[Finale] Refuses to optimize
What am I not thinking of? Solo, Sop, Alto, Ten, Bass staves, part of a grouping. There are 6 bars of rest, then only the men sing for awhile. So there are plenty of empty staves. Nothing I've tried will cause them to optimize. * made sure all whole rests were default * checked the group attributes --saw that it said Optimize Only If All Staves Are Empty Aha! I changed it to Optimize Normally. Applied optimization, no change. And when i look at Group Attributes again, it has changed itself back to its original setting. Why? *checked individual staves to make sure opt. was allowed (it was) I can't think of what I've overlooked. Help would be appreciated. Richard FINMAC 07 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Refuses to optimize
You need to remove optimization, *then* change the group attributes, *then* optimize. After optimization, any change to group attributes only affects a single system. Another, perhaps easier solution -- use TGTools Staff List Manager. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 31 Oct 2007, at 3:05 AM, Richard Huggins wrote: * checked the group attributes --saw that it said Optimize Only If All Staves Are Empty Aha! I changed it to Optimize Normally. Applied optimization, no change. And when i look at Group Attributes again, it has changed itself back to its original setting. Why? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Refuses to optimize
Um, special part extraction? Richard Huggins wrote: What am I not thinking of? Solo, Sop, Alto, Ten, Bass staves, part of a grouping. There are 6 bars of rest, then only the men sing for awhile. So there are plenty of empty staves. Nothing I've tried will cause them to optimize. * made sure all whole rests were default * checked the group attributes --saw that it said Optimize Only If All Staves Are Empty Aha! I changed it to Optimize Normally. Applied optimization, no change. And when i look at Group Attributes again, it has changed itself back to its original setting. Why? *checked individual staves to make sure opt. was allowed (it was) I can't think of what I've overlooked. Help would be appreciated. Richard FINMAC 07 ___ 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] Finale for windows and Mac
On Oct 30, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: I found, however, that the Mac version of Finale 2004 was very slow on my Mac G4. I run Finale 2004 on a Mac G4, and I've never noticed it being slow. I wonder if the difference is in our systems, our work habits, or our patience. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Posting delays
On Oct 30, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Chuck Israels wrote: [answering Richard Yates] The recent question about quarter-eighth tuplets received five responses (all with the same answer, by the way! Go team!) within a short time. Mine arrived very soon after I sent it and the others could not have been unduly delayed. My response was sent quite soon after the question was posted, but it took some hours to show up on the list. Same here. I remember thinking, as I posted my answer, that it was odd that no one else had answered yet. Then several other answers appeared before mine did. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] re: Harp Question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How come it's not Hes-Dur? Because the B/H notation was invented before sharps and flats were, and presumably Des, Es etc. came last. B - flat sign H - natural and sharp signs -- Ken Moore ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: AW: [Finale] Sibelius 5 - Second impressions
Eric Dannewitz wrote: I, so far, find Sibelius extremely backwards. Like putting articulations on notes after I enter them. Still can't figure that out. Nor if you decide you want to change an instrument on a score. So far, I've tried to do two trios with Sibelius, but ended up going back to Finale cause it was just not working very well for me That's fine -- in Finale, using Speedy Entry, I've always entered the notes first and then the articulations, so that wasn't a stopper for me. Changing an instrument in the score, while keeping all the music can be done several ways -- from the Mixer window or from the Create - Instrument dialog where you add a new staff, then select all the music in the old instrument staff and then paste it into the new staff then delete the old staff. But it took me three versions of Sibelius before I finally felt comfortable working in it. I wouldn't expect others to keep at it if they don't wish to. If Finale works fine for you and you don't run into the bugs that have amassed in recent versions, then you should keep on working in Finale. I find that when I start Finale2k8 it doesn't feel the same and I don't like the new feel, but when I fire up Fin2k7 or earlier (I've got them all going back to 2004 on my computer still) I feel right at home. And when I start Sib5 (now 5.1) I feel right at home, too. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Posting delays
Chuck Israels wrote: Hi Richard, My response was sent quite soon after the question was posted, but it took some hours to show up on the list. I seem to recall some sort of similar delay happening a year or two ago, which happened just before SHSU replaced their servers. But it's curious that many posts come straight through while others are held up for quite a while. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Posting delays
dhbailey wrote: Chuck Israels wrote: Hi Richard, My response was sent quite soon after the question was posted, but it took some hours to show up on the list. I seem to recall some sort of similar delay happening a year or two ago, which happened just before SHSU replaced their servers. But it's curious that many posts come straight through while others are held up for quite a while. This came through in 11 minutes -- hardly instantaneous but also hardly a meaningful delay. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT (was: Harp Question)
In the 12th century or something when introducing a 7th note to the already existing hexachord, there was a babylonic confusion about the name. We know that the first syllabe of each verse came out the hymne for St Johannes (Ut..., Re..., Mi..., etc.) where indeed every sentence started a tone above the previous. But what about the new, seventh note? A solution was found at the end of the hymne: Sanctus Iohannis has lent his initials to name the Si. But..., a second problem arised by introducing the musica ficta: should it be a high or a low Si? Therefore we invented two new signs: a rondinum and a quadratum. The quadratum looks like a h, our natural sign, later even transformed to a sharp, while the rondinum stand for a lowered (b). This system has evolved to other steps of the scale. The names C-D-E... (or originally A-B(H)-C...) were invented later. Hence there are yet three systems in our western music: - the italian, used also in France and Belgium. (Do, Re, Mi, etc). For us the La is fixed at 440 Hz. We know the other systems, but don't use them in practice. BTW: Ut, the first tone, wasn't very useful for solfeggio exercises, therefore changed in Do. - the german, A-H-C-D,... who swear by the original historical context. When they mean Sib (Bb), they call it consequentially B. - the english, also used in the Netherlands, A-B-C, etc. For both german and english systems the A is fixed, while for them the italian names are relatives to the scale. I don't know much about the historical outcome of the C-D- system, nor about the suffixes -es and -is, to mark a b or a # (des, fis), It likes even a bit ridiculous when comes to double alterations (cisis, geses). The english Bb and C# likes more logical. Hans Please, compose something Wagner-like, only a bit shorter and louder. Sam Goldwyn. Op 30-okt-07, om 17:49 heeft A-NO-NE Music het volgende geschreven: dhbailey / 07.10.30 / 6:33 AM wrote: B-dur would be our Bb-major. What's the confusion? I know. A moment of stupidness. How come it's not Hes-Dur? :-) -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.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: AW: [Finale] Sibelius 5 - Second impressions
You can select the articulation from the keypad at the same time as the rhythm. But I find that awkward unless you just need a few isolated articulations. For me, articulation is most seamlessly applied to entire regions (select any number of measures) rather than note by note. I also stop entering notes from scratch and begin a copy, paste, and edit routine as soon as possible. If you copy a passage that's already articulated, attaching articulations becomes moot. This is another case of Sib and Finale being differently abled. You can get to the same result but the path may be much different and some may prefer Finale's while others prefer Sibelius'. Richard Smith http://rgsmithmusic.com Eric Dannewitz wrote: I, so far, find Sibelius extremely backwards. Like putting articulations on notes after I enter them. Still can't figure that out. Nor if you decide you want to change an instrument on a score. So far, I've tried to do two trios with Sibelius, but ended up going back to Finale cause it was just not working very well for me John Howell wrote: At 10:25 PM +0100 10/30/07, Kurt Gnos wrote: David, John, thanks for the quick and competent answers. Well, apart from the crashes, I get a quite good impression. And I am glad you two are here to answer all my future Sibelius questions. I must say, generally the user interface it quite nice and much more modern than Finale, and the output is flawless, which much less fiddling than in Finale. So I guess I am a candidate to switch, sooner or later... Kurt: David is competent, I'm still very much learning. But you might want to subscribe to the SibList at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's much like this list, not an official Sibelius list, with the crucial difference that a Senior Product Manager for Sibelius, Daniel Spreadbury, monitors the list and answers questions quickly and honestly. John ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Refuses to optimize
Did you enter the notes via Speedy? If so, make sure Speedy OptionsFill with Rests at End of Measure is NOT checked. At times this can place whole rests in the empty measures which would not allow you to optimize a system. Steve 10/31/07 2:05 AM, Richard Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What am I not thinking of? Solo, Sop, Alto, Ten, Bass staves, part of a grouping. There are 6 bars of rest, then only the men sing for awhile. So there are plenty of empty staves. Nothing I've tried will cause them to optimize. * made sure all whole rests were default * checked the group attributes --saw that it said Optimize Only If All Staves Are Empty Aha! I changed it to Optimize Normally. Applied optimization, no change. And when i look at Group Attributes again, it has changed itself back to its original setting. Why? *checked individual staves to make sure opt. was allowed (it was) I can't think of what I've overlooked. Help would be appreciated. Richard FINMAC 07 ___ 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] Harp question
On Oct 29, 2007, at 8:04 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Richard said it was a scale gliss, and also that his client wanted a verbal description. I think his client is being a bit of an idiot -- if you want to be extra-clear, the way to go is to put in the first seven notes of the gliss as grace notes, and not all harpists can read chord symbol indications. But sometimes, you have to let the client be an idiot. While I agree --if in less direct language!-- that it's a fairly worthless requirement to add the verbal description (client's choice), I may not have been clear that a pedal diagram accompanies each pedal change, so no symbol-reading ability is called for. Had writing out all 7 notes for each one been required, I would have slit my throat. This is a hymnal project, with over 600 titles spread over 4 arrangers. On Oct 29, 2007, at 6:49 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: Some, like Don Sebesky, suggest glissing on the RESOLUTION harmony, rather than the PRE-resolution harmony. Yeah, that's an interesting idea. One of the arrangers did that, and at first I (who am also editing these) was tempted to nix it when it hit me that the effect of the sweep still would be there, and that in many cases, particularly when the two harmonies are in the same family (say, Eb and Bb) the actual tuning would be less important than one might think, such as at a quick tempo, when it's over before it starts (:) And no dampening is needed unless the resolution harmony changes quickly or there's a quick rest, etc. --RH ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Refuses to optimize
Thanks to all for the helpful tips. The one below worked. Not seeing the results of optimization onscreen, I wouldn't have thought there was any sense in using Remove Optimization. I realize now that optimization can be in effect, just not be being allowed by an overiding attribute. RH On Oct 31, 2007, at 2:46 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote: You need to remove optimization, *then* change the group attributes, *then* optimize. After optimization, any change to group attributes only affects a single system. Another, perhaps easier solution -- use TGTools Staff List Manager. - Darcy ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Refuses to optimize
This is another good reason to use TGTools. Not only can you manipulate staves AFTER optimizing, there is a command to Update Groups, which has helped me immensely in the past. Especially after adding a new stave while editing a score that had been previously optimized. Worth every penny it costs. J D Thomas ThomaStudios On Oct 31, 2007, at 7:17 AM, Richard Huggins wrote: Thanks to all for the helpful tips. The one below worked. Not seeing the results of optimization onscreen, I wouldn't have thought there was any sense in using Remove Optimization. I realize now that optimization can be in effect, just not be being allowed by an overiding attribute. RH On Oct 31, 2007, at 2:46 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote: You need to remove optimization, *then* change the group attributes, *then* optimize. After optimization, any change to group attributes only affects a single system. Another, perhaps easier solution -- use TGTools Staff List Manager. - 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] Refuses to optimize
Heh, heh (I only giggle in commiseration, not AT you) I lost the better part of a day on this a few years ago, before I realised that I had to REMOVE optimisation before changing the group attributes. And with Linked Parts, things have changed again (as Kim R discovered in 2007). And BTW, Darcy, unless this has changed recently, changing the group attributes to Allow Optimisation Normally doesn't even affect the system I am on. It blithely lets you go ahead changing the option to no effect (which should be greyed out, IMO, if it isn't going to do anything) until you are ready to scream. Christopher On 31-Oct-07, at 10:17 AM, Richard Huggins wrote: Thanks to all for the helpful tips. The one below worked. Not seeing the results of optimization onscreen, I wouldn't have thought there was any sense in using Remove Optimization. I realize now that optimization can be in effect, just not be being allowed by an overiding attribute. RH On Oct 31, 2007, at 2:46 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote: You need to remove optimization, *then* change the group attributes, *then* optimize. After optimization, any change to group attributes only affects a single system. Another, perhaps easier solution -- use TGTools Staff List Manager. - Darcy ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Refuses to optimize
I've often wondered how difficult it would be for MakeMusic to add a warning box to pop up when someone tries to optimize something which has already been optimized -- say, for instance, we receive a Finale file from a client who just can't be bothered with it anymore but wants it to look better, or a file we've worked on in the past but which was long enough ago we have forgotten that we had optimized already, or as in Richard's case, where he had optimized but with no apparent result so he thought that he hadn't actually optimized it. All it would take, since Finale obviously knows it's already been optimized and therefore won't apply any more optimization (there must be some sort of flag for it to know this), would be an error message saying This file has already been optimized. To complete the optimization you have just initiated you must remove all optimization and then re-optimize. A very well-behaved program might also include an offer to do it for you: Would you like to remove all current optimization first and then have Finale proceed to re-optimize using the latest settings? (Y)es (N)o. Or maybe even something like Would you like to remove all current optimization first and then have Finale proceed to add these recent optimization options to those already in place and re-optimize? (Y)es (N)o. But to just have it sit there doing nothing helps nobody. David H. Bailey Richard Huggins wrote: Thanks to all for the helpful tips. The one below worked. Not seeing the results of optimization onscreen, I wouldn't have thought there was any sense in using Remove Optimization. I realize now that optimization can be in effect, just not be being allowed by an overiding attribute. RH On Oct 31, 2007, at 2:46 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote: You need to remove optimization, *then* change the group attributes, *then* optimize. After optimization, any change to group attributes only affects a single system. Another, perhaps easier solution -- use TGTools Staff List Manager. - Darcy ___ 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
[Finale] Re: Finale 2008
This is the text of an item I recently published on my blog, Renewable Music ( http://renewablemusic.blogspot.com/ ): Fibs Sins, an update I'm frequently asked for recommendations for notation programs, and my answer is usually depends..., with an encouragement to consider a variety of programs rather than get stuck in a software monoculture. I mostly use Finale 2007, and sometimes use Harmony Assistant and Turandot, and have recently played with Lime and Lily Pond. I am happy with Finale 2007 and find it both flexible and powerful, but that flexibility and power has come at the cost of a substantial investment in learning the tricks of the program, and the assistance of a few third-party plug-in, especially the indispensable TGTools made by the composer Tobias Giesen. However, I have paid close attention to reviews of the latest Finale update (2008) and have noticed a real trend among power users of Finale to either skip this update or to switch to Sibelius, due to the apparent decision of the staff at Finale to invest more in additional features rather than improve the performance of existing features, including a couple of persistent bugs. I have also been impressed by the fact that Sibelius staff maintain a presence in public fora and appear to bend over backwards with customer queries. Finale staff are often, frankly, a bit surly -- bug reports are responded to with diffidence and suggestions for improvement get form letter responses. It also seems to be company policy at MakeMusic, which owns Finale, to ignore public fora, like the Finale Users' List. Finally, I have looked at the public financial statements of MakeMusic, and I have some concern for the future of the product. I really don't want to be stuck with orphaned software, especially with orphaned software that depends upon the registration system initiated in 2006 or 2007. Because of this, I've decided to make a Sibelius cross-purchase (there are special offers this month) as insurance against further developments at MakeMusic. Again, I really like Finale, can do almost anything I want with it, hope the best for its continued development and I don't plan on using Sibelius, with its inflexible entry methods, with any frequency, but a bit of insurance seems warranted.. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Refuses to optimize
Christopher Smith wrote: before I realised that I had to REMOVE optimisation before changing the group attributes. Why not just use Scroll View, change the attribute there and then optimize? Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Refuses to optimize
Jari Williamsson wrote: [snip] Jari! Welcome back to the list! -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: AW: [Finale] Sibelius 5 - Second impressions
At 10:30 PM -0800 10/30/07, Eric Dannewitz wrote: I, so far, find Sibelius extremely backwards. Like putting articulations on notes after I enter them. Still can't figure that out. I'll second everything David Bailey said, but add this. Sibelius gives you choices, and one of those choices is to add articulations as you enter notes. It's done with the keypad, and of course depends on how facile you are using the keypad, but I'm gradually training myself to do it that way so I won't have to go back to add them, and my speed is gradually increasing. You can also reprogram the keypad, according to some users, but that's something I probably won't investigate until I'm comfortable with the default arrangement. Nor if you decide you want to change an instrument on a score. I assume that you mean same staff, change to a different instrument, perhaps change clef or transposition, rather than the scenario David explained. I know it can be done, but not how because I haven't had to learn it yet. All notation is complex. (Don't forget that it was originally developed by monks using feathers!!!) But any program has to deal with those complexities. Some do it better than others, but I don't EVER expect any programmer or team of programmers to come up with exactly the same way of approaching things. So far, I've tried to do two trios with Sibelius, but ended up going back to Finale cause it was just not working very well for me Cool. No problem. I used Mosaic long after it stopped being supported because I was comfortable with it. Now it no longer runs on OS X. I'd probably still be using it if I could, but then I'm Mr. Conservative when it comes to jumping into new programs when I have an older one that does what I need it to do. John -- John R. Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences 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: AW: [Finale] Sibelius 5 - Second impressions
John Howell wrote: All notation is complex. In this case, I think the complete opposite way. The problem as I see it is that all music software of today are using technology from 30-40 years ago. If a music program was developed today, using the technology invented during the last 5-10 years, a music notation program could handle notation in an extremely simple way. And it could also be a creative environment, which can't be said of any music notation product found today... ;-) Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: AW: [Finale] Sibelius 5 - Second impressions
John Howell wrote: Nor if you decide you want to change an instrument on a score. I assume that you mean same staff, change to a different instrument, perhaps change clef or transposition, rather than the scenario David explained. I know it can be done, but not how because I haven't had to learn it yet. Either way. Seems like you can't do it easily in Sibelius. You have to create a new staff and then copy all the stuff over? You can't just click the staff and change it? Seems non-intuitive to me. All notation is complex. (Don't forget that it was originally developed by monks using feathers!!!) But any program has to deal with those complexities. Some do it better than others, but I don't EVER expect any programmer or team of programmers to come up with exactly the same way of approaching things. Well, ideally, they should have multiple ways of doing it. One path is not always the best path. That is one thing that is great about Finale is that it generally has a number of ways to do what you want it to do. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: AW: [Finale] Sibelius 5 - Second impressions
Eric Dannewitz wrote: John Howell wrote: Nor if you decide you want to change an instrument on a score. I assume that you mean same staff, change to a different instrument, perhaps change clef or transposition, rather than the scenario David explained. I know it can be done, but not how because I haven't had to learn it yet. Either way. Seems like you can't do it easily in Sibelius. You have to create a new staff and then copy all the stuff over? You can't just click the staff and change it? Seems non-intuitive to me. You don't have to do it that way -- that's just one way you can do it. You can edit the attributes for the existing staff. All notation is complex. (Don't forget that it was originally developed by monks using feathers!!!) But any program has to deal with those complexities. Some do it better than others, but I don't EVER expect any programmer or team of programmers to come up with exactly the same way of approaching things. Well, ideally, they should have multiple ways of doing it. One path is not always the best path. That is one thing that is great about Finale is that it generally has a number of ways to do what you want it to do. The same is true for Sibelius. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: AW: [Finale] Sibelius 5 - Second impressions
Eric this may be what you want. 1. Right click on a blank part of the page for the context menu. At the bottom of the menu is other. Open that up. 2. Select change instrument 3. Pick an instrument from the list. 4. Click the now blue (=loaded) arrow where you want to change the instrument. You will get a transposition and key and/or clef change as needed as well as a text instruction to the performer to change to the instrument. 5. If you want to change the stave for the entire score, click in the left margin just to the left of the staff. It will change the staff and look as if the new instrument had been the choice fromt he beginning. I think that having multiple ways of doing things has a lot to do with familiarity. I really like Sibelius' step time entry. There are so many ways to enter music that I am constantly changing my approach to fit the particular circumstance. Conversely, I find Finale's Speedy Entry restrictive but many of the workers on this list would certainly disagree. These two are just differently abled and the versatility is good for us all. Richard Smith http://www.rgsmithmusic.com Eric Dannewitz wrote: John Howell wrote: Nor if you decide you want to change an instrument on a score. I assume that you mean same staff, change to a different instrument, perhaps change clef or transposition, rather than the scenario David explained. I know it can be done, but not how because I haven't had to learn it yet. Either way. Seems like you can't do it easily in Sibelius. You have to create a new staff and then copy all the stuff over? You can't just click the staff and change it? Seems non-intuitive to me. All notation is complex. (Don't forget that it was originally developed by monks using feathers!!!) But any program has to deal with those complexities. Some do it better than others, but I don't EVER expect any programmer or team of programmers to come up with exactly the same way of approaching things. Well, ideally, they should have multiple ways of doing it. One path is not always the best path. That is one thing that is great about Finale is that it generally has a number of ways to do what you want it to do. ___ 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 2008 repositioning articulations
There used to be a trick that worked in Finale up to 2007, but it doesn't seem to work in 2008 (demo at least). If you wanted to remove any strange placements of articulation positions, you could switch to the articulation tool, and then do a Command-A (Select all), then hit the clear key. That seems not to work in 2008. Ideas? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
AW: AW: [Finale] Sibelius 5 - Second impressions
Jari, when I read your message, I didn't agree. I doubt whether music notation, a rather complex and not always logical process, can be handled in a simple way. But then I think I have been using Finale for almost 20 years. Even if they were progresses, and big ones, you are right - the core of the program is 20 years old. I remember I did a song book for the church I was working for. Finale 3 had no easy way to do slurs, you had to fine-tune everyone. 3.5 came out and hat automatic slurs - they were much better. So I deleted every slur in about 300 pages and used the new ones... And so on. I have used Finale so long I can do everything I want, but as in, e. g. quark xpress, I do it the hard way. I have learned to use quite exotic work-arounds to get to the goal. And I am tired of it. Postscript (I have bought postscript printers for 20 years because of Finale) worked on and off. After working fine for some years, it has not been working fine for 10 years or so, Coda blaming Windows, but hell, why do other programs like Sibelius work fine? Sibelius is certainly newer, fresher, but it has the same problem as Finale. It has grown over the years, adding features, adding features we need, and certainly adding featers I don't need, but the interface - is not up-to-date. So the best thing is if one of the big music-notation-firms that hopefully have learned of their draw-backs would create a new, easy-to-use notation software that does everything the way we want and also offers the freedom to do everything. What I like more in Sibelius (compared to Finale) after just a few hours is - in Finale, I enter music, and then spend most of my time doing layout things - in Siblius, I don't have to spend so much time doing layout work, because it's looking fine, by default. So if Finale doesn't want to lose more clients, this should be its first priority - we enter the notes and stuff, and Finale does the layout in a satisfying way... We should not need to do both... Fix its old bugs, but better reprogram it from scratch, using new technologies, so finally (!) I agree with you, Jari, we need a new program... Kurt -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Jari Williamsson Gesendet: Mittwoch, 31. Oktober 2007 19:45 An: finale@shsu.edu Betreff: Re: AW: [Finale] Sibelius 5 - Second impressions John Howell wrote: All notation is complex. In this case, I think the complete opposite way. The problem as I see it is that all music software of today are using technology from 30-40 years ago. If a music program was developed today, using the technology invented during the last 5-10 years, a music notation program could handle notation in an extremely simple way. And it could also be a creative environment, which can't be said of any music notation product found today... ;-) Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ 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: AW: [Finale] Sibelius 5 - Second impressions
Right clicking does not bring up any context menu that has OTHER in it. I get Cut, Copy, Paste, Delete, Capture Idea, Voice, Hide/Show, Color and Apply Color... However, in the menu, there is Other buried under Create.. Sibelius 5.1...frustrating.. Richard Smith wrote: Eric this may be what you want. 1. Right click on a blank part of the page for the context menu. At the bottom of the menu is other. Open that up. 2. Select change instrument 3. Pick an instrument from the list. 4. Click the now blue (=loaded) arrow where you want to change the instrument. You will get a transposition and key and/or clef change as needed as well as a text instruction to the performer to change to the instrument. 5. If you want to change the stave for the entire score, click in the left margin just to the left of the staff. It will change the staff and look as if the new instrument had been the choice fromt he beginning. I think that having multiple ways of doing things has a lot to do with familiarity. I really like Sibelius' step time entry. There are so many ways to enter music that I am constantly changing my approach to fit the particular circumstance. Conversely, I find Finale's Speedy Entry restrictive but many of the workers on this list would certainly disagree. These two are just differently abled and the versatility is good for us all. Richard Smith http://www.rgsmithmusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Repeat
On 31-Oct-07, at 5:14 PM, dc wrote: I have a piece in C time AA'BB'. My source has both repeat signs for A in the middle of a measure. Would it make more sense to fill in the last measure of A to have both repeat signs agree with barlines? Don't know if I'm stating this clearly. There is a pickup bar. And then a repeat sign between beats 2 3 of m.1 and another one in the middle of m.8. I'm wondering if it would be better to shift both of these 2 beats to the right. In a modern piece, I would shift them unless you have to stick to what the composer ordered for some reason. It is much more clear to make repeats coincide with barlines. In a historical piece, I would keep the repeats where they are. Users of this music are used to it. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Finale digest
Is anybody there? I sent a query yesterday and have not received any digests since then. Here it is again. [FINALE 2002, Windows XP] Are there any easy ways to create a retrograde (or inverted) copy of a passage? I have looked at the canonic utilities but cannot make any sense of how they work or whether they will do what I want. Regards, Michael Lawlor ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2008 repositioning articulations
Hi Eric, Still works for me. At least if I drag select the ones I want to change. Chuck On Oct 31, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: There used to be a trick that worked in Finale up to 2007, but it doesn't seem to work in 2008 (demo at least). If you wanted to remove any strange placements of articulation positions, you could switch to the articulation tool, and then do a Command-A (Select all), then hit the clear key. That seems not to work in 2008. Ideas? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2008 repositioning articulations
Drag selecting seems to work fine, but you used to be able to select all in scroll view (or page view) and then hit the clear key and it worked. Chuck Israels wrote: Hi Eric, Still works for me. At least if I drag select the ones I want to change. Chuck ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2008 repositioning articulations
On Oct 31, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: Drag selecting seems to work fine, but you used to be able to select all in scroll view (or page view) and then hit the clear key and it worked. Still works fine for me. Clear removes all manual positioning of articulations when the articulation tool is selected. It also works as always on chords and all expressions. You ARE talking about the Clear key on the Mac full-sized keyboard numeric keypad? Right above the 7 key? Where Clear DOESN'T work any more is getting rid of staff styles. It deletes all the contents and markings! I wish 2008 still had this. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2008 repositioning articulations
I think you misunderstood. You used to be able to, on the Macintosh version, switch to Scroll or Page View, then switch to the articulations tool, do a Command-A (or go to the edit menu and select it) and it would select all the articulations. Then, you could press the clear/number lock key (yes, the one above 7) to have Finale go back to the default positioning (or reset it). You cannot seem to do a Command-A to select all articulations while in the articulations tool. You can use the mouse and highlight an area and do it.. Christopher Smith wrote: Still works fine for me. Clear removes all manual positioning of articulations when the articulation tool is selected. It also works as always on chords and all expressions. You ARE talking about the Clear key on the Mac full-sized keyboard numeric keypad? Right above the 7 key? Where Clear DOESN'T work any more is getting rid of staff styles. It deletes all the contents and markings! I wish 2008 still had this. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: AW: AW: [Finale] Sibelius 5 - Second impressions
On 1 Nov 2007 at 2:22, Kurt Gnos wrote: Fix its old bugs, but better reprogram it from scratch, using new technologies This is a really terrible suggestion. If you think the bugs in Finale are bad now, wait 'til you see the new programmed-from-scratch Finale. Consider the case of Netscape, which chucked its entire codebase and started from scratch. The result was that for 5 years, there was no new Netscape browser, and the world moved on and Netscape lost its market share. Joel Spolsky explains why it's bad to chuck an existing codebase and start from scratch: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog69.html Quote: Netscape 6.0 is finally going into its first public beta. There never was a version 5.0. The last major release, version 4.0, was released almost three years ago. Three years is an awfully long time in the Internet world. During this time, Netscape sat by, helplessly, as their market share plummeted. It's a bit smarmy of me to criticize them for waiting so long between releases. They didn't do it on purpose, now, did they? Well, yes. They did. They did it by making the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make: They decided to rewrite the code from scratch. It was originally posted April 6, 2000. And y'all know how many more years it took after that before the Mozilla foundation produced a decent browser. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
At 12:07 PM +0100 10/31/07, Hans Swinnen wrote: In the 12th century or something when introducing a 7th note to the already existing hexachord, there was a babylonic confusion about the name. We know that the first syllabe of each verse came out the hymne for St Johannes (Ut..., Re..., Mi..., etc.) where indeed every sentence started a tone above the previous. But what about the new, seventh note? A solution was found at the end of the hymne: Sanctus Iohannis has lent his initials to name the Si. But..., a second problem arised by introducing the musica ficta: should it be a high or a low Si? Therefore we invented two new signs: a rondinum and a quadratum. The quadratum looks like a h, our natural sign, later even transformed to a sharp, while the rondinum stand for a lowered (b). This system has evolved to other steps of the scale. The names C-D-E... (or originally A-B(H)-C...) were invented later. Hello, Hans, and you are very close to the truth in these matters. First, the chronology. Guido d'Arezzo invented both the hexachord system and staff notation in the early 11th century, probably around AD 1030. And he composed the hymn tune which generated the six syllable names for the notes in the hexachord. (The hymn itself, which is to say the poetry, had been around for about a century at the time.) His particular genius was to have taken different ideas that had been kicking around for 2 centuries or more and put them together in a new way, and his motivation was to find a way to teach the choirboys who were under his care all the chants of the Mass and Holy Office, a way that was better than teaching them each chant by ear. He succeeded brilliantly, and wrote that the training period, using his system of hexachordal analysis, was dramatically reduced from 10 years to 2 years, and his trained choristers could sightread a new chant from staff notation. This opened up the future possibility of using choirboys in polyphonic music while their voices had not yet broken. The secret of the hexachord's successes was always knowing where the halfsteps were on the staff, between mi and fa in each of the three hexachords. But Guido's system already incorporated the letter names of the notes. His gamut (which represented all the notes used in chant for men's and boys' voices, and NOT all the theoretically possible notes) named each note with its letter name PLUS the solfege syllables that note could have in each of the three hexachords. So the note A=440 hz could serve as la in the natural hexachord, as mi in the soft hexachord, or as re in the hard hexachord, and was named Alamire. (A nom de guerre adopted by one of King Henry VIII's spies, who like Henry was a musician!) Guido's system, devised for teaching purposes, was so successful that it was still in use at the early 17th century, some 600 years later, and was used in Thomas Morley's A Plaine and Easie Introduction to Practicall Musicke late in the 16th century. So while I do not know for sure where or when the syllable ti or si was added, it was probably no earlier than the 17th century and certainly not as early as the 12th. And you may be perfectly correct about the origin of S.I., although it could equally well be an urban legend. Incidentally, Guido's system was the original Movable Do (actually Movable Ut) system, and only much later did the Fixed Do syllables which you identify as Italian replace the letter names which Guido had used. Which leaves the matter of B and H (or more properly b and h). There was a reason that Guido needed to use three overlapping hexachords, and that reason was the note b. It was the ONLY variable note used in the chant of his time, and so was considered unstable. Thus his natural hexachord (c d e f g a) avoided B entirely; the soft hexachord (f g a bb c d) used the lowered form of B; and the hard hexachord (g a b c d e) used the raised form of B. (Remember, the key to the use of the hexachords was that there was ALWAYS a halfstep between mi and fa, the two notes at the center of the 6-note pitch set.) Thus, the lowered form of B was indicated by a lower case b, which indeed did develop into our flat sign. And the raised form of B was indicated by a squared-off lower case b, which evolved into our sharp sign, our natural sign (much later in history), and apparently to the Germanic use of H for the raised B. Originally it was simply a hard or raised form of b indicated by a squared off b without the extra strokes that it eventually gained. The use of musica ficta came much later in history, of course, and only once polyphony became common. (The only time it would have come up in chant was when una nota super la ... (one note above la in any hexachord) ... semper est canendem fa (was altered to be a halfstep above la, generally when it was the highest note in a phrase and the melody stayed in the original hexachord rather
[Finale] Some Questions...
Since, from the tone of the list recently, the religious war between Finale and Sibelius seems to be waning as both packages mature and since world wide communications and data sharing have become so instant, I have some questions for the list. What are your thoughts and why? 1. Have we gotten to the point where .PDF is the best way to deliver music to clients and publishers or should editable data files (Finale, Sibelius or others) continue to be expected. 2. Should publishers publishers out source engraving work as needed or is in house engraving a better choice? 3. Do e-mails and attachments (along with occasional phone calls) make long distance (even international) work practical. 4. Should publishers who want to do editing and final engraving in house be reasonably expected to have software and engravers for both Sibelius and Finale? 5. How many publishers expect engraving to be done (usually) by the original composers/arrangers? Many of us work in very different parts of the music preparation or publishing fields and may have quite different perspectives. Since our requirements can be very different, I thought your responses might provide an interesting discussion. Richard Smith http://rgsmithmusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: AW: [Finale] Sibelius 5 - Second impressions
It sounds like your cursor was resting on some musical element when you right clicked. You got the menu that opens when you are pointing to a specific element. It's much shorter. To get the longer list of options, you have to point to a blank space on the page. Then there is a context menu with other at the bottom of the list. When you open the other item you will find Instrument change. The same menu is also in the create drop down menu on the menu bar at the top of the page. I just right click because it's more convenient. This menu, either as a context or a drop down from the menu bar, has most of the controls you normally need. You just learn to look there first. Hope that helps. Richard Smith http://www.rgsmithmusic.com Eric Dannewitz wrote: Right clicking does not bring up any context menu that has OTHER in it. I get Cut, Copy, Paste, Delete, Capture Idea, Voice, Hide/Show, Color and Apply Color... However, in the menu, there is Other buried under Create.. Sibelius 5.1...frustrating.. Richard Smith wrote: Eric this may be what you want. 1. Right click on a blank part of the page for the context menu. At the bottom of the menu is other. Open that up. 2. Select change instrument 3. Pick an instrument from the list. 4. Click the now blue (=loaded) arrow where you want to change the instrument. You will get a transposition and key and/or clef change as needed as well as a text instruction to the performer to change to the instrument. 5. If you want to change the stave for the entire score, click in the left margin just to the left of the staff. It will change the staff and look as if the new instrument had been the choice fromt he beginning. I think that having multiple ways of doing things has a lot to do with familiarity. I really like Sibelius' step time entry. There are so many ways to enter music that I am constantly changing my approach to fit the particular circumstance. Conversely, I find Finale's Speedy Entry restrictive but many of the workers on this list would certainly disagree. These two are just differently abled and the versatility is good for us all. Richard Smith http://www.rgsmithmusic.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] very OT notation (burn before reading!)
On 1 Nov 2007 at 0:19, John Howell wrote: gamut This term comes from the note added to the Greek scale, Gamma Ut, which was below the A. That is, the Greek scale was a tetrachordal system starting on A. The G below was added later, and called Gamma Ut. I don't know how that got collapsed into gamut but that's the explanation I was given. This all predates Guido, of course. This all goes back to Boethius and his discourse on the monochord. Which leaves the matter of B and H (or more properly b and h). Round b and square b existed in music long before Guido. The so- called flat sign was really a b with rounded circle, while the natural sign was square b, with squared circle. That's all I had to say on your otherwise excellent summary (i.e., no corrections, just additions). Perhaps my main point is that a lot of what Guido systematized came from practice that had already been in place almost as long as any music notation had existed. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
