Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
I received FinMac2k9 a few hours ago and have had a quick look to ascertain the damage of the crippled Staff Lists. I've got that ole sinking feeling... I can see that being able to duplicate Categories could have opened up some exciting new possibilities if it had been coupled with unlimited Staff Lists. As it is, there might be some minor benefits to duplicating some of the Categories that have the 4 SLSs, from the point of view of housekeeping expressions into tidy groups, but that's about it. Compelling users to think in terms of tempo, expressive marks, dynamics categories is not necessarily a bad thing, if only they hadn't neutered the SLs. The new Expressions UI is OK but it quickly became a drag with lots of mouse movement/scrolling to navigate around. I don't know about others, in most dialog/selection boxes (eg the OSX Finder dialogs) I expect to be able to type in the beginning letter or letters of a text string and expect the dialog box to automatically scroll to the entry and highlight/select it. I've been waiting for this for years in the Measure Expressions dialogs and the saving grace was TGTools' Staff Expression sorter. But instead MM have opted to give us another 'one size fits all' solution and take us back to the stone age with the Note Expressions UI, ie a whole bunch of glyphs in a grid (OK the resize is a nice addition if it were properly implemented). In order to get the new Expression UI to look like a list I had to zoom out to max (more mouse clicks!). And still no auto scroll with quick access via keyboard entry. Sheee. If only MM had opted for something like the OSX Finder windows which all have three standard views (icons, list and columns) with keystrokes or radio buttons AND auto scroll on keyboard entry. Like DUH... I also checked the old Bookmarks function which went flaky I think couple of versions back (it doesn't sort alphabetically but something like reverse chronological but not quite!). I use Bookmarks often as a quick way to get around a score that often has measured, unmeasured sections and combos often user-defined measure numbers. I find it a drag to have to constantly think in either measure or page numbers. When they sorted alphabetically it was easy to set up a systematic sequence and zip around the score quickly. I did some quick tests on other files where I've used extensive bookmarks and it appears that having the default text Bookmark as the initial string seems to help in making it sort alphabetically most of the time. I opened a brand new 2k9 file from a template and added the following entries in chronological order at a distance of 2 measures apart (except for the Scene2b which is allocated to the measure immediately following Scene2): Act1Scene1, Act1Scene2, Act1Scene3, Bookmark Act1Scene1, Bookmark Act1Scene2, Bookmark Act1Scene3, Bookmark Act1Scene2b and Way To Go 'Diva' Aria. And after I closed the dialog and opened it again they appeared as follows: Way To Go 'Diva' Aria Act1Scene3 Act1Scene2 Act1Scene1 Bookmark Act1Scene1 Bookmark Act1Scene2 Bookmark Act1Scene2b Bookmark Act1Scene3 This is a fairly elementary and necessary navigation tool (I'm thinking along similar lines of the Memory tools in Pro Tools or Logic Pro which can be allocated to beats or time code along the usual other assignments such as views, zoom functions etc). The Bookmarks list in Finale should be able to be sorted (all modes should have ascending or descending or forward/backward numberings) according to different criteria such as alphabetically, by measure numbers (actual or user defined), chronologically in order of entry or chronologically according to time code (since Finale is moving ever closer to being something like a DAW with the addition of imported video playback). -- cheers, Claudio Claudio Pompili composer, sound designer, music consultant http://www.claudiopompili.net.au/ (**2002-2003 Golden Web Award**) Skype: claudiop_509 Australian Music Centre http://www.amcoz.com.au; http://www.amcoz.com.au/composers/composer.asp?id=236 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009?
Robert Patterson wrote: Good luck on using that line. Let's see how bright the phone lines light up on this issue alone. Not that it is a terribly big deal, but the multi-page editing improvements provide no excuse. (You know which page the mouse is on, so why is the old behavior precluded?) Because the same people who were asking for a limit of 4 staff sets were also asking for more narrowly defined clicking areas? ;-) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
Tyler Turner wrote: --- On Wed, 7/30/08, dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand how the number of staff lists a person uses would in any way be an inconvenience to a publisher. How would it create more work for a publisher? Scott summarized the issues here: http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6m=230216p=2 I appreciate that link -- however I still see no reason that a publisher has been crippled by the different numbers of staff lists submission may have. If that's the case, why wasn't there a demand to restrict staff lists to 4 years and years ago? Why now? Why has the number of staff lists suddenly become a problem for publishers that they have asked for a limit with Finale2009 and they didn't ask for that limit with Finale97? Or version 2? (I wasn't using Finale then -- were there staff lists then?) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
in answer to my previous post re dodgy Bookmarks sorting. I tried some alternatives in FinMac2k6d and added about 20 numbers to a new default file. It appears that by commencing the Bookmark name with the string '01_', '02_', '03_' etc it sorts correctly from top to bottom in the list. Insertions such as '011_', '012_' position themselves correctly in the top/down list also. So far so good in Fin2k6d. I opened this same file in FinMac2k9 and the Bookmark list looked OK in proper top/down order. I then added some more insertions with the preceding digits strings. Bummer. They went to the top of the list. However, after some time I quit and relaunched the app and the Bookmarks list sorted correctly. Returned to the Fin2k6d file and added extra insertions as per the Fin2k9 file and they sorted themselves immediately. pretty erratic behaviour from a basic navigation tool from version to version and neither of them handle alphabetical sorting predictably. (BTW I'm on Mac PPCG4 1.25GHz DP, 2GB RAM, OSX 10.4.11) -- cheers, Claudio Claudio Pompili composer, sound designer, music consultant http://www.claudiopompili.net.au/ (**2002-2003 Golden Web Award**) Skype: claudiop_509 Australian Music Centre http://www.amcoz.com.au; http://www.amcoz.com.au/composers/composer.asp?id=236 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Digital music stands
Blake Richardson wrote: From: John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:17:55 -0400 To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Digital music stands And I'd really like to know where, in what version of Fair Use, you find permission for the user to make a back-up copy. Yes, that's been established long ago as it applies to commercial recordings, if I remember correctly, but that does NOT automatically mean that it applies to sheet music (which is defined as 'material intended to be used up') and it CERTAINLY does not apply to computer programs, unless I've completely misread all those legal agreements that we all have to agree to! It actually does apply to software and recordings alike. It's not in the statute itself, but rather in the myriad court decisions that form the bulk of Fair Use law. Courts have consistently held that requiring a person to re-buy something as expensive as a software package because their computer's drive crashed is not reasonable and doesn't further the intent of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution (which is to promote innovation and the advance of the arts) and therefore one back-up/archival copy is allowed under Fair Use. Yes, those End-User Licensing Agreements (EULAs) that come shrink-wrapped around your software (or to which you must click agree before installing) say otherwise but several courts have ruled in favor of the consumer on this issue despite the EULA. EULAs have also been found to be invalid when they try to circumvent the First Sale doctrine. Actually, many (most?) of the EULAs that I've actually read through have included text to the effect that I have a right to make a backup of the medium. Does this Fair Use principle apply to making back-up copies of sheet music? Who knows? A definitive answer can't be stated one way or the other until a court somewhere rules in a case involving sheet music (or something very similar). On the face of it, however, the principle would seem to be Courts have ruled on that -- the publishers have won when they have taken various entities to court over the use of photocopies. the same: that it's unreasonable to expect the customer to re-purchase something rather expensive that they've legitimately paid for once merely because it wears out or is used up. To say otherwise goes against the fundamental purpose for which copyright was included in the U.S. Constitution in the first place. The publishers would refute your rather expensive statement (I agree with you, however) in that they claim (although it often takes months and months and hours on the phone and many letters back and forth to finally get the replacement parts) that you can buy parts for only a couple of dollars each, and it would be rare that an entire set of music would become unusable at the same time absent a major catastrophe such as a fire or flood, which would just as likely destroy any backup copies as well. And they shoot themselves in the foot by taking works permanently out of print, so they remove all possibility of purchasing replacement parts. I've not heard or read of anybody using that possibility in defense of their making backup copies of printed music. Barnhouse is one publisher which has been smart enough to not only keep at least one copy of every work they've ever published so they could make copies available for sale, but they have finally digitized it all so they can more efficiently do a print-on-demand to fill orders for older works they no longer wish to keep in inventory. I only wish all the other publishers had had such insight! -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question
Blake Richardson wrote: I recently came across the complete handwritten manuscript scores to the films ALIEN and ALIENS at the Library of Congress, and in my spare time I'm transcribing them into Finale (they not surprisingly won't let you photocopy them) with the goal of printing them out and binding them to add to my collection of film scores. The problem I've run into is that both scores have such an extensive list of instrumentation that the only practical size for the printouts is 11x17 paper. (The handwritten ALIENS score is huge-- 12x36.) Neither Kinko's nor Staples can spiral bind a 17 document-- apparently their machines can only go up to 14-- so I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions as to where else I might look to have it done or any other helpful thoughts on binding. If it's 17 paper on the vertical side, simply turn the paper around and punch from the other end as well, and then use 2 combs. Not the most satisfying, but it will work, especially if you can use sheets of cardboard as the cover to prevent bending between the two combs. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question
J D Thomas wrote: The problem that can occur when taking a small job to a print shop is that you are almost always completing with 'big runs' they already have set up. I had this same issue a few years back whenever I needed an 11 x17 score bound. I always only had 2 or 3 and when I did find a print shop to do it, they acted like it was a big inconvenience and charged me up the yahoo, $$wise. don't go to Kinko's or any of the chain copy shops -- find a local mom/pop type copy/print shop. They're usually very happy to help you. There's one I've been using for over 20 years, just down the road from where Kinko's opened up. Initially their business fell off some, but everybody who left to go to Kinko's came back because these people actually believe in equal service to everybody. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question
That's a viable solution David, provided you're lucky enough to find a Mom Pop type outfit. I was never that lucky here in the Portland OR area. All the binderies I contacted gave me the same song and dance: we can't really take time away from our current contractual runs to bind a measly 3 items. Paraphrased yes. But that was the gist of the conversations. Since purchasing my Akiles binder nearly 3 years ago, I'm amazed at how much it's saved me. In time and money. I knew I would use it for a multitude of clients, but I'm also putting it to work for a lot of my students' materials as well. One of the best purchases I've made in the past 10 years. Wish I could say the same for Finale. (Sorry, couldn't resist a bit of a dig!) *** J D Thomas ThomaStudios West Linn OR www.thomastudios.com On Aug 1, 2008, at 5:45 AM, dhbailey wrote: J D Thomas wrote: The problem that can occur when taking a small job to a print shop is that you are almost always completing with 'big runs' they already have set up. I had this same issue a few years back whenever I needed an 11 x17 score bound. I always only had 2 or 3 and when I did find a print shop to do it, they acted like it was a big inconvenience and charged me up the yahoo, $$wise. don't go to Kinko's or any of the chain copy shops -- find a local mom/pop type copy/print shop. They're usually very happy to help you. There's one I've been using for over 20 years, just down the road from where Kinko's opened up. Initially their business fell off some, but everybody who left to go to Kinko's came back because these people actually believe in equal service to everybody. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question
I'm with Darcy -- Staples and Kinko's ARE awful -- they only appear to be professional and make good products. I brought a large orchestral score to Staples to have it enlarged and spiral bound, and the man put it together b-a-c-k-w-a-r-d-s, and GAVE it to me that way. Open up the cover, and there's page 36, and the entire thing went backwards. Believe it!! -- From: Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 8:52 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question They can also put in two 11 combs and trim the extra. But you might have better luck with this at a proper (non-chain) print shop. Kinkos and Staples are almost uniformly awful. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 31 Jul 2008, at 9:09 PM, Carolyn Bremer wrote: See if you can find an employee at one of those locations that can help you. It is easy to put a 14 comb in the middle of the 17 side. They'll need to remove the piece that left-aligns the paper in the binder so they can get to the middle, but that's really all it takes. Well, that and an employee willing to do it. -Carolyn On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Blake Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently came across the complete handwritten manuscript scores to the films ALIEN and ALIENS at the Library of Congress, and in my spare time I'm transcribing them into Finale (they not surprisingly won't let you photocopy them) with the goal of printing them out and binding them to add to my collection of film scores. The problem I've run into is that both scores have such an extensive list of instrumentation that the only practical size for the printouts is 11x17 paper. (The handwritten ALIENS score is huge-- 12x36.) Neither Kinko's nor Staples can spiral bind a 17 document-- apparently their machines can only go up to 14-- so I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions as to where else I might look to have it done or any other helpful thoughts on binding. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: Finale 2009 Mac Firewire/Intel issue?
Bob et al. - I want to apologize for the miscommunication in our support representative's response to your concern about the left-channel-only FireWire audio interface issue. I'd like to make it clear that MakeMusic is actively pursuing a fix for the FireWire audio interface issue. While we aren't able to estimate an exact timeline in regards to its implementation, I can confirm that our developers are aware of and working on resolving this specific issue. Please follow this link to our Knowledge Base and subscribe to be notified by email when this problem is resolved. http://makemusic.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/makemusic.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1001 Thank you for using Finale! Matt Kettelhut Notation Product Specialist MakeMusic, Inc. 7615 Golden Triangle Drive, Suite M Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3848 Sales: (800) 843-2066 Technical Support: (952) 937-9703 Fax: (952) 937-9760 From: Bob Shuster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:22:22 -0400 Subject: [Finale] Re: Finale 2009 Mac Firewire/Intel issue? Well, I got the definitive answer from MakeMusic on the FireWire audio interface issue, as follows: Thank you for contacting MakeMusic Customer Support. I deeply apologize for this issue in Finale. At this point it is not fixed in Finale 2009 and I do not know what the plans are to fix it. I will be adding your voice to the list of people who are looking for this fix. Once again I apologize for any inconvenience. Doug R. MakeMusic Customer Support So it appears it's not even on their To Do list. Are there enough of us in this boat to pressure them? How about a class action suit? :) - Bob Shuster ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question
I agree with the other postings - Kinko's is a ripoff and they'll probably bind it wrong in any case. My guess is those scores are going to be pretty thick (as each page would only have 4-6 measures), so they'd have to punch 'em in several passes which only increases the chances of a screw-up. Several folks have mentioned the Akiles binder from Coilmac - it's definitely worth it. At $300, it would only take 60 binds to make your money back based on what Kinko's charges. I'm curious...how are you copying these scores? Bringing a laptop into the Library of Congress on a daily basis and doing it there? And what are your plans for the scores once they're done? Rob Deemer ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Finale 2009 Mac Firewire/Intel issue?
Wow. Finally. Thanks for an official presence MakeMusic. On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Kettelhut, Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Bob et al. - I want to apologize for the miscommunication in our support representative's response to your concern about the left-channel-only FireWire audio interface issue. I'd like to make it clear that MakeMusic is actively pursuing a fix for the FireWire audio interface issue. While we aren't able to estimate an exact timeline in regards to its implementation, I can confirm that our developers are aware of and working on resolving this specific issue. Please follow this link to our Knowledge Base and subscribe to be notified by email when this problem is resolved. http://makemusic.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/makemusic.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1001 Thank you for using Finale! Matt Kettelhut Notation Product Specialist MakeMusic, Inc. 7615 Golden Triangle Drive, Suite M Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3848 Sales: (800) 843-2066 Technical Support: (952) 937-9703 Fax: (952) 937-9760 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009?
--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good luck on using that line. Let's see how bright the phone lines light up on this issue alone. They won't light up at all on this issue. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] I've made up my mind
Finale 2009 will stay on my bookshelf untill the staff list functionality is restored. I think the 4 list limit is just rediculous. It's like removing some colours from a pencil box just because some people don't know how to use colours properly. Barbara ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Resize tool for systems inoperative in 2009?
That Arbitrary bit has been a strange piece for a long time--all the areas in and around time sigs and key sigs are sort of a No Man's Land and have been for a long time. I think they set out to try and correct this when selection was redone and discovered that it was far more than trivial to fix. I know it's nothing personal. Yesterday was just a bad day in the life of your friendly, neighborhood, MM employee. ;-) On Aug 1, 2008, at 7:34 AM, dhbailey wrote: Fisher, Allen wrote: It could also be argued that clicking to the left of a system is unintuitive, you are not actually clicking on what you want resize. By clicking in between staves, technically on the system, you get what you expect, as opposed to clicking on just the page. Is that a better line? ___ That makes great sense -- it's the bit of having to click to the right of the time signature that seems arbitrary. I've often thought that clicking anywhere in the outer margins of the page should bring up the resize tool to resize the entire page and nothing else. And please don't take anybody's replies to your messages personally -- mostly we're just letting off steam and venting over what appear to longtime users to be an attempt by MM to limit what we can do with Finale, not expand what we can do, or at the very least forces us to alter our long-time work habits, and many of us are apprehensive of what the next limitations will be. Speaking now for myself only, none of my postings are at all aimed at any individual, and I think that the same is true of many others on this list although I can't speak for them. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Allen Fisher Founder and Principle Developer Fisher Art and Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] I've made up my mind
A better way to show your distain would be to insist they take it back and give you a refund. On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Barbara Touburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finale 2009 will stay on my bookshelf untill the staff list functionality is restored. I think the 4 list limit is just rediculous. It's like removing some colours from a pencil box just because some people don't know how to use colours properly. Barbara ___ 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] Re: Finale 2009 Mac Firewire/Intel issue?
That's great news, Matt. Thanks for letting us know what's happening. One request I have is that if you can issue an update to 2008 that fixes this, I would appreciate it. Thanks again for the information. **Leigh On Fri, Aug 1, 2008, Kettelhut, Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob et al. - I want to apologize for the miscommunication in our support representative's response to your concern about the left-channel-only FireWire audio interface issue. I'd like to make it clear that MakeMusic is actively pursuing a fix for the FireWire audio interface issue. While we aren't able to estimate an exact timeline in regards to its implementation, I can confirm that our developers are aware of and working on resolving this specific issue. Please follow this link to our Knowledge Base and subscribe to be notified by email when this problem is resolved. http://makemusic.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/makemusic.cfg/php/enduser/ std_adp.php?p_faqid=1001 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
--- On Fri, 8/1/08, dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I appreciate that link -- however I still see no reason that a publisher has been crippled by the different numbers of staff lists submission may have. Scott addressed this. In essence, having the more solid convention for when and where staff lists are used makes it more likely that publishers will be able to predict where staff lists are in place and makes it more likely they will be able to apply global or individual changes that do what they want without subtle gotchas. Having 50 different expression categories for dynamics so that they could each have a different staff list would slow those publishers down. Having any staff list at all for dynamics would make them unpredictable when positioning or deleting, and would thus also slow them down. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] I've made up my mind
Agreed. No sense in paying to be a beta-tester after the fact. *** J D Thomas ThomaStudios West Linn OR www.thomastudios.com On Aug 1, 2008, at 8:17 AM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: A better way to show your distain would be to insist they take it back and give you a refund. On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Barbara Touburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finale 2009 will stay on my bookshelf untill the staff list functionality is restored. I think the 4 list limit is just rediculous. It's like removing some colours from a pencil box just because some people don't know how to use colours properly. Barbara ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Tyler Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having 50 different expression categories for dynamics so that they could each have a different staff list would slow those publishers down. When, oh when will you stop waving this red flag in front of the bull? By what right does MM assume that its users are idiots or can't decide for themselves when to use a staff list? And let us be clear. My reaction is thus because the *only* justification for the 4-limit that I've heard from you or any other person connected with MM boils down to, We limited the number of SLs because users are too stupid to use more than that number appropriately. Paraphrasing from a post I saw on the Finale Forum, what's next? Will you limit the number of beams to 4 because more than that is deemed inappropriate? Or will you limit transpositions to only those which MM and its advisers understand? Or will you limit the number and positioning of staff lines to those you think are appropriate? Where does it end? BTW: It is to laugh, Tyler's claim that there are posters on the Finale Forums that argue the 4-limit is a good thing. There are a (seemingly very) few who are willing to live with the limit. Not a single user that I've seen views it as an improvement. (By contrast, many users including me champion the new Expression tool in general. I'm speaking specifically of the 4-SL limit/requirement.) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
So I guess these guys don't count: http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6m=230216 First couple of guys seem to like it just fine. On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Robert Patterson wrote: On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Tyler Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having 50 different expression categories for dynamics so that they could each have a different staff list would slow those publishers down. When, oh when will you stop waving this red flag in front of the bull? By what right does MM assume that its users are idiots or can't decide for themselves when to use a staff list? And let us be clear. My reaction is thus because the *only* justification for the 4-limit that I've heard from you or any other person connected with MM boils down to, We limited the number of SLs because users are too stupid to use more than that number appropriately. Paraphrasing from a post I saw on the Finale Forum, what's next? Will you limit the number of beams to 4 because more than that is deemed inappropriate? Or will you limit transpositions to only those which MM and its advisers understand? Or will you limit the number and positioning of staff lines to those you think are appropriate? Where does it end? BTW: It is to laugh, Tyler's claim that there are posters on the Finale Forums that argue the 4-limit is a good thing. There are a (seemingly very) few who are willing to live with the limit. Not a single user that I've seen views it as an improvement. (By contrast, many users including me champion the new Expression tool in general. I'm speaking specifically of the 4-SL limit/requirement.) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Allen Fisher Founder and Principle Developer Fisher Art and Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
And there are a ton of people who don't? Flag...waving.bull? Taking away features is generally a bad thing. People who have been using them don't like it. Plain and simple. A better solution would have been to say If you want to use the new Markings, you need to limit your staffs to 4, otherwise, the behavior of the markings will revert to pre-Finale 2009. That would have been a better way to handle it rather than just..bloop...you can only have 4. On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Allen Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: So I guess these guys don't count: http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6m=230216 First couple of guys seem to like it just fine. On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Robert Patterson wrote: On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Tyler Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having 50 different expression categories for dynamics so that they could each have a different staff list would slow those publishers down. When, oh when will you stop waving this red flag in front of the bull? By what right does MM assume that its users are idiots or can't decide for themselves when to use a staff list? And let us be clear. My reaction is thus because the *only* justification for the 4-limit that I've heard from you or any other person connected with MM boils down to, We limited the number of SLs because users are too stupid to use more than that number appropriately. Paraphrasing from a post I saw on the Finale Forum, what's next? Will you limit the number of beams to 4 because more than that is deemed inappropriate? Or will you limit transpositions to only those which MM and its advisers understand? Or will you limit the number and positioning of staff lines to those you think are appropriate? Where does it end? BTW: It is to laugh, Tyler's claim that there are posters on the Finale Forums that argue the 4-limit is a good thing. There are a (seemingly very) few who are willing to live with the limit. Not a single user that I've seen views it as an improvement. (By contrast, many users including me champion the new Expression tool in general. I'm speaking specifically of the 4-SL limit/requirement.) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Allen Fisher Founder and Principle Developer Fisher Art and Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Allen Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First couple of guys seem to like it just fine. On the contrary. They don't object to it. That's hardly the same thing. Show me one user who prefers it. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
Allen Fisher wrote: I concur, Wiggy. Thanks. You've pretty much convinced me that F2009 is worth moving to at this point. An endoresement of Fin09 is not an endorsement of the 4-SL limit. Heck, as vocal as I am about this issue, I endorse Fin09 in general. I think the new expression tool is overall a solid improvement, and I may even adopt Fin09 with the maintenance release. I do not believe the poster quoted above was saying he (she?) approved of the 4-SL limit. I read that post as, well on balance I guess I can live with the 4-SL limit to get the other Fin09 goodness. Maybe we each see what we wish to see. It was rather disingenuous to use that thread as an example, considering the vitriol that follows the first couple of posts (and not just my own vitriol). It seems the folks at MM willfully misterpret me, too. I have never said I want to go back to the old way of doing staff lists, or even to have them as a compatibility option. What I am saying is I want the ability to define the number of NEW staff lists in my file, from 0 to as high as I need to go. This does not appear to be, nor has MM claimed it is hard to do programmatically, so what is the BFD? -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
--- On Fri, 8/1/08, Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When, oh when will you stop waving this red flag in front of the bull? In case you didn't notice, Robert, I was asked the question specifically. So don't complain about me answering it or how I answer it. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
At 12:27 PM 8/1/2008, Robert Patterson wrote: On the contrary. They don't object to it. That's hardly the same thing. Show me one user who prefers it. I have to agree with Robert's distinction here. In addition, their lack of objection seems to be based on the fact that these are users who had been using staff lists as a substitute for the not-yet-available drag-apply for expressions. Now that they have drag-apply, they're happy. But as has been pointed out here, there are legitimate uses for staff lists for which drag-apply is *not* an acceptable substitute. Personally, I don't really have a dog in this race. I only ever used staff lists for things like tempo markings and rehearsal marks, and so the new paradigm works for me just fine. However, I agree very strongly with the sentiment expressed, that reducing functionality in a program like this is a bad thing, full stop. Seeing how this was done makes me worry about how Speedy Entry will ultimately be handled, which *is* something that concerns me greatly. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Digital music stands
From: dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:40:46 -0400 To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Digital music stands Actually, many (most?) of the EULAs that I've actually read through have included text to the effect that I have a right to make a backup of the medium. True enough, which is one of the factors courts consider when determining Fair Use-- common industry practice. If most software companies allow a backup copy, any potential plaintiff is going to be hard-pressed to argue his rights are somehow being violated by allowing back-up copies when everyone else in the business gets by just fine. Does this Fair Use principle apply to making back-up copies of sheet music? Who knows? A definitive answer can't be stated one way or the other until a court somewhere rules in a case involving sheet music (or something very similar). Courts have ruled on that -- the publishers have won when they have taken various entities to court over the use of photocopies. I did not know that. Oh, well... there's always a chance for a reversal at some point in the future if the right case comes along. It's rare but it's been known to happen. it would be rare that an entire set of music would become unusable at the same time absent a major catastrophe such as a fire or flood, which would just as likely destroy any backup copies as well. I believe I remember reading about the music library of the Houston Symphony being flooded out after a tropical storm inundated downtown several years ago and they lost quite a few complete sets (including some original manuscripts) but their loss was mitigated by back-up copies of much of their music that they had stored elsewhere (not even in the same city). I don't know if they had permission to make those copies or whether they just did it anyway (figuring it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission) but that would be an ideal example of why back-up copies are practical, necessary and don't harm the interests of the rights owners one bit. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] I've made up my mind
On 01.08.2008 Barbara Touburg wrote: I think the 4 list limit is just rediculous. It's like removing some colours from a pencil box just because some people don't know how to use colours properly. You know, I think you have really hit the nail on the head here. 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] Score Binding Question
From: John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:14:24 -0400 To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question It's entirely possible that the chains--especially Kinko's--would refuse to handle it because it is copyrighted music. You did realize that it is copyrighted, right? And that your copying it without permission is an infringement? Yes, but neither I nor the LoC have a problem with it because both composers specifically allowed for copying for research purposes when they donated their work to the Libray. The only reason the LoC forbids photocopying is because the scores themselves can't physically handle it without being damaged or literally coming apart. Their concern isn't copyright but rather preservation. Therefore they have no problem with me sitting there with my laptop and creating a digital file of it. (In fact, the librarian I've dealt with has asked if I might be willing to donate a copy of my work when I'm done for inclusion in the collection since the handwritten scores are actually quite difficult to read and I've gone to the trouble of matching each cue number with its corresponding title on the soundtrack recordings. In fact, now that I think about it, I might ask *them* if they have the ability to bind it for me. An outfit like the LoC, which deals with all sorts of historical and odd-size documents probably has the ability to bind them. If so, maybe I can work out a trade.) As for Kinkos not handling it, my experience is they won't touch something if you're asking them to participate in the copying process it in any way but merely asking them to bind a document isn't a problem because they're not involved in any infringement at that point. Thanks to all who have offered suggestions. This project is a long way from the point where binding is going to be an issue (I predict that it's at least six months of work since I only can work on it on the odd Saturday here and there) but I appreciate the ideas for when I actually do make it to that stage. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question
From: Rob Deemer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:38:21 -0400 To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question My guess is those scores are going to be pretty thick (as each page would only have 4-6 measures) Actually I tend to get more measures per page than that. Usually 8-10 measures is the average. But it does drop down to the 3-4 measure/page range in the fast passages where there's a lot of 16th or 32nd-note runs. I'm curious...how are you copying these scores? Bringing a laptop into the Library of Congress on a daily basis and doing it there? Not on daily basis, but yeah, that's what I do. I bring in my laptop on Saturdays when I'm not working and I don't have anything else to do, which isn't often. I get over there maybe once or twice a month. And what are your plans for the scores once they're done? Just to have them as part of my collection. I have a pretty extensive film score collection-- mostly professionally published scores like the Hal Leonard series of John Williams's work. The first two ALIEN films are among my favorites-- both in terms of the movies themselves and the music-- so I just want them to have for myself. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
Aaron Sherber wrote: Personally, I don't really have a dog in this race. I only ever used staff lists for things like tempo markings and rehearsal marks, and so the new paradigm works for me just fine. You actually do have a (smallish) chihuahua in the race. I'm arguing for *no* limit. Right now you are forced to have 4 even if you only need 1. This may seem a small thing, but since you can change the names or even give them meaningful names, how are you gonna remember which one is which? -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09
Yes, seeing how they handled this, an for the people who used that feature, they have little recourse. I can see them doing something similar at some point with speedy entry, with similar rationalizations. On Aug 1, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Aaron Sherber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, I agree very strongly with the sentiment expressed, that reducing functionality in a program like this is a bad thing, full stop. Seeing how this was done makes me worry about how Speedy Entry will ultimately be handled, which *is* something that concerns me greatly. Aaron. ___ 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] Some comments re Fin09
At 02:56 PM 8/1/2008, Robert Patterson wrote: You actually do have a (smallish) chihuahua in the race. I'm arguing for *no* limit. Right now you are forced to have 4 even if you only need 1. This may seem a small thing, but since you can change the names or even give them meaningful names, how are you gonna remember which one is which? I agree that we should be able to rename the lists. I understand your point about often needing fewer than 4 lists -- in most of my work, I only use one -- but I don't think I feel any resentment or ill effects from being forced to have 4. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question
At 2:53 PM -0400 8/1/08, Blake Richardson wrote: From: John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's entirely possible that the chains--especially Kinko's--would refuse to handle it because it is copyrighted music. You did realize that it is copyrighted, right? And that your copying it without permission is an infringement? Yes, but neither I nor the LoC have a problem with it because both composers specifically allowed for copying for research purposes when they donated their work to the Libray. Are we really talking about donation here, or plain and simple deposit with LC as part of the copyright process? And are the copyrights in the names of the composers, or in the names of the movie companies? Not saying you're wrong by any means, but this certainly does skirt the edges of the copyright law. Could you explain exactly how the composers specifically allowed for copying for research, since there is no provision in the law itself that provides a procedure for that? I do wonder, as well, whether research purposes, which are indeed permitted in SOME situations, covers making and distributing additional copies, which is exactly what you would be doing if you print up more copies and give them to LC. If you've discovered a loophole that might apply to, for example, scores by Gershwin or others that are still under copyright, we'd be very interested in learning about it. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music 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 We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Staff Lists (was: Some comments re Fin09)
I like the new feature, but if I were doing a large ensemble working with continuously changing scoring patterns, I believe that the staff list provides the more intuitive working method. If the expressions method is critical to publishers, then publishers should be insisting that their composers use that method; for the rest of us, MakeMusic really ought to make the case for the reduction in this feature, and be explicit about it: are they deprecating it via the reduction in capacity, or is it in fact technically impossible in 2009 to have a larger (or, ideally, unlimited) number of staff lists. In general, having used Sibelius in parallel now for a year (in addition to several other programs), the advantage of Finale is its flexibility. When something is possible in Sibelius there is generally one way to do it, while in Finale, there are often many solutions, each offering distinct advantages to the user, whether in terms of work flow, intuitive quality, flexibility, or just taste. It would be great if Finale stuck to this advantage and even increased its versatility: one small pet example of mine, when displaying a time signature other than the actual time signature (an important feature in Finale) would be to allow any number in the denominator, not just powers-of-two. This is a small feature that would be simple to implement -- the time signature displayed being fictional anyways -- but be very useful to at least a small group of us. Daniel Wolf ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] I've made up my mind
No, I think I'll wait a little. Maybe Makemusic will come to its senses and restore the lists in the next update... Eric Dannewitz wrote: A better way to show your distain would be to insist they take it back and give you a refund. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Garritan jazz sounds: Are you satisfied?
I just installed F2009, moving from 2007. 2007 never had the jazz instruments, so I never used the Garritan sounds. One of the primary reasons I upgraded was to get the more realistic playback on big band charts. I have created a simple score from the Finale setup wizard, letting it set all the defaults for the Garritan jazz instruments. I must say my first impression is that this doesn't sound particularly realistic. To my ears, it sounds pretty much like the regular synth sounds, only with a lot more reverb. I am wondering: 1) Does anybody else share that opinion, or perhaps have a completely different opinion? 2) Are there some tweaks that people have found necessary in order to make the Garritan jazz instruments play back more realistically? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Garritan jazz sounds: Are you satisfied?
Hi, Craig... Jim Williams here, the euphonium player... Garritan Jazz sounds require a fair amount of score-marking. There is a lot of expressivity, hence the need for a lot of controller action. You **ARE** using human playback, aren't you? That makes the task substantially easier. There is a tutorial on Gary's site about how to match up JABB with Finale. Your results will be LEAGUES better if you really mark up the score. I use one score for playback one for printing. If I want more pinpoint control, I dump a MIDI file into Sonar. Gotta run...more later. Jim W. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Craig Parmerlee Sent: Fri 01-Aug-08 15:42 To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: [Finale] Garritan jazz sounds: Are you satisfied? I just installed F2009, moving from 2007. 2007 never had the jazz instruments, so I never used the Garritan sounds. One of the primary reasons I upgraded was to get the more realistic playback on big band charts. I have created a simple score from the Finale setup wizard, letting it set all the defaults for the Garritan jazz instruments. I must say my first impression is that this doesn't sound particularly realistic. To my ears, it sounds pretty much like the regular synth sounds, only with a lot more reverb. I am wondering: 1) Does anybody else share that opinion, or perhaps have a completely different opinion? 2) Are there some tweaks that people have found necessary in order to make the Garritan jazz instruments play back more realistically? ___ 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] Garritan jazz sounds: Are you satisfied?
Hi Craig, I use the full set of Garritan sounds (Jazz and Orchestra) and find them a little more than marginally better than the soft synth sounds. Some are quite good; the recording of my bass (#2 in the full set), baritone sax, some of the brass, and the piano and guitar are both pretty good. That said, there are such limitations to this whole deal of synthesized sound, and especially notation driven playback, that I never expect anything but a remote resemblance to reality - even the reality of a not very good band. Attacks, balances and dynamics changing on the fly are an integral part of any musical language and ensemble. Multiply that by an order of magnitude for a jazz ensemble. Any attempt to get notation driven playback to sound like that is going to fall frustratingly short. Garritan sound playback as manipulated by experienced and musical midi experts can sound much better. Examples in the arranging book I wrote for Gary (When is he going to get around to releasing it?) were done by an Italian musician with considerable skill and taste in this area. But my own Finale playback never sounds that good, and none of it, even the highly tweaked stuff, ever fools me. That said, it is a question of personal training and habit - how much reality each individual needs to stimulate his or her memory of real sounds and real players. I have become used to translating what I hear from Finale and JABB into a sketch of what I will hear from the band, and the colors help differentiate things better than just a piano sound (the way I used to work, before Garritan). But, I reiterate, balances are hopelessly unreliable, phrase shapes are almost non-existent, and, in spite of Robert Piechaud's incredible work, nothing sounds like real music. I do take issue with the impression that these sound like the regular sounds with more reverb. In the full set, using the Kontakt player, you can adjust the reverb (I have mine set to medium or large room - not to any hall), or turn it off completely, and this helps to remove the blurred distinction between soft synth and Garritan. Just don't expect a revolutionary jump in playback quality. Chuck On Aug 1, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: I just installed F2009, moving from 2007. 2007 never had the jazz instruments, so I never used the Garritan sounds. One of the primary reasons I upgraded was to get the more realistic playback on big band charts. I have created a simple score from the Finale setup wizard, letting it set all the defaults for the Garritan jazz instruments. I must say my first impression is that this doesn't sound particularly realistic. To my ears, it sounds pretty much like the regular synth sounds, only with a lot more reverb. I am wondering: 1) Does anybody else share that opinion, or perhaps have a completely different opinion? 2) Are there some tweaks that people have found necessary in order to make the Garritan jazz instruments play back more realistically? ___ 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] Garritan jazz sounds: Are you satisfied?
my first suggestion is to turn down the reverb. I use the JABB library and it defaults to the reverb on 50% and the dry signal at 0% Mark McCarron --- Craig Parmerlee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just installed F2009, moving from 2007. 2007 never had the jazz instruments, so I never used the Garritan sounds. One of the primary reasons I upgraded was to get the more realistic playback on big band charts. I have created a simple score from the Finale setup wizard, letting it set all the defaults for the Garritan jazz instruments. I must say my first impression is that this doesn't sound particularly realistic. To my ears, it sounds pretty much like the regular synth sounds, only with a lot more reverb. I am wondering: 1) Does anybody else share that opinion, or perhaps have a completely different opinion? 2) Are there some tweaks that people have found necessary in order to make the Garritan jazz instruments play back more realistically? ___ 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] Speedy entry
OK, not aiming to revisit old wounds - but I thought I would share one aspect of my recent experience of teaching a class of mainly-Finale-newbies to the application. For the note-entry method, I showed them how to use Speedy, and what the keystrokes meant and did. In 5 minutes they were entering a Haydn string quartet movement, and at a surprisingly quick rate. This was without a MIDI keyboard. I hope that MakeMusic still realises that Speedy is a really excellent tool for note entry that is (in my opinion) considerably more straightforward than using Simple without a MIDI keyboard. Speedy seems a better balance of simplicity and power. Because there are fewer options as compared to Simple, there are fewer keystrokes to come to grips with as a beginner - but the options that are there are easy to use and powerful enough to enter all pitches and rhythms you want. Plus Speedy is great because it provides the user with the option to select pitch then enter rhythm for note entry. Mind you, it would be good to able to change clef from within Speedy I suppose. Maybe press ? and a list of clefs pops up. This would be relevant to the tool because it relates to pitch. Anyway, in the end I just hope that Finale doesn't consider removing or crippling Speedy. It really is an excellent and easy-to-use tool. Matthew ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Garritan jazz sounds: Are you satisfied?
On 1 Aug 2008, at 3:42 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: To my ears, it sounds pretty much like the regular synth sounds, only with a lot more reverb. The Garritan sounds are recorded dry. Reverb settings are controlled by the Ambience Reverb plugin (still not available by default on Intel Macs!), and the default settings are very bad. You will have much better results if you use a more appropriate preset, create your own settings, or turn it off. And, as Chuck said, you really must use Human Playback when using Garritan instruments. One huge advantage to the Garritan Sounds + HP (versus the SoftSynth sounds) is that HP automatically creates back- accented tonguing when playing back in a jazz swing style, and automatically adjusts the level of swing depending on the tempo and depending on whether notes are an anticipation or not. When using SoftSynth instruments, every note is always tongued, the level of swing does not scale with the tempo, and anticipations are treated the same as consecutive notes. Also: I assume you are using good speakers/headphones? If you are just using the built-in speakers on your computer (or cheap computer speakers), then of course you won't notice much of a difference. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Garritan jazz sounds: Are you satisfied?
To add one piece of information to Darcy's coherent thoughts, I misinformed you about where the reverb setting shows up. You can turn it off in the mixer window in Finale. Look on the right. Chuck On Aug 1, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 1 Aug 2008, at 3:42 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: To my ears, it sounds pretty much like the regular synth sounds, only with a lot more reverb. The Garritan sounds are recorded dry. Reverb settings are controlled by the Ambience Reverb plugin (still not available by default on Intel Macs!), and the default settings are very bad. You will have much better results if you use a more appropriate preset, create your own settings, or turn it off. And, as Chuck said, you really must use Human Playback when using Garritan instruments. One huge advantage to the Garritan Sounds + HP (versus the SoftSynth sounds) is that HP automatically creates back- accented tonguing when playing back in a jazz swing style, and automatically adjusts the level of swing depending on the tempo and depending on whether notes are an anticipation or not. When using SoftSynth instruments, every note is always tongued, the level of swing does not scale with the tempo, and anticipations are treated the same as consecutive notes. Also: I assume you are using good speakers/headphones? If you are just using the built-in speakers on your computer (or cheap computer speakers), then of course you won't notice much of a difference. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ 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] Speedy entry
I just had a conversation with my copyist/engraver friend in Vancouver about this. He has had to use Sibelius for some jobs over the past year, so he is now familiar with it as well as being a Finale expert. His description of Sibelius' qualities is interesting. He has gone from being frustrated with it to finding it full of things that are more easily done than in Finale - page layout, for one, is easier, attached items show up not only with attachment lines a la Finale 2009 but also with distances from the staff visibly marked, keyboard shortcuts are set up as toggle switches when that is a useful behavior, and all kinds of things can be entered at once without switching tools - even more than Finale's Simple Entry (if I understand him correctly) . BUT, time value selection precedes pitch (and that's the only way it can work in Sibelius), and that is a deal breaker for me. When Finale catches up (as it seems to have done pretty well in Simple Entry) AND provides the same functionality either in Speedy, or in Simple with a pitch before duration option, we may have the best of both worlds. Greg has become fluent in data entry in Sibelius, but he is copying existing manuscripts, so the thought process order doesn't matter. He can enter the duration first with no hitch in his thinking. For me, as a composer/arranger, that doesn't work, so I don't get the conventional wisdom that Sibleius is for composers and Finale is for copyists. Long live Speedy (with improvements, we hope) or an option in Simple that makes it work for all of us Speedy habitués. Chuck On Aug 1, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Matthew Hindson fastmail acct wrote: OK, not aiming to revisit old wounds - but I thought I would share one aspect of my recent experience of teaching a class of mainly- Finale-newbies to the application. For the note-entry method, I showed them how to use Speedy, and what the keystrokes meant and did. In 5 minutes they were entering a Haydn string quartet movement, and at a surprisingly quick rate. This was without a MIDI keyboard. I hope that MakeMusic still realises that Speedy is a really excellent tool for note entry that is (in my opinion) considerably more straightforward than using Simple without a MIDI keyboard. Speedy seems a better balance of simplicity and power. Because there are fewer options as compared to Simple, there are fewer keystrokes to come to grips with as a beginner - but the options that are there are easy to use and powerful enough to enter all pitches and rhythms you want. Plus Speedy is great because it provides the user with the option to select pitch then enter rhythm for note entry. Mind you, it would be good to able to change clef from within Speedy I suppose. Maybe press ? and a list of clefs pops up. This would be relevant to the tool because it relates to pitch. Anyway, in the end I just hope that Finale doesn't consider removing or crippling Speedy. It really is an excellent and easy-to-use tool. Matthew ___ 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
[Finale] Finale 2009 questions/issues
I downloaded the demo and checked it out. But it raised a few questions/issues which maybe arose during Finale 2008, I'm not sure. - Does everyone else have the Garamond font for the items in the Setup Wizard? (Yuk! Great printing font, horrible screen font). And at slightly different widths too. - I love that the custom smart line box is now resizeable. Bravo. Except that when you resize it, it just makes the whitespace around the objects larger or smaller. It's a shame that it doesn't put more or less objects on the screen without the + - magnifier. - It would be great if there was a context menu for the items in these new resizeable dialog boxes. For example, right-click on an expression and you can Edit, Duplicate, Reassign to Category etc. - I noticed that in the text inserts, where I had previously inserted the filename it now just says [Filename]. Is it like that in the full version? - Is the only way to access Automatic Update Layout/Music Spacing on/off through the Programme Options now? :( - This is my first experience with what used to be the Mass Edit tool. It was possible to access what used to be called the ENIGMA Utilities via the context menu (e.g Check Accidentals, Check Ties etc.). But these are all gone now? Not accessible via any Context Menu? - Is TGTools fully compatible with Finale 2009? - What a bummer that it's not possible to rename the four staff lists. For all the talk about how this new regime is supposed to make life better for publishers, those of us who actually like to document what we do will be disadvantaged by this lack of naming. There will be no easy way to remember what Staff List 2 contains in a month or year's time. - I LOVE that it's possible to resize the Expressions Palette now. - What a shame that we can't just Assign to part via an item in the Expressions context menu (or can we). - The default font for a new category in Category Designer seems to default to Times New Roman, in spite of whatever font are used throughout the document. It would make sense to be able to set this in the Document Options along with the rest of the text fonts. Some of us don't use Times New Roman. I suppose I can change it once in a Category then duplicate the category as a workaround. My 2c Matthew ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Speedy entry
At 5:43 PM -0700 8/1/08, Chuck Israels wrote: BUT, time value selection precedes pitch (and that's the only way it can work in Sibelius), and that is a deal breaker for me. When Finale catches up (as it seems to have done pretty well in Simple Entry) AND provides the same functionality either in Speedy, or in Simple with a pitch before duration option, we may have the best of both worlds. Greg has become fluent in data entry in Sibelius, but he is copying existing manuscripts, so the thought process order doesn't matter. He can enter the duration first with no hitch in his thinking. For me, as a composer/arranger, that doesn't work, so I don't get the conventional wisdom that Sibleius is for composers and Finale is for copyists. You know, I've really tried to understand this particular complaint, and I'm afraid I really can't. When we did everything by hand we all, always, entered duration and pitch simultaneously, right? (Placement on the staff = pitch; note shape/color = duration.) Which means that ALL the computer programs have taken a single act (but one often requiring several pen strokes) and divided it into two separate acts, right? So why should one way be better than the other (whatever better means)? It isn't as if we're hardwired by nature to think one way or the other, is it? Maybe I don't see a problem because I came from Mosaic, in which you selected duration first, and it never bothered me a bit. So although I didn't LIKE Sibelius' entry methods to start with, I had no problem learning and using them. Maybe it's just something that can't be explained, a disinclination to learn new methods, but heck, everything I DO on a computer forces me to learn new methods!!! Sometimes I even understand them! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music 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 We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Garritan jazz sounds: Are you satisfied?
I haven't figured out how to turn down the reverb with F2009. Is it a setting in the Aria player? It sounds as if my expectations were too high with the Garritan sounds. Having listened to the orchestra samples, the Finale website implied strongly that you enter the score, turn on Human Playback, and that's what comes out. It did sound too good to be true. I'll probably still use the Garritan sounds if I can figure out how to kill the $%#^$# reverb. I can barely hear the entrances with that reverb running. I'm not likely to do the tweaking to get a really good playback, but of course, I'd like my minimal-tweak version to sound as realistic as it can without much work. Mark McCarron wrote: my first suggestion is to turn down the reverb. I use the JABB library and it defaults to the reverb on 50% and the dry signal at 0% Mark McCarron ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Garritan jazz sounds: Are you satisfied?
Emulating real instruments isn't close to reality yet. You need to tweak a lot because blending to avoid giving away the fake sound is totally case by case. Finale's HP is quite well done, but current AI isn't capable of emulating. Here, JaBB sample done by Finale + tweaking in DP. http://www.anonemusic.com/audioClips/doYou Here, JaBB recorded with EWI in DP: http://www.anonemusic.com/audioClips/ponto You should be able to hear the differences. I still believe Garritan's CC1 approach is the only way that makes sense to reproduce wind samples. I just don't understand sample libs that use velocity on wind instrument samples. It is just so illogical to the nature of the instruments. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Greater Boston http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2009 questions/issues
On Aug 1, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Matthew Hindson fastmail acct wrote: I downloaded the demo and checked it out. But it raised a few questions/issues which maybe arose during Finale 2008, I'm not sure. - Does everyone else have the Garamond font for the items in the Setup Wizard? (Yuk! Great printing font, horrible screen font). And at slightly different widths too. - I love that the custom smart line box is now resizeable. Bravo. Except that when you resize it, it just makes the whitespace around the objects larger or smaller. It's a shame that it doesn't put more or less objects on the screen without the + - magnifier. - It would be great if there was a context menu for the items in these new resizeable dialog boxes. For example, right-click on an expression and you can Edit, Duplicate, Reassign to Category etc. - I noticed that in the text inserts, where I had previously inserted the filename it now just says [Filename]. Is it like that in the full version? - Is the only way to access Automatic Update Layout/Music Spacing on/ off through the Programme Options now? :( - This is my first experience with what used to be the Mass Edit tool. It was possible to access what used to be called the ENIGMA Utilities via the context menu (e.g Check Accidentals, Check Ties etc.). But these are all gone now? Not accessible via any Context Menu? I think these are in the new Utilites menu. Chuck - Is TGTools fully compatible with Finale 2009? - What a bummer that it's not possible to rename the four staff lists. For all the talk about how this new regime is supposed to make life better for publishers, those of us who actually like to document what we do will be disadvantaged by this lack of naming. There will be no easy way to remember what Staff List 2 contains in a month or year's time. - I LOVE that it's possible to resize the Expressions Palette now. - What a shame that we can't just Assign to part via an item in the Expressions context menu (or can we). - The default font for a new category in Category Designer seems to default to Times New Roman, in spite of whatever font are used throughout the document. It would make sense to be able to set this in the Document Options along with the rest of the text fonts. Some of us don't use Times New Roman. I suppose I can change it once in a Category then duplicate the category as a workaround. My 2c Matthew ___ 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] Speedy entry
Hi John, I can't answer this rationally, or don't want to try. It's simply the way my mind thinks of music, and it did so when I wrote everything by hand. Chuck On Aug 1, 2008, at 6:14 PM, John Howell wrote: At 5:43 PM -0700 8/1/08, Chuck Israels wrote: BUT, time value selection precedes pitch (and that's the only way it can work in Sibelius), and that is a deal breaker for me. When Finale catches up (as it seems to have done pretty well in Simple Entry) AND provides the same functionality either in Speedy, or in Simple with a pitch before duration option, we may have the best of both worlds. Greg has become fluent in data entry in Sibelius, but he is copying existing manuscripts, so the thought process order doesn't matter. He can enter the duration first with no hitch in his thinking. For me, as a composer/arranger, that doesn't work, so I don't get the conventional wisdom that Sibleius is for composers and Finale is for copyists. You know, I've really tried to understand this particular complaint, and I'm afraid I really can't. When we did everything by hand we all, always, entered duration and pitch simultaneously, right? (Placement on the staff = pitch; note shape/color = duration.) Which means that ALL the computer programs have taken a single act (but one often requiring several pen strokes) and divided it into two separate acts, right? So why should one way be better than the other (whatever better means)? It isn't as if we're hardwired by nature to think one way or the other, is it? Maybe I don't see a problem because I came from Mosaic, in which you selected duration first, and it never bothered me a bit. So although I didn't LIKE Sibelius' entry methods to start with, I had no problem learning and using them. Maybe it's just something that can't be explained, a disinclination to learn new methods, but heck, everything I DO on a computer forces me to learn new methods!!! Sometimes I even understand them! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music 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 We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ 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] Speedy entry
You know, I've really tried to understand this particular complaint, and I'm afraid I really can't. When we did everything by hand we all, always, entered duration and pitch simultaneously, right? (Placement on the staff = pitch; note shape/color = duration.) Well, no. First you move your pen to the pitch, then you draw the duration. These are two distinct steps that can be done in only one order. So why should one way be better than the other (whatever better means)? It isn't as if we're hardwired by nature to think one way or the other, is it? No, we are not hard-wired, just highly practiced to do pitch then duration, whether in copying or playing. Maybe it's just something that can't be explained, a disinclination to learn new methods, but heck, everything I DO on a computer forces me to learn new methods!!! Sure. I could learn Simple and the reverse order of entry, but I have no need to and the attempts that I have made at it have been brief but frustrating. Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Speedy entry
On Fri, August 1, 2008 9:58 pm, Aaron Sherber wrote: Obviously reasonable people will disagree about this. And I disagree with your characterization that when writing by hand we entered duration and pitch simultaneously. I would describe my thought process as moving my pencil to a place on the staff (i.e., choosing a pitch) and then writing a duration at that location. Duration and then pitch just feels wrong to me. This is the same way I play music. I don't recognize the duration first and then the pitch -- I see the pitch first, finding the correct fingering, and then worry about the duration. This is such a cool discussion. I had to think back on how I wrote before 1993 (since I almost do no writing on paper anymore). And perhaps that's why I'm a Speedy-only user today. Everything is a shape first -- the overall duration and harmonic shifts over time, the micro-shifts over time. But time dominates how my hand worked ... sure, pitches (in most cases), but the inter-note distance was already shaped out. Notes are notes, but placement in time really makes the music function for me. I do not use a piano-style keyboard. So when Finale with Speedy came along, it was perfect. Computer only, and mostly computer keyboard. (Still too much mouse usage at first, but I could get away from most of that.) Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Garritan jazz sounds: Are you satisfied?
Yes, I'm using Yamaha studio speakers. I'm using Human Playback. I just figured out how to set the Garritan reverb. That is a big improvement. My articulations had been really muddied by the reverb. Now I need to adjust my articulations and I should end up with a decent rendition. I can now hear that my sax voicings aren't the best -- which is the kind of thing I was hoping would come through with the Garritan sounds. So things are looking up. As an aside, I bit the bullet and bought a 28 monitor. I have my system set up with a main monitor that is 20, which is a good place to park the media player and miscellaneous apps. I maximize Finale on the big screen and I can display a full jazz band score top to bottom and the staves are big enough to edit directly. I can see about 15 measures horizontally in scroll mode. I think this is going to make a big difference for me. Just as a general comment, I jumped from 2007. I was a little disoriented at first with the mass-edit being gone, but I am really liking this function being available under the selection tool, which is more-or-less the default mode for Finale now. Darcy James Argue wrote: On 1 Aug 2008, at 3:42 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: To my ears, it sounds pretty much like the regular synth sounds, only with a lot more reverb. The Garritan sounds are recorded dry. Reverb settings are controlled by the Ambience Reverb plugin (still not available by default on Intel Macs!), and the default settings are very bad. You will have much better results if you use a more appropriate preset, create your own settings, or turn it off. And, as Chuck said, you really must use Human Playback when using Garritan instruments. One huge advantage to the Garritan Sounds + HP (versus the SoftSynth sounds) is that HP automatically creates back-accented tonguing when playing back in a jazz swing style, and automatically adjusts the level of swing depending on the tempo and depending on whether notes are an anticipation or not. When using SoftSynth instruments, every note is always tongued, the level of swing does not scale with the tempo, and anticipations are treated the same as consecutive notes. Also: I assume you are using good speakers/headphones? If you are just using the built-in speakers on your computer (or cheap computer speakers), then of course you won't notice much of a difference. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale --- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 080722-1, 07/22/2008 Tested on: 8/1/2008 9:03:59 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Garritan jazz sounds: Are you satisfied?
Well, I am still a little confused. I did find the mixer window and saw the reverb controls. There seems to be a pull-down list for room size, but it doesn't work. I wonder if that is only available with SoftSynth. I'm not sure the reverb control does anything here either. Meanwhile, I hit ctl-alt-I to bring up the VST Instruments window. That popped up a dialog that included a checkbox for Ambiance reverb. Uncheck that and the Garritan goes completely dry. Beside the checkbox is a button called Edit. If you click that, it brings up another application window called Garritan Ambiance which is loaded with controls to shape the reverb, including separate sliders to mix the dry sound with the reverb sound. Chuck Israels wrote: To add one piece of information to Darcy's coherent thoughts, I misinformed you about where the reverb setting shows up. You can turn it off in the mixer window in Finale. Look on the right. Chuck ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Speedy entry
On 1 Aug 2008 at 21:14, John Howell wrote: You know, I've really tried to understand this particular complaint, and I'm afraid I really can't. When we did everything by hand we all, always, entered duration and pitch simultaneously, right? I don't know about you, but when hand copying I always draw the notehead first. Now, I *do* indicate duration by filling it in or not during the drawing of the notehead, but most of the work of specifying the duration happens *after* the notehead is placed. So, I think you are oversimplyfying in saying that we did it simultaneously. -- 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] Some comments re Fin09
On 1 Aug 2008 at 8:22, Tyler Turner wrote: Having 50 different expression categories for dynamics so that they could each have a different staff list would slow those publishers down. Having any staff list at all for dynamics would make them unpredictable when positioning or deleting, and would thus also slow them down. The problem is a real one for these publishers, no doubt, but the solution that MM has provided for it seems to me to make no sense. Why not make the number of staff lists a template-based item? That is, when you create a template, you set the number of staff lists permanently for that file. Then the publishers could control this (I assume they are already using predefined template files, of course), while it leaves the rest of us the alternative to use as many staff lists as we choose. In short, it seems to me that a problem the publishers have in managing their engravers (a people problem) has become a problem for *all* Finale users. While it's important that publishers use Finale (it's one of the main things keeping it afloat), I don't see why such a Draconian solution to their very real engraver management problem should have been chosen. It really doesn't make any sense to me as either a Finale user or as a programmer. Of course, given that it is introduced at the same time as expression grouping and seems to have some kind of interaction with that feature, I fear that the restriction can't be removed or simply extended. *sigh* -- 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] Garritan jazz sounds: Are you satisfied?
HI Craig, On 1 Aug 2008, at 10:01 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: Well, I am still a little confused. I did find the mixer window and saw the reverb controls. There seems to be a pull-down list for room size, but it doesn't work. I wonder if that is only available with SoftSynth. Correct. This mixer reverb control does not affect reverb for Garritan (or other VST/AU) instruments. Meanwhile, I hit ctl-alt-I to bring up the VST Instruments window. That popped up a dialog that included a checkbox for Ambiance reverb. Uncheck that and the Garritan goes completely dry. Beside the checkbox is a button called Edit. If you click that, it brings up another application window called Garritan Ambiance which is loaded with controls to shape the reverb, including separate sliders to mix the dry sound with the reverb sound. Yes -- that would be the reverb you are looking for. (On Mac, it's AU Instruments - Ambience Reverb.) Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
