid B#, Cb, E# and Fb on parts including chord
names, but the score needs to stay correct.  In my compositions, the
'correct' means psychologically speaking, because my music never have
key sig, even for transposed parts.  It is very important to me.



Even in a piece without a key signature, if you had a C#7 chord 
resolving to F#m, and the melody outlined the C#7 chord, how could you 
spell it except with an E#? Anything else would be MORE confusing, not 
less. I understand that some unusual accidentals (like double sharps and 
flats) are not to be thrown around lightly so as to avoid obscuring 
communication, but sometimes you need them, darn it!


Even more so in works WITH key signatures, which I say use key sigs if 
the piece is in a key, don't use them otherwise.



[snip]

I think that's terrific for you, Christopher, but I'm not so sure there 
can be such apparently hard-nosed "rules."


Not all situations are similar and we each need to follow our own 
inclinations to produce music which fits the situation.


For any music for which there will be plenty of rehearsal time, where 
any confusions will be able to be clarified through explanation and 
rehearsal and lots of private practice time, I agree with you.


But for other situations, I try to make the individual parts be the 
easiest to understand for quick accurate reading.


Again, for top-notch professionals I would never simplify the note 
spelling, but for amateurs I wouldn't hesitate at all.  And I'd add an 
explanatory note in the conductor's score which would explain that for 
certain pitches, the parts had been simplified for easier reading.


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

Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts


A-NO-NE Music wrote:

Darcy James Argue / 2006/08/16 / 03:09 PM wrote:

For transposed scores, I disagree. The conductor should normally have  
the same spelling as the players. If you make readability adjustments  
to the enharmonics in the part, those should be included in the score  
as well.


I respectfully disagree.  Most of the situations I get in is where music
is read on site.  I avoid B#, Cb, E# and Fb on parts including chord
names, but the score needs to stay correct.  In my compositions, the
'correct' means psychologically speaking, because my music never have
key sig, even for transposed parts.  It is very important to me.

But are we not talking about 'choice' here?




Yes, Hiro, we are.  And I agree with you that the parts need to be most 
clearly, easily read for least problems when sight-reading.  I also 
agree that the chords should be written properly in the score.  So if 
I'm writing a Baug chord, I think the score should show Fx, but in the 
part, to save time and confusion, I'll write a G (depending on the 
musicians most likely to be playing it.)  And I'll be most likely to put 
that there if I'm writing some sort of progression where the Fx will 
become  a G on the next beat, rather than totally befuddle the 
sight-reader by having the part move from Fx to G.  Life goes so much 
more smoothly when the part has a G moving to a G.  :-)


And 'choice' is very important here -- I don't think there are any hard 
rules which should be rigidly followed in such situations.  Each of us, 
especially those of us who are involved in getting music right out onto 
music stands for immediate performance, needs to follow our own best 
judgements for the situations at hand.


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

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

2006-08-17 Thread Matthew Hindson Fastmail acct


Johannes Gebauer wrote:


I might be missing something, but what is wrong with having items which 
can be set to only display in the score, even before parts exist. Ok, an 
additional benefit might be to include a mechanism which could 
selectivly link them to certain parts, but as a start I'd be quite happy 
to have an object category which is permanently not present in the 
parts. I can see no problems with such objects. It would be extremely 
useful for footnotes and the likes.


You mean like what we have with Text Expressions and the associated 
staff lists?  We could have a staff list for other associated items. 
Why not?  The mechanism is already there.


I use these for things like Score in C which is attached to the piccolo 
or whatever and set to show always on the top score staff.


I am going to find things like bar numbers to be a much bigger problem. 
 Attaching bar numbers beneath the bottom staff, centred, has proven 
very popular with conductors.  But I don't want them in the part!


Same of course in reverse with the clefs in cues (sigh).

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

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

2006-08-17 Thread Tyler Turner

--- Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Creating the parts when setting up the score would
> be a serious 
> limitation, and cause a lot of extra work later on.

How so? If you needed an additional part, you'd create
it. There would be times that you could change the
staves that were in a part and preserve the work that
had been done to the part from the score. I don't
understand how having a linked part from the beginning
could possibly slow you down. Worst case scenario, you
click Generate Parts to create new parts, as you would
have done anyway. Any other scenario, by the time you
get to cleaning up your parts, you will have less to
do.

You understand that I'm not saying you should go to
any of these parts and work on them while you're
developing your score, right? I'm just saying that
having the parts exist allows you to make adjustments
to them from the score if you desire.

-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] Cued Linked Parts


On 17.08.2006 Tyler Turner wrote:

Robert or other beta testers, would you agree with
this as an acceptable overall strategy (I'm very
familiar with linked parts, but I'm no engraver)?



As I have said before, cue notes is one of the weakest areas in Finale 
by far. There are a lot of problems to get around, at least if one cares 
about proper engraving. Some of these problems are with linked parts, 
some of them are general problems, and some of them are general problems 
which have become much worse with linked parts.


To give an example: Most publishers will use a clef after the key sig 
and meter at the beginning of a staff, which is virtually impossible in 
Finale (there are work arounds, but man do they cost time!).


I have also stopped using any of the advanced features of the various 
cue notes plugins, I just find that I can do the same manually, quicker, 
and more reliably.


Please, please, MakeMusic, design a better solution for cue notes. A 
mirrored Cue notes layer would be ideal in my opinion.


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


On 17.08.2006 Tyler Turner wrote:

For this option to not hurt my work, it would have to
have some sort of checker that I could run to hunt for
items with this setting. It would be difficult enough
for me to remember if I had enabled this setting for
an object in one of my own scores several months after
dealing with it. But for working on scores made by
other people it would be a real problem. If the option
was made available, I'd really hope that they'd also
give us a command that could help us find each of
these objects. It's one thing for a part to have
something visible on it that shouldn't be there - this
I have a good shot of spotting and correcting. It's
another thing if it's something that's missing.



Seriously, this sounds to me like "I don't need a raincoat, or I might 
go into the rain and get my hair wet".


The problem you are describing is even true now, if someone else 
prepared the document, you will probably have this dilemma anyway.



Seriously though, there's a great amount of time to be
saved by creating the linked parts at the time the
score is initially created. We can begin our part
editing while we're working on the score. There are
many occasions that we can now move an object only
once because of this rather than the multiple times we
used to.


This might work with your workflow, it certainly won't work for me. A 
good example is the project I am currently working on. At the time of 
note entry it wasn't even clear what parts we are going to have. Is the 
Bassoon part going to be separate? Are we going to have both oboes on 
one stave? One or two flutes? Two violas in one part, or separate? 
Creating the parts when setting up the score would be a serious 
limitation, and cause a lot of extra work later on.


Perhaps something that would benefit you would be to
have a unique color for items which are unlinked in
some parts but not all parts.

Sure, I am all for it. But it is more important to have score-only items 
in the first place, than to worry about the coloring. At least imo.


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] O. T. : Fiddling around?


On 16.08.2006 Owain Sutton wrote:

Visible wear on the fingerboard?  Certainly possible to see in a
photograph if, for example, rosin has been allowed to build up on the
remainder of its length.



Well, depending on the age of the violin it only really tells you about 
the last few years. Rosin builds up in weeks. If the violin is older 
than a few years the rosin doesn't tell you much. Sometimes real 
treasures hide underneath thick layers of dirt and rosin... not very 
often, though.


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] Enharmonic spelling and parts


On 17.08.2006 A-NO-NE Music wrote:

I respectfully disagree.  Most of the situations I get in is where music
is read on site.  I avoid B#, Cb, E# and Fb on parts including chord
names, but the score needs to stay correct.  In my compositions, the
'correct' means psychologically speaking, because my music never have
key sig, even for transposed parts.  It is very important to me.



In my experience this kind of approach will eventually lead to a lot of 
confusion in rehearsals, and a lot of waisted time.


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] test