Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?
On Apr 27, 2007, at 10:24 AM, shirling neueweise wrote: mark, holy crap, man, check this thing out. auto-placement positions the expressions to avoid staves and the notes, really worth the time, especially for people as meticulous as i think you are (as i am) about positioning. of course there will always be exceptions where adjustments will be necessary, but they involve entering values like -12 EVPUs to make small adjustments instead of changing -216 to -228 or whatever for high notes. and you have 75% less things to adjust when extracting transposing parts from scores in C. a really incredible time-saver. man, really, i can't even believe you don't use it! Heh. I don't use metatools for expressions either. My standard procedure for entering an expression is the same as it's been for about eight years now: I double click in the measure and pick the expression I want from the list. At that point, the dialog box for position comes up, so I type in the numbers I want for my H and V position. Nine times out of ten I know exactly where I want it, so I never have to move it. If I do move it, I will invariably go back into the dialog and type new numbers. I never drag or eyeball, because I'm a freak about wanting to specify the exact coordinates about everything I place. But I'm open-minded. If it really is going to save me so much time, I'm willing to learn new habits. I understand I can assign a default X and Y position to each expression, so if I pick the most commonly used coordinates, I can set up a metatool and save the trouble of going through the dialog boxes at least on those occasions where the position I want is the one I set up as the default, right? I just now tried doing that, but my immediate problem is I can't figure out how to use a metatool for an expression and not have it show up on every staff. I don't see a place to define that. What am I missing? Most of my work is piano-vocal and most of my expressions I want on one staff only. If I can't get the metatool to put the expression on one staff only then I have to go back through the dialog box anyway which would defeat the purpose of the metatool. I also noticed that once I assign a default position to an expression, any time I enter that expression and want it somewhere else, I have to type in the relative offset from the default position instead of the absolute coordinates. That will take some getting used to. I'm basically going to be doing math in my head each time, like, Let's see, I want this at -66, but my default position is defined as -42, so I need to type in -24. I'm starting to doubt that this is really going to save me time. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Linked Parts Tip - using different clefs in voiced parts
Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi all, I was struggling to figure out how to use different clefs for voiced linked parts -- i.e., two instruments that share the same staff in the score, but use Fin2007's Specify Voicing feature to create individual linked parts. I finally figured it out, and thought I'd share my solution with the list. The most common situation where you might want to to have different clefs in voiced parts involves horn parts. If you have a Concert Pitch Score, you might have sections where you want the horn staves to use bass clef in the score (to avoid excessive ledger lines), but treble clef in the part. Or, as in my case, regardless of the clef used in the score, you may want, e.g., the Horn 3 part to use treble clef and the Horn 4 part to use bass clef, even though Horns 3 and 4 share a single staff in the score. At first, I didn't think this was possible -- if I changed the clef in the Horn 4 part to bass clef, it also changed the clef in the Horn 3 part. This is one of the many ways in which voiced linked parts aren't as independent as linked parts on separate staves. But I was able to figure out a solution, which I thought I'd share with the list: In the score, set the Horn 3/4 staff to use bass clef throughout. Then modify the transposition options for the staff, checking the Set to Clef option. (In a transposed score, this will result in the staff displaying treble clef throughout, which is what I wanted in this case.) Next, create a Horn transposition staff style with Set to Clef UNCHECKED. Apply this staff style to the measures of any horn part where you would like to display bass clef. (In my case, this was the first few measures of the Horn 4 part.) Since the applied staff style overrides the staff attributes, the bass clef will show for the selected measures only. But since staff styles applied to parts are, by default, unlinked from the score and unlinked from all other parts, the Horn 3 part is unaffected. End result -- treble clef in Horn 3, bass clef in Horn 4, just as I wanted. You can use a similar strategy to create clef changes in the score that you don't want displayed in the part. Thank you for taking the time to write this out and share it with us -- it's one of those I know I won't use it very often but when I'll need it, it will be great to have items to print out. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?
On 28.04.2007 Mark D Lew wrote: I just now tried doing that, but my immediate problem is I can't figure out how to use a metatool for an expression and not have it show up on every staff. If you absoloutely need to use measure epressions, then you are stuck. This is one of the worst bits of design in Finale. To make things just slightly easier, use the metatool, then, while the expression is still selected, hit shift-return and change the staff assignment directly. Not great, though, and metatools with measure bound expressions is simply a nightmare at the moment. 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] should we expect another upgrade?
On Apr 28, 2007, at 3:40 AM, Mark D Lew wrote: my immediate problem is I can't figure out how to use a metatool for an expression and not have it show up on every staff. I don't see a place to define that. What am I missing? Most of my work is piano-vocal and most of my expressions I want on one staff only. If I can't get the metatool to put the expression on one staff only then I have to go back through the dialog box anyway which would defeat the purpose of the metatool. Use note-attached expressions for that. In fact, once I cottoned on to the following advice, I got a lot quicker. Dynamics, along with any instrument-specific instructions, should be assigned as note expressions. This often means assigning the same expressions in several staves, but with metatools and automatic placement, this goes very quickly, and you can even assign everything in one staff and copy only note-attached expressions into the other staves. Things that are global, like rit, accel, a tempo, rehearsal letters, and any style markings, should be assigned using measure-attached expressions. These are the only things that measure-attached expressions should be used for (though I also put in elapsed measures this way, you know, repeated measures that get numbered?) Yes, it is a drag that you can't use staff lists when using metatools on measure-attached expressions, but the staff assignment dialogue box is only a right-click away. I also noticed that once I assign a default position to an expression, any time I enter that expression and want it somewhere else, I have to type in the relative offset from the default position instead of the absolute coordinates. That will take some getting used to. I'm basically going to be doing math in my head each time, like, Let's see, I want this at -66, but my default position is defined as -42, so I need to type in -24. I'm starting to doubt that this is really going to save me time. Jef gave you some good advice about this. I learned it this way, so all my placements are off the default baseline. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?
On 28.04.2007 shirling neueweise wrote: I just now tried doing that, but my immediate problem is I can't figure out how to use a metatool for an expression and not have it show up on every staff. attach it to the note. (expression menu: context-sensitive or note-attached). Actually, that is not always ideal, and sometimes plain silly. How do you place an Allegro marking to a note to allign with the start of the time sig (as you can with a measure attached expression), let alone the trouble when extracting parts. This is one area where Finale behaves plain stupid. 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] should we expect another upgrade?
Yes, it is a drag that you can't use staff lists when using metatools on measure-attached expressions, but the staff assignment dialogue box is only a right-click away. or left hand shift + right hand return and you can can immediately type values / tab through fields and hit enter ***very*** quickly since your hands are already in place on the keyboard. -- 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] should we expect another upgrade?
Actually, that is not always ideal, and sometimes plain silly. How do you place an Allegro marking to a note to allign with the start of the time sig (as you can with a measure attached expression), let alone the trouble when extracting parts. it's not silly at all, mark seemed fairly clearly to be referring to note-specific expressions; although i could be wrong... and of course tempi and other score-related expressions should be measure attached. This is one area where Finale behaves plain stupid. huh? why? aside from not being able to attach expressions to page coordinates as well... -- 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] Fin2k5b on Macbook?
Dear Darcy, It's hopeless. I've copied from my PPC and removed all prefs and the location.txt as you suggested, but to no avail. A message come up, displaying Finale cannot start the Registration Wizard because a required data file (location.txt, Dealers_Fin.txt) was not found in the Component Files folder. Then, after trashing all the copies, I tried a new install from my original CD with the same removing actions and obtain the same results. Clicking the Remind Me Later in the Register Window let me yet work in Demo mode: that is 30 days from today after the new install. But those trial period is over after copying my former app from the PPC. I can open the Registration Finale… under the Help Menu in the newly installed, but this doesn't let me fill in my country (Belgium). And when I then click the Next button, Finale quits. BTW the same behavior happens with 2k5 as with 2k5b as well. I send you FWIW the bug report off-list. What am I doing wrong? Can you assist me further? As you've probably noticed, english isn't my mother tongue, so phone to MM isn't my favourite thing. I can read and a few ideas write, but can speak only a few words and don't understand your language very well when someone talk to me. Thank you for any advice, Sincerely yours, Hans On 27 apr 2007, at 20:12, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi Hans, It used to be impossible to run the registration tool under Rosetta, but due to improvements in Rosetta in recent OS X updates that is no longer the case. Finale 2004-2006 all work just fine under Rosetta, registration included. Delete all Fin2005 prefs and remove the location.txt file from your Fin2005 Component Files folder and you should be fine. You will be prompted to register, so make sure you have a spare registration for the new computer -- or call MM and get them to deactivate your old Fin2005 registrations. (Call now! Don't wait till tomorrow -- MM are closed on the weekend.) Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY You will excuse me for any typo's due to a visual handicap. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?
At 08:13 AM 4/28/2007, Christopher Smith wrote: Things that are global, like rit, accel, a tempo, rehearsal letters, and any style markings, should be assigned using measure-attached expressions. These are the only things that measure-attached expressions should be used for (though I also put in elapsed measures this way, you know, repeated measures that get numbered?) In general, I agree completely with this advice. For me the principal exception is the following situation: 4/4 time, whole note, f on beat 1 dim to p on beat 4. The f is a note expression, of course, but the p has to be a measure expression, since there is no note to attach it to. If you attach it in the score to the whole note, the displacement will be in EVPU and you will almost certainly need to move it in the part. If you make it measure-attached, you can specify the displacement in beats from the beginning of the measure, which means it'll still be in the right place in the part. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?
On Apr 28, 2007, at 8:33 AM, shirling neueweise wrote: This is one area where Finale behaves plain stupid. huh? why? aside from not being able to attach expressions to page coordinates as well... I think he was referring to not having easy access to the Staff Lists when using Measure-attached metatools. That is kind of stupid. I wish I didn't have to backtrack, or avoid metatools altogether with Measure expressions. I would like some kind of toggle to call up the Staff Lists, like hold down Option while clicking to get the staff list box. But as for expressions attached to page coordinates: isn't that what the Text tool is for? Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?
If you make it measure-attached, you can specify the displacement in beats from the beginning of the measure, which means it'll still be in the right place in the part. even better is right aligned to right measure with a specific leftwards offset to avoid collision with barlines and to look fab. -- 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] should we expect another upgrade?
But as for expressions attached to page coordinates: isn't that what the Text tool is for? what about movement titles? copyright notices on individual pieces in a set with part extraction? performance notes as footnotes? -- 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] should we expect another upgrade?
On 28-Apr-07, at 9:44 AM, shirling neueweise wrote: But as for expressions attached to page coordinates: isn't that what the Text tool is for? what about movement titles? copyright notices on individual pieces in a set with part extraction? performance notes as footnotes? I stand corrected. I wasn't looking far enough ahead, as no doubt, the Finale programmers weren't either. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?
At 09:44 AM 4/28/2007, shirling neueweise wrote: But as for expressions attached to page coordinates: isn't that what the Text tool is for? what about movement titles? copyright notices on individual pieces in a set with part extraction? performance notes as footnotes? I haven't dealt with the latter two, but for movement titles I use measure expressions, and in this case measure offset coordinates work better than page coordinates. In a part, a new movement may begin anywhere vertically on the page: the top system, a middle system, etc. So page coordinates aren't very useful. But in the things I do, the movement always begins at the first measure at the beginning of a system. So my movement titles will always be a certain distance above that measure and a certain distance to the right, to get them horizontally centered on the page. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?
On 28.04.2007 shirling neueweise wrote: Actually, that is not always ideal, and sometimes plain silly. How do you place an Allegro marking to a note to allign with the start of the time sig (as you can with a measure attached expression), let alone the trouble when extracting parts. it's not silly at all, mark seemed fairly clearly to be referring to note-specific expressions; although i could be wrong... and of course tempi and other score-related expressions should be measure attached. All I said was there are situations where measure attached expressions have a lot of advantages. This is one area where Finale behaves plain stupid. huh? why? aside from not being able to attach expressions to page coordinates as well... It is f=?)(()/ plain stupid that Finale doesn't at least remember the last setting of the staff asignment dialog when using metatools, just as it does when entering them manually. It makes metatools pretty useless with measure assigned expressions. There are many possible solutions to this problem, and it has been a problem for many years. The least that should have been done is a setting where Finale remembers the last setting. That's not too much to ask. Personally I think it should be even better about it, and let you assign a default stafflist to each expression. 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] should we expect another upgrade?
On 28.04.2007 Christopher Smith wrote: But as for expressions attached to page coordinates: isn't that what the Text tool is for? In a way, yes, but it doesn't really work. Even with text frames you can only _either_ attach it to the page _or_ to a measure. And ideally expressions should be able to support settings like horizontally centered. 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] should we expect another upgrade?
At 09:17 AM 4/28/2007, shirling neueweise wrote: If you make it measure-attached, you can specify the displacement in beats from the beginning of the measure, which means it'll still be in the right place in the part. even better is right aligned to right measure with a specific leftwards offset to avoid collision with barlines and to look fab. I don't want to get into a whole thing here, because I was talking about one rather specific kind of thing which is now lost from the quote. Basically, a measure expression on a single staff is useful for indicating the endpoint of a cresc or dim that falls mid-measure with no note to attach it to. My example was beat 4 of a whole note. But I do disagree with your method for this case. I think that positioning the expression as you suggest would still result in the offset being given as EVPU -- that is, absolute units. Imagine a situation where one instrument has running sixteenths and another has a whole note, dim to p on beat 3. Your way, the p is a measure expression with a left offset in EVPU from the right barline. In the extracted part, where that measure is smaller with just the whole note there, that offset becomes too big -- the expression is no longer under beat 3 in the measure. My way, with an offset in beats from the beginning of the measure, the expression always falls in the right place regardless of how the measure is spaced. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?
It is f=?)(()/ plain stupid that Finale doesn't at least remember the last setting of the staff asignment dialog ah ok, i wasn't sure what you were on about, yes i totally agree. -- 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] should we expect another upgrade?
I think that positioning the expression as you suggest would still result in the offset being given as EVPU -- that is, absolute units. yes. My way, with an offset in beats from the beginning of the measure, the expression always falls in the right place regardless of how the measure is spaced. agreed (in principle), but typically the whole note measure takes up far too little space in the part (and is not proportionally related to surrounding measures) for the musician to be able to judge at which point the decresc. ends (p starts); for such precision you would be best to write out a dotted half tied to quarter; otherwise the musician is either going to estimate, or is going to check the score / ask colleagues... or is simply going to do whatever s/he feels like doing that day at that time. if it is critical, yes i agree on using beat points, but often composers are really slack about notating this kind of precision, in which case, the end of the measure solution is the most elegant (-looking) one in many cases. so, for example, if there are several instruments having this whole note with decresc. to 4th beat in the score i might in some cases still attach it to the right measure and cmd-drag (unlink) in the score to the 4th beat so that in the parts it is aligned with the right barline (with an appropriate leftwards offset); this gives you much more freedom with hairpin placement as well... which still sux in linked parts. -- 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] should we expect another upgrade?
On 28.04.2007 Aaron Sherber wrote: I haven't dealt with the latter two, but for movement titles I use measure expressions, and in this case measure offset coordinates work better than page coordinates. I think you are still talking about different things. As far as tempo indications like Allegro or similar go, you are correct, measure expressions work well, as such an indication needs to be alligned with the start of the time sig. However, quite often one wants titles which are centered above the first staff. The only way to do this properly is with a page attached text block, which will get pretty messy once you change your layout or use linked 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] Grace Notes on Voiced Linked Parts
Darcy, I have also tried in vain to overcome this problem and have given up and just added extra staves and voiced each part individually when I have dual voiced grace notes. I thought changing the 2nd part into layer 2 might help but it becomes even worse - and you still can't drag the notes around in the part anyway. Grace notes have never been Finale's best attribute anyway. This really needs to be fixed so you can use the special tools note mover or something. It makes a whole mockery of having the facility there in the first place. Jonathan On the other hand, I'm completely stumped when it comes to grace note spacing on voiced linked parts, which is, as far as I can tell, completely broken. A passage using grace notes that spaces fine on non-voiced parts will be an irredeemable mess on voiced parts, and there is no way to fix the spacing manually because none of the relevant tools work in voiced parts. Trying to make modifications in the score doesn't help either. Has anyone found a solution for this (other than extracting out)? Cheers, - Darcy ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?
On Apr 28, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 28.04.2007 Aaron Sherber wrote: I haven't dealt with the latter two, but for movement titles I use measure expressions, and in this case measure offset coordinates work better than page coordinates. I think you are still talking about different things. As far as tempo indications like Allegro or similar go, you are correct, measure expressions work well, as such an indication needs to be alligned with the start of the time sig. However, quite often one wants titles which are centered above the first staff. The only way to do this properly is with a page attached text block, which will get pretty messy once you change your layout or use linked parts. Actually, I understand what Aaron is saying for movement titles. A measure expression can be set to align with the left barline of bar 1, handle centre aligned, but with an additional horizontal offset of exactly half the printed page width (3.5 inches for an 8X11 sheet with .75 inch margins). This would exactly centre it on the page above the first system of that movement for all parts, no matter what the layout, and it would move with the first system, whatever you did with it. If you indent your first system, just deduct that amount from the additional offset. Very cool, Aaron! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?
On 28.04.2007 Christopher Smith wrote: Actually, I understand what Aaron is saying for movement titles. A measure expression can be set to align with the left barline of bar 1, handle centre aligned, but with an additional horizontal offset of exactly half the printed page width (3.5 inches for an 8X11 sheet with .75 inch margins). This would exactly centre it on the page above the first system of that movement for all parts, no matter what the layout, and it would move with the first system, whatever you did with it. If you indent your first system, just deduct that amount from the additional offset. Very cool, Aaron! It only goes some of the way, though: It doesn't handle several lines (you can only left allign them, not center), and if you have different indents for the first system (ie depending on the staff names for instance, and different in score and parts) it simply doesn't work any more without a lot of fiddling and readjustment. 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] Grace Notes on Voiced Linked Parts
Hi Jonathan, Just so you know, it's not just dual voiced grace notes -- they don't space correctly on voiced linked parts even on a2 passages. It's totally ridiculous. I guess the best solution would be to add extra staves to the score that only show up in scroll view, and use those hidden staves as a basis for the parts, but I usually end up just extracting out. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 28 Apr 2007, at 11:40 AM, Jonathan Smith wrote: Darcy, I have also tried in vain to overcome this problem and have given up and just added extra staves and voiced each part individually when I have dual voiced grace notes. I thought changing the 2nd part into layer 2 might help but it becomes even worse - and you still can't drag the notes around in the part anyway. Grace notes have never been Finale's best attribute anyway. This really needs to be fixed so you can use the special tools note mover or something. It makes a whole mockery of having the facility there in the first place. Jonathan On the other hand, I'm completely stumped when it comes to grace note spacing on voiced linked parts, which is, as far as I can tell, completely broken. A passage using grace notes that spaces fine on non-voiced parts will be an irredeemable mess on voiced parts, and there is no way to fix the spacing manually because none of the relevant tools work in voiced parts. Trying to make modifications in the score doesn't help either. Has anyone found a solution for this (other than extracting out)? Cheers, - Darcy ___ 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] should we expect another upgrade?
On Apr 28, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 28.04.2007 Christopher Smith wrote: Actually, I understand what Aaron is saying for movement titles. A measure expression can be set to align with the left barline of bar 1, handle centre aligned, but with an additional horizontal offset of exactly half the printed page width (3.5 inches for an 8X11 sheet with .75 inch margins). This would exactly centre it on the page above the first system of that movement for all parts, no matter what the layout, and it would move with the first system, whatever you did with it. If you indent your first system, just deduct that amount from the additional offset. Very cool, Aaron! It only goes some of the way, though: It doesn't handle several lines (you can only left allign them, not center), and if you have different indents for the first system (ie depending on the staff names for instance, and different in score and parts) it simply doesn't work any more without a lot of fiddling and readjustment. I see your point, but I could just go back to the way I did it before; turn on rulers and drag or nudge until the line shows up at the right place. Now all this could be solved by allowing centre justification in text expressions, just as we already have in Text Tool blocks. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] methods of entering and positioning expressions (was Re: should we expect another upgrade?)
On Apr 28, 2007, at 5:33 AM, shirling neueweise wrote: it's not silly at all, mark seemed fairly clearly to be referring to note-specific expressions; although i could be wrong... and of course tempi and other score-related expressions should be measure attached. Actually, no. I've always done all my expressions as measure- attached. It sounds like the consensus here is that auto-positioning and metatools are only going to be useful to me if I switch to note- attached. So now I'm looking at an even bigger change of habits than I thought. Given that I'm really not at all unhappy with how I do my expressions now, I'm starting to doubt whether it will be much benefit to me. Two of the things that you (Jef) have stressed as time-savers don't really apply to me. I never extract parts. Most of my work is piano-vocal. Occasionally I may do a piece that adds one or two other instruments to that. On the rare occasions I've needed to extract a solo part -- which I've done maybe about 10 times in my entire career -- I just make a copy of the full score file and delete the other parts. Of course I can see how that would be terribly inconvenient if one were to do a lot of extraction, or if one were to make changes to the score after the part is extracted, but since neither of those is the case for me it's not an issue. You also mention transposing. I do fairly often make transpositions of songs, but my standard habit is to add the expressions after I've transposed the music, not before. [Jef again, in another post] this brings up another point: if you are using only measure- attached expressions, there is absolutely no way to get the kind of precision you claim to be a freak about on the horizontal axis, since this is proportional (in relation to beats) and except in cases where expressions are placed at specific beat values (i.e. at 0 EVPUs and NOT offset by 5 EVPUs or whatever from the beat, eg. 1.5, 3.666) the positioning in relation to the music changes with the music spacing (different spacing; more or less measures per system), while note-attached horizontal positioning will always be in absolute relation to the note it is attached to. That's not true. When you enter the H position for an expression assignment you get the choice of absolute units or proportions of the beat. (If the value is negative, absolute is the only choice.) For a horizontal position within the measure, I typically do want to express is in beat-relative terms, so I'm happy with that. If I could have my way, I'd prefer to be able to enter H position there as a sum of beat value and absolute value, so that I could use either component or a combination of both. It sounds like you're saying I can have that, but only if I assign one to the expression itself and the other to the assignment. There are a few situations where I want something just a tiny bit left of a beat, in which case you're right, I can't get a consistent fix on it if it isn't on beat one. I've always done those by placing on the beat and then nudging with the arrow. I guess I've gotten used to it since it hasn't greatly bothered me, but now that you mention it, I would prefer if I could define those exactly. Even more significant is I'll occasionally have an expression where I really want to define the horizontal position off the barline, rather than starting from beat 1 and have to account for the variable distance between beat 1 and the barline due to accidental, second on a downstem, etc. (It would be really nice if they'd define beat zero as the barline rather than equivalent to beat one.) In those cases I've had to resort to dragging. I see that now I can assign the barline as the alignment point. Even if I don't change my standard habits over all, that's one situation where I'll use the new feature. (I don't think I mentioned: I only upgraded to 2k4 a few months ago, and I did very little engraving at all for about two years prior to that. My life had taken me in a different direction for a while, and it's only this year that I'm getting back into engraving.) I'm basically going to be doing math in my head each time, like, Let's see, I want this at -66, but my default position is defined as -42, so I need to type in -24. I'm starting to doubt that this is really going to save me time. yes but once set up properly you won't need to adjust anything in the majority of cases; you are already doing math in fact every single time you apply an expression, and **way** more math than you really need to with auto-positioning. It may have been math once upon a time, but now it's second nature. When I decide to position an expression at, say, V=-54, it's not because I've counting out the points, it's because I've been placing expressions for ages and I just know what -54 looks like. (That's also why I'm very
Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?
At 10:57 AM 4/28/2007, shirling neueweise wrote: agreed (in principle), but typically the whole note measure takes up far too little space in the part (and is not proportionally related to surrounding measures) for the musician to be able to judge at which point the decresc. ends (p starts); for such precision you would be best to write out a dotted half tied to quarter; otherwise the musician is either going to estimate, or is going to check the score / ask colleagues... or is simply going to do whatever s/he feels like doing that day at that time. Yes, you're right about this. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?
At 12:28 PM 4/28/2007, Johannes Gebauer wrote: It only goes some of the way, though: It doesn't handle several lines (you can only left allign them, not center), True. Although you can kind of fake center alignment with spaces. and if you have different indents for the first system (ie depending on the staff names for instance, and different in score and parts) it simply doesn't work any more without a lot of fiddling and readjustment. In linked parts, I find it takes a minimum of fiddling. And none at all in the particular things I've been doing. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?
At 12:15 PM 4/28/2007, Christopher Smith wrote: Actually, I understand what Aaron is saying for movement titles. A measure expression can be set to align with the left barline of bar 1, handle centre aligned, but with an additional horizontal offset of exactly half the printed page width (3.5 inches for an 8X11 sheet with .75 inch margins). This would exactly centre it on the page above the first system of that movement for all parts, no matter what the layout, and it would move with the first system, whatever you did with it. If you indent your first system, just deduct that amount from the additional offset. Yep, that's it exactly. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] methods of entering and positioning expressions (was Re: should we expect another upgrade?)
On 28-Apr-07, at 3:40 PM, Mark D Lew wrote: Two of the things that you (Jef) have stressed as time-savers don't really apply to me. I find it pretty handy just the same to have my tempo and style expressions with a pre-defined positioning, even if I won't be extracting parts. (I don't think I mentioned: I only upgraded to 2k4 a few months ago, and I did very little engraving at all for about two years prior to that. My life had taken me in a different direction for a while, and it's only this year that I'm getting back into engraving.) Well, you had better open up an expression definition box and take a look at the different options. They are pretty exhaustive, including postioning according to beat, absolute positioning, and alignment or centering with regards to barline, time sig, or start of music. It's hard to imagine anything you might want that isn't there, even if you stick with measure expressions. And those are just the horizontal options. If I'm understanding correctly, this means that if I have a ritard and a mf that I want at the same vertical position, they will actually have different V values, because one is measured from the top of the staff and the other is measured from whatever you set as a default V position, right? That seems like it would be confusing to me. No, not really, as you can decide what each expression is going to use as a reference. Each expression has a different positioning depending on whether it is note-attached or measure-attached, so your dynamic and rit could both be entered as measure expressions with the same default positioning, without losing out on auto-positioning of the dynamic as a note-attached expression. I guess I'm not totally sold on the idea of always measuring a dynamic marking's V position from the lowest note. Maybe that's because most of my dynamic markings go into a two-staff piano part. There can be other factors, but for the most part when I'm placing a dynamic I want it to be visually centered between the RH and LH. You don't have to measure the distance from the lowest note. In fact, the dynamics included with the default file are set to align with the lower baseline, except when a note gets low enough to collide. You can set your default placement (note attached) to be some vertical offset from the lower baseline so that they are always centred between the staves, BUT have an additional offset from the entries so that if there are some notes way below the staff then the dynamic will lower itself to avoid collisions. This means that they will all be horizontally aligned, except when they would collide with the low notes. You can also have dynamics that are defined differently so that they always go above the staff for vocal parts. Anyway, if you are sold on your own method (like I am on Speedy Entry, even though everyone seems to think Simple Entry beats it by a mile) who am I to say you're wrong? I just found that I could incorporate the default positioning feature and speed up my work considerably. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] methods of entering and positioning expressions (was Re: should we expect another upgrade?)
On 28.04.2007 Christopher Smith wrote: Anyway, if you are sold on your own method (like I am on Speedy Entry, even though everyone seems to think Simple Entry beats it by a mile) who am I to say you're wrong? Just wanted to say, I am also still on Speedy. I even tried Simple several times, but find it not fast enough to work for me. There are certain problems with Simple which slow me down too much. On the other hand I'd love to see improvements to Speedy. 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] methods of entering and positioning expressions (was Re: should we expect another upgrade?)
On 28.04.2007 Mark D Lew wrote: Actually, no. I've always done all my expressions as measure-attached. It sounds like the consensus here is that auto-positioning and metatools are only going to be useful to me if I switch to note-attached. So now I'm looking at an even bigger change of habits than I thought. Given that I'm really not at all unhappy with how I do my expressions now, I'm starting to doubt whether it will be much benefit to me. It makes a lot of sense to use note attached expressions for anything that has no global meaning. Personally I believe you could save a lot of key strokes and mouse actions if you set up an expression library with autoplacement options and used that. But then I still stick with certain habits other seem to think are old fashioned. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Is there a key command to select the Arrow tool in Finale?
Is there a key command to select the Arrow tool? Just tired of always mousing up to the top left corner. btw - haven't memorized the pdf manual yet :) thx, Jim :: j i m f i s c h e r :: p r o d u c e r :: m u s i c b o x p r o d u c t i o n s :: v a n c o u v e r, w a, u s a :: www.jimfischer.net -- :: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jimfischer.net *((( ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Is there a key command to select the Arrow tool in Finale?
Try the Escape key. In a message dated 4/28/07 5:06:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there a key command to select the Arrow tool? ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] A font problem (Mac)
I've been doing a project in Fin 2006c, exporting into PageMaker to assemble a book. I've always exported eps, but compiling eps still doesn't work properly. E.g. if I'm using a font with different weights of bold, even when I select the right one in the menu I only get one degree of bold - if I pick the heavy, say, it reverts back to regular Roman in the eps. So I thought I'd try pdf, which I can import into PageMaker. This was fine, except the 16th note rest prints as a box. It's fine onscreen, fine when I print to paper directly out of Finale, but screwed up when I print out of PageMaker. (PageMaker is an OS9 Classic application, and I suspect the problem lies here). Were fonts adjusted for OSX? Are there any other characters I should watch out for? Is there a solution? Thanks for any enlightenment, John Roberts (who normally works, when he can, in Fin 2001 - when tablature worked - or 2003 - when eps still worked in OS9) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] partial measure selection tip
When trying to select part of a measure, I already knew that it works better to select backwards. I still had problems getting parts of beats selected. Sometimes the highlighted area would round off to the nearest beat and other times not. (I couldn't see the pattern.) I finally found a sure-fire way to get the area you want. Click on the end of the area you want selected, hold for an extra second, and then select backwards. The key is to hold the mouse down and not move it for about an extra second. Your meterage may vary, but this works every time for me now. -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] methods of entering and positioning expressions
On Apr 28, 2007, at 6:09 PM, shirling neueweise wrote: double-click a note or measure (1-2 clicks of the mouse) scroll to find the expression in the expression list (several clicks) enter - 2 5 tab - 1 4 4 enter [=12-13 separate actions on the keyboard and mouse] Total time spent: ~ 6 seconds or... click+metatool assignment (good for 75-90% of the cases) [=1 action on the keyboard and mouse simultaneously] Total time spent: ~ 1 second for me it's fairly serious amounts of time and brainspace that is freed up for other things. In my typical work I enter about five or six expressions per page. At five seconds per expression, I save about a minute or two per song. That doesn't seem like a really big deal to me. As for brainspace, I don't see any savings at all. My current method, typing in the H and V is 99% routine and brain-automatic. I think I'd spend more time trying to remember what the metatool's default position is so I'd know whether it ended up where I want it or not. And of course all of this assumes that 100% of my expressions would now be done with the metatool, which is surely not the case. I don't see even 75%. You're saying that 75% to 90% of the time when you place, say, ritard, it's at the same vertical position? Not for me it isn't. Maybe this is the difference between expressions in a single-staff part and expressions in a two-staff piano part. mark, i won't try to force anyone to change their habits, i'm just astonished that someone as meticulous as you about these things has not seriously looked into the benefits this functionality has to offer. Sure, I understand, and I'm not trying to change your habits either. I'm just pursuing the discussion, and I'm still open to persuasion. You keep saying we're both meticulous, which may well be true, but I sense that we have different ways of expressing it. I'm not a speed freak, I'm a quality freak. Part of my meticulousness is that I like to take the extra time to take a good look at the page and say, I don't quite like how this slur aligns with the staff line or I'd like this measure a little tighter and this measure a little looser, and then take the extra few minutes to make it better. I'm happiest when I'm working for someone who appreciates the extra attention to the overall look. I can adjust my standards somewhat depending on the client and the purpose of the piece, but even my lowest standard is higher than some of the junkier publishers. I could never be happy working or one of those publishing houses that just wants to crank out songs for cheap and doesn't care if they look junky. I totally understand why that might make sense for them -- or similarly for someone who just wants a quick-and-dirty draft on the cheap for reading through -- but I can't work for them without underpricing myself. The fact that I prefer entering exact numbers to dragging and guessing may have given you the wrong impression of my aesthetic. I do like consistency, but it's still not entirely mechanical. There's a great deal of subjective judgment that goes into my little nudges and tweaks; it's just that I like to express that judgment as Hmm, I think I want that one at -63 instead of -66 as opposed to nudge, nudge, yeah, that looks good now. Anyway, as I've said before, I am seriously look[ing] into the benefits this functionality has to offer, and I do think it will be of some benefit to me. After I experiment with it on some real work I'll have a better idea of just how much. I just don't see that I'm going to give up going through the assignment dialog box for 50%+ of my expressions, and if I'm going through that dialog anyway, there's less to be gained by switching to note-attached or using metatools. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] methods of entering and positioning expressions
But of course, using the Horiztonal Offset in the expression definition, you CAN specify an absolute offset from beat position. That's just one of the many benefits of the Fin2004+ expressions. And, as you point out, there's just no way selecting expressions from the list can ever be remotely as efficient as working with metatools -- and that's even without the substantial added benefits of auto- positioning. I admit that I find myself vaguely appalled that Mark still selects dynamics from the expression list. He probably still pays his bills by mail, too. [grin] Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 28 Apr 2007, at 9:09 PM, shirling neueweise wrote: and of course i agree that the fact that measure-attached expressions cannot be used as efficiently as note-attached with metatools is an important problem, and that (absolute) offset from beat position (relative) is imperative to a professional notation programme; despite the fact that i still have to make minor adjustments for many cases (you've seen the stuff i work on i'm sure) i would never return to manually entering positioning coordinates as the norm. mark, i won't try to force anyone to change their habits, i'm just astonished that someone as meticulous as you about these things has not seriously looked into the benefits this functionality has to offer. -- shirling neueweise ... new music publishers mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ 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] A font problem (Mac)
Yes. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 28 Apr 2007, at 8:28 PM, John Roberts wrote: Were fonts adjusted for OSX? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
