date:20080804

Forgot to mention that you'll need a second expression to return  
pitchwheel to zero afterwards.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY




On 5 Aug 2008, at 1:23 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:


Hi Leigh,

Throw in a expression set to modify the pitchwheel. Assuming you are  
using the Notation instruments, the maximum pitchbend range (check  
the Finale documentation for the number) should result in a shift of  
12 semitones up (+) or down (-) . So your expression should drop the  
pitchwheel by 1/24th of the maximum value.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

On 4 Aug 2008, at 9:38 PM, Leigh Daniels wrote:


Hello All,

I'm working on piece which has a cello one quarter-tone below a  
violin.
Is there a way to get FinMac2008b to make the cello play a quarter- 
tone

flat?  I'm using the full GPO.

**Leigh


___
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] Quarter-tone Playback


Hi Leigh,

Throw in a expression set to modify the pitchwheel. Assuming you are  
using the Notation instruments, the maximum pitchbend range (check the  
Finale documentation for the number) should result in a shift of 12  
semitones up (+) or down (-) . So your expression should drop the  
pitchwheel by 1/24th of the maximum value.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

On 4 Aug 2008, at 9:38 PM, Leigh Daniels wrote:


Hello All,

I'm working on piece which has a cello one quarter-tone below a  
violin.
Is there a way to get FinMac2008b to make the cello play a quarter- 
tone

flat?  I'm using the full GPO.

**Leigh


___
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 Digest, Vol 61, Issue 6



On Aug 4, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Brian Williams wrote:


Jari Williamsson wrote:


Brian Williams wrote:

The main advantage of staff lists over drag-apply is that you can  
use them
to display expressions differently in the score than in  
individual parts.


That can be done with drag-apply as well.

Here's an example I read about: let's say you want to put a  
"Repeat Til Cue"
marking in the last measure of a short repeated section. You want  
it to
appear correctly in the score and in parts that are playing, but  
you don't
want it to break the multimeasure rest in parts that are resting.  
You could
enter it in the last measure and use a staff list to only show it  
on the
playing parts and score, and then enter it again in the first  
measure and
use a different staff list to only show it in the resting parts  
so it won't
break the multimeasure rests. Now, let's say you have several  
sections like
this in a piece, and a different group of instruments are playing/ 
resting
each time. You can see how the four staff list limit would be a  
problem.


The same thing can be done with drag-apply: drag-apply 2 sets of
markings and assign them differently.



So, please explain exactly how you would use drag-apply to enter  
the "Repeat
til Cue" expression so that it only appears above the top staff of  
the score
in the last measure of the repeated section, but also appears above  
the last
measure of each of the parts who are playing in the last measure  
and no
other parts, and how you would use drag-apply to enter another  
"Repeat til
Cue" expression that does not appear in the score at all but only  
appears
above the *first* measure of the parts that have a multimeasure  
rest in this
repeated section (thereby not breaking the mm rest) - and do this  
four or

five times in the same file with different groups of instruments
playing/resting each time - and do it without having a bunch of faint
"hidden" expressions cluttering up the score or dragged off the  
page and

onto another page that can be seen with multi-page editing.

Please Jari, enlighten us as to exactly how this could be done with  
only

four staff lists!  :-)


I am addressing the ghost problem first. You can set the shading of  
the ghosts so that they are very, very faint; just enough so that you  
can see them to identify them. Also, drag them off the BOTTOM of the  
page, not the side, so they don't show on other pages.


The rest can be done with right-click Show and Hide in the parts or  
score as needed, with the override key as needed. It isn't really  
that long, even if you have to do it four or five times. So it isn't  
a total rout.


But there are situations where Staff Lists are useful, and I wish we  
could have more. I disagree with MakeMusic's decision.


Christopher


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

[Finale] Quarter-tone Playback

2008-08-04 Thread Leigh Daniels

Hello All,

I'm working on piece which has a cello one quarter-tone below a violin.
Is there a way to get FinMac2008b to make the cello play a quarter-tone
flat?  I'm using the full GPO.

**Leigh


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

[Finale] Re: Finale Digest, Vol 61, Issue 6

2008-08-04 Thread Brian Williams

Jari Williamsson wrote:

> Brian Williams wrote:
> 
>> The main advantage of staff lists over drag-apply is that you can use them
>> to display expressions differently in the score than in individual parts.
> 
> That can be done with drag-apply as well.
> 
>> Here's an example I read about: let's say you want to put a "Repeat Til Cue"
>> marking in the last measure of a short repeated section. You want it to
>> appear correctly in the score and in parts that are playing, but you don't
>> want it to break the multimeasure rest in parts that are resting. You could
>> enter it in the last measure and use a staff list to only show it on the
>> playing parts and score, and then enter it again in the first measure and
>> use a different staff list to only show it in the resting parts so it won't
>> break the multimeasure rests. Now, let's say you have several sections like
>> this in a piece, and a different group of instruments are playing/resting
>> each time. You can see how the four staff list limit would be a problem.
> 
> The same thing can be done with drag-apply: drag-apply 2 sets of
> markings and assign them differently.

So, please explain exactly how you would use drag-apply to enter the "Repeat
til Cue" expression so that it only appears above the top staff of the score
in the last measure of the repeated section, but also appears above the last
measure of each of the parts who are playing in the last measure and no
other parts, and how you would use drag-apply to enter another "Repeat til
Cue" expression that does not appear in the score at all but only appears
above the *first* measure of the parts that have a multimeasure rest in this
repeated section (thereby not breaking the mm rest) - and do this four or
five times in the same file with different groups of instruments
playing/resting each time - and do it without having a bunch of faint
"hidden" expressions cluttering up the score or dragged off the page and
onto another page that can be seen with multi-page editing.

Please Jari, enlighten us as to exactly how this could be done with only
four staff lists!  :-)

Brian Williams

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

Re: [Finale] 40-part choral

2008-08-04 Thread Lora Crighton

--- Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> John Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > There's only one that I know of, but I'm blanking
> on the composer. (Tallis?
> 
> Tallis. Spem in Alium. I sang in one of the quintets
> about 20 years ago.
> Fantastic piece.
> 

Alessandro Striggio also did a 40 part motet, Ecce
beatam lucem, and a 40 part mass (the Agnus Die is 60
parts).  I think Spem in Alium is much more
interesting - I've never been lucky enough to sing it,
but I have a couple of different recordings & love it.

-- 
Io la Musica son, ch'ai dolci accenti
So far tranquillo ogni turbato core,
Et or di nobil ira et or d'amore
Poss'infiammar le più gelate menti.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Text Fonts

2008-08-04 Thread Noel Stoutenburg


Allen Fisher wrote:

Hello List--

I am re-working some things that I did many years ago for my 
portfolio. I have some fonts picked out for use in these documents, 
but I have a question. Do you tend to use 1 font or 2+? Serif vs. 
sans-serif?
I use several font families in a choral work. For lyrics, I use a font 
family with serifs. If the lyric has a long average syllable length 
relative to the note values, I will use a condensed version of the font. 
I use a different font family and weight for most types of text blocks 
and expressions, but for choral directions ("full", "solo", :&c), I will 
sometimes use a non-serif font to differentiate these types of 
instructions from others.


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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question (OT)

2008-08-04 Thread mystrom1

Alessandro Striggio work for forty voices, but last movement is for 60
voices (recently discovered work by Renaissance composer)

Martin




On 8/4/08, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can  you imagine rehearsing that piece, and giving out instructions such as,
> "Let me hear a little more of  the 28th alto part in bar 44." I'm sure it
> would be a very clean performance ...:)
>
>  Dean
>
>  On Aug 4, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
>
>
> > Recently a bigger motet was discovered, I believe for 60 parts, it was
> > miscatalogued in the French National Library.
> > A fascinating article in "Early Music America" detailed the
> > fascinating rediscovery of this piece.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Kim
> > ___
> > Finale mailing list
> > Finale@shsu.edu
> > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
> >
>
>  Dean M. Estabrook
>  http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > "When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. But
> when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.
> "
> > > > >
> > > > > R. Buckminster Fuller
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>  ___
>  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 (OT)

Ah yes, the infamous "Spam and aluminum!"  Thank you ... what a pain  
to set something and not have a viable performance.


Dean

On Aug 4, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Richard Smith wrote:

Spem in Alium (Tallis) is the correct answer. But I say planned  
because it's not progressing much and I don't have anyone to play  
it anyway.


Richard Smith



John Howell wrote:
There's only one that I know of, but I'm blanking on the composer.  
(Tallis?  English, at least, and composed for eight 5-part choirs  
to be performed in a specific octagonal building.  Acoustic  
surround sound!)  I've never studied it, since I've never had the  
forces to attempt doing it!  I do understand that another, even  
larger work has been recently rediscovered, but I can't remember  
that story either. There are, of course, polychoral pieces by both  
the Gabriellis (uncle and nephew) and Michael Praetorius that  
might have involved 40 performers, with 2 on a part, but no others  
written in 40 (more-or-less) individual parts.


John


At 11:21 AM -0700 8/4/08, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:

FORTY part choral piece ...?  My curiosity is piqued ... what is it?

Dean

On Aug 4, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
(snip)

wind band transcription of a 40 part choral piece,



Richard Smith



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


Dean M. Estabrook
http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home

"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty.  
But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I  
know it is wrong. "


R. Buckminster Fuller






___
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


Dean M. Estabrook
http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home

"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. But  
when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know  
it is wrong. "


R. Buckminster Fuller






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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question (OT)

Can  you imagine rehearsing that piece, and giving out instructions  
such as, "Let me hear a little more of  the 28th alto part in bar  
44." I'm sure it would be a very clean performance ...:)


Dean

On Aug 4, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:


Recently a bigger motet was discovered, I believe for 60 parts, it was
miscatalogued in the French National Library.
A fascinating article in "Early Music America" detailed the
fascinating rediscovery of this piece.

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


Dean M. Estabrook
http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home

"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. But  
when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know  
it is wrong. "


R. Buckminster Fuller






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

Re: [Finale] (OT) Ancient History (was Jazz Notation Standards)

2008-08-04 Thread Ray Horton

I will speak up for B, S & T. 



We in the Louisville Orchestra have done three concerts with the group, 
one all the way back in 1977 and two in this decade, each time with D. 
C. Thomas at the front. 



In "77 there were still some original players in the group, although 
neither of the trumpets (and I have to say the trumpets weren't in Lew 
Soloff's league, but who is?).  At that time they didn't have much in 
the way of charts for full orchestra, either - a few odd new pieces and 
one extended version of "And When I Die" that gave trombonist Dave 
Bargeron a chance to do long ride on tuba.  B-



In the more recent version of the group, I believe D. C. T. is the only 
one from way-back-when (although I don't know the rhythm section well.) 
and there were some member changes between the two appearances.  But the 
group was great - great young players on all the brass, rhythm section 
was great.  And the group's 2nd trpt/MD had done charts for orchestra 
which are the best in the pop group w. orchestra world.  They include 
some symphonic "preludes" to a few of the charts which are quite good, 
and in the pieces themselves he has generously shared the groups music 
with the orchestra.  (Most of the brass writing in the instrumental 
"Smiling Phases" is in the orchestra).  Absolutely on of the most fun 
shows of this type, for the orchestra, there is on the circuit. 



And D. C. T. is a phenomenon.  A+



Andrew Stiller wrote:


On Aug 2, 2008, at 3:45 PM, John Howell wrote:

 BS&T ... debuted in November '67, reformed in their best-known 
configuration with David Clayton-Thomas in '69, and have bumbled 
along to the present day like so many other bands, with constant 
changes in personnel and concept.


The 1976 _Encyclopedia of Rock_ is not kind. It says, in part, 
"Commercial success grew by leaps and bounds, as did charges of 
pretentiousness. By 1970, most of the group's original audience was 
gone, replaced by the sort of man who picks his mood music by scanning 
the _Playboy_ Jazz and Pop poll." It does, though, give them credit 
for being "one of the first rock bands with a full horn section," and 
therefore "one of the most influential groups ever."


Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://www.kallistimusic.com/



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

Re: [Finale] Text Fonts

2008-08-04 Thread Robert Patterson

Ted Ross addressed the question of fonts and sizes in some details in
his book, pp. A-6ff.

Obviously, Ross provided just his own viewpoint. I'm interested that
while he uses a couple of different fonts (in various sizes and
styles), they are all serif fonts.

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

Re: [Finale] Text Fonts

For lyrics I would only use a serif font. It might seem contrary to  
logic, but serifs actually make the text MORE readable, not less, in  
a well-designed font. I haven't found one I like consistently that is  
better than Times New Roman, despite howls of dismay from  
professionals. Publishers might impose one on me and that would be  
perfectly fine with me.


For the same reason I like a serif font for expressions in my  
engraved-look work. I try not to mix fonts too much to avoid what  
Darcy called "looking like a ransom note." 8-) For bar numbers I like  
a sans-serif font like Helvetica, as they are often very small and  
serifs hurt legibility more than they help at that size.


My jazz work uses the JazzFont, but that is obviously a different bag.

But I sometimes pick a different-looking font for important things  
that have to stand out. jef chippewa has a great feel for this kind  
of thing; making instructions that are related look the same (font,  
size, style and position), while being slightly different from other  
non-related items. Examples of his work are available on his website.


http://newmusicnotation.com/services.html

click on "view examples"

Obviously, time signatures and dynamics have their own fonts,  
different from text expressions. I had to read a piece recently that  
used Courier or something like it for dynamics. It was extremely off- 
putting. I knew why I was having trouble (reading slower than usual,  
stopping to think as if I had missed a night's sleep) but that  
knowledge didn't help me read any faster.


Christopher


On Aug 4, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Allen Fisher wrote:


Hello List--

I am re-working some things that I did many years ago for my  
portfolio. I have some fonts picked out for use in these documents,  
but I have a question. Do you tend to use 1 font or 2+? Serif vs.  
sans-serif?


The piece that I'm working on first is a full orchestral plus  
choral score.


Thanks for any advice.




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

[Finale] 40-part choral

2008-08-04 Thread Dennis Bathory-Kitsz

John Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> There's only one that I know of, but I'm blanking on the composer. (Tallis?

Tallis. Spem in Alium. I sang in one of the quintets about 20 years ago.
Fantastic piece.

Dennis
who once upon a time did that old stuff :)





Buy my book today!



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

Re: [Finale] Text Fonts

I usually have a couple or three different fonts in a file, 
all of them with serifs.


David H. Bailey




Allen Fisher wrote:

Hello List--

I am re-working some things that I did many years ago for my portfolio. 
I have some fonts picked out for use in these documents, but I have a 
question. Do you tend to use 1 font or 2+? Serif vs. sans-serif?


The piece that I'm working on first is a full orchestral plus choral score.

Thanks for any advice.

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




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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question

2008-08-04 Thread Richard Smith

Well, I'm not sure it's too far a journey from the original topic. I 
think those involved in music preparation need to be thinking about the 
practical realities of rehearsal and performance. In my experience as 
both a horn player and a conductor, much music is prepared without 
considering the performers. My guess is that's because of limited 
ensemble performance experience of those who prepared the music.


I agree about having some extra room on the stand. I like the Manhassett 
double post conductor's stand. I don't know the model name off hand, but 
it's wide and has a double lip. To me it's just about perfect. Bigger 
stands, like the big Wenger drawing board size stands, seem to place a 
barrier between the ensemble and me that I don't like. In rehearsal, I 
also like to keep a second stand (or small table) to the side for those 
additional things that are always needed.


Richard Smith



Aaron Sherber wrote:
Okay, now we're getting totally away from binding issues, but since 
you bring it up


As a conductor, I like my workspace to be comfortably larger than my 
scores. I always keep a spare baton on my desk, and in rehearsal I'm 
likely to keep a pencil, some index cards, and maybe a rehearsal 
schedule or list of spots to hit. I guess you're right that an 11x14 
score may just barely fit on one stand (though technically I think it 
extends slightly past the stand on all three sides), but it doesn't 
leave me room for any of my other work implements, and so it's a 
non-starter for me. Two stands side-by-side is a better compromise, if 
a large desk isn't available.


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] Text Fonts

2008-08-04 Thread Barbara Touburg


Allen Fisher wrote:

Hello List--

I am re-working some things that I did many years ago for my portfolio. 
I have some fonts picked out for use in these documents, but I have a 
question. Do you tend to use 1 font or 2+? Serif vs. sans-serif?


The piece that I'm working on first is a full orchestral plus choral score.


For the lyrics I would recommend that you use a serif font, preferably 
one with short stems and tails. Trinité No. 1 is a good font, but rather 
expensive.


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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question (OT)

2008-08-04 Thread Richard Smith

Spem in Alium (Tallis) is the correct answer. But I say planned because 
it's not progressing much and I don't have anyone to play it anyway.


Richard Smith



John Howell wrote:
There's only one that I know of, but I'm blanking on the composer. 
(Tallis?  English, at least, and composed for eight 5-part choirs to 
be performed in a specific octagonal building.  Acoustic surround 
sound!)  I've never studied it, since I've never had the forces to 
attempt doing it!  I do understand that another, even larger work has 
been recently rediscovered, but I can't remember that story either. 
There are, of course, polychoral pieces by both the Gabriellis (uncle 
and nephew) and Michael Praetorius that might have involved 40 
performers, with 2 on a part, but no others written in 40 
(more-or-less) individual parts.


John


At 11:21 AM -0700 8/4/08, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:

FORTY part choral piece ...?  My curiosity is piqued ... what is it?

Dean

On Aug 4, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
(snip)

wind band transcription of a 40 part choral piece,



Richard Smith



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


Dean M. Estabrook
http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home

"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. But 
when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it 
is wrong. "


R. Buckminster Fuller






___
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 (OT)

2008-08-04 Thread Barbara Touburg


Dean M. Estabrook wrote:

FORTY part choral piece ...?  My curiosity is piqued ... what is it?


Can't remember the title, wasn't it by Thomas Tallis?

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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question (OT)

2008-08-04 Thread Kim Patrick Clow

Recently a bigger motet was discovered, I believe for 60 parts, it was
miscatalogued in the French National Library.
A fascinating article in "Early Music America" detailed the
fascinating rediscovery of this piece.

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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question (OT)

2008-08-04 Thread John Howell

There's only one that I know of, but I'm blanking on the composer. 
(Tallis?  English, at least, and composed for eight 5-part choirs to 
be performed in a specific octagonal building.  Acoustic surround 
sound!)  I've never studied it, since I've never had the forces to 
attempt doing it!  I do understand that another, even larger work has 
been recently rediscovered, but I can't remember that story either. 
There are, of course, polychoral pieces by both the Gabriellis (uncle 
and nephew) and Michael Praetorius that might have involved 40 
performers, with 2 on a part, but no others written in 40 
(more-or-less) individual parts.


John


At 11:21 AM -0700 8/4/08, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:

FORTY part choral piece ...?  My curiosity is piqued ... what is it?

Dean

On Aug 4, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
(snip)

wind band transcription of a 40 part choral piece,



Richard Smith



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


Dean M. Estabrook
http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home

"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. But 
when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know 
it is wrong. "


R. Buckminster Fuller






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



--
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] Text Fonts

2008-08-04 Thread Allen Fisher


Hello List--

I am re-working some things that I did many years ago for my  
portfolio. I have some fonts picked out for use in these documents,  
but I have a question. Do you tend to use 1 font or 2+? Serif vs. sans- 
serif?


The piece that I'm working on first is a full orchestral plus choral  
score.


Thanks for any advice.

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] Score Binding Question (OT)

2008-08-04 Thread Allen Fisher


I'm guessing he's talking about

Thomas Tallis 'Spem in Alium'

On Aug 4, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:


FORTY part choral piece ...?  My curiosity is piqued ... what is it?

Dean

On Aug 4, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
(snip)

wind band transcription of a 40 part choral piece,



Richard Smith



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


Dean M. Estabrook
http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home

"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. But  
when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know  
it is wrong. "


R. Buckminster Fuller






___
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] Score Binding Question (OT)

I'm guessing, Spem in alium nunquam habui, by Thomas Tallis, written  
for eight 5-part antiphonal choirs? I played a brass version of this  
when I was in university.


Christopher


On Aug 4, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:


FORTY part choral piece ...?  My curiosity is piqued ... what is it?

Dean

On Aug 4, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
(snip)

wind band transcription of a 40 part choral piece,


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

Re: [Finale] GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY! MAJOR BUG FIX IN 2009!


So far, yes, absolutely from my point of view.

C.


On Aug 3, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:


But does that make up for all the other things in 2009?

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Christopher Smith <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I never expected it. I never saw it coming. I thought I would be
complaining about this until the day I died and they pried the  
mouse from my

cold, dead fingers (sorry, Charlton Heston).

They have FIXED the "non-transposing chord symbols for non-key- 
signature

transposing instrument" bug!!!


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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question (OT)


FORTY part choral piece ...?  My curiosity is piqued ... what is it?

Dean

On Aug 4, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
(snip)

wind band transcription of a 40 part choral piece,



Richard Smith



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


Dean M. Estabrook
http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home

"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. But  
when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know  
it is wrong. "


R. Buckminster Fuller






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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question

Yeah, me too, if the front and back of the score is made of stiffer  
(e.g., card stock) so the top doesn't flop over the edge of the  
Manhasset.  Now the only issue is attempting to see the score through  
one of the options in my tri-focal lenses ... but that's another  
whole problem you youngsters needn't worry about ... YET.



Dean

On Aug 4, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

11x14 scores fit just fine on a single regular Manhasset stand! I  
never need two stands.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY




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


Dean M. Estabrook
http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home

"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. But  
when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know  
it is wrong. "


R. Buckminster Fuller






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

Re: [Finale] GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY! MAJOR BUG FIX IN 2009!


Allen Fisher wrote:

No. We've not done that for at least 5 years

On Aug 4, 2008, at 7:02 AM, dhbailey wrote:


 if he uninstalls it, will it remove his current Finale fonts?




Excellent.  Thanks for the clarification.


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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question


Hi Aaron,

I was thinking in concert. In rehearsal, I use a second stand for  
rehearsal notes and schedule, but I have it off to my right (less  
distracting that way), not flush with the music.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


On 4 Aug 2008, at 1:57 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:

As a conductor, I like my workspace to be comfortably larger than my  
scores. I always keep a spare baton on my desk, and in rehearsal I'm  
likely to keep a pencil, some index cards, and maybe a rehearsal  
schedule or list of spots to hit. I guess you're right that an 11x14  
score may just barely fit on one stand (though technically I think  
it extends slightly past the stand on all three sides), but it  
doesn't leave me room for any of my other work implements, and so  
it's a non-starter for me. Two stands side-by-side is a better  
compromise, if a large desk isn't available.


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] Score Binding Question

2008-08-04 Thread Aaron Sherber

At 01:43 PM 8/4/2008, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>
>On 4 Aug 2008, at 12:58 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
>
>>  But in a pinch, an 11x14 score will fit adequately on two regular
>> stands put side by side
>
>11x14 scores fit just fine on a single regular Manhasset stand! I
>never need two stands.

Okay, now we're getting totally away from binding issues, but since 
you bring it up

As a conductor, I like my workspace to be comfortably larger than my 
scores. I always keep a spare baton on my desk, and in rehearsal I'm 
likely to keep a pencil, some index cards, and maybe a rehearsal 
schedule or list of spots to hit. I guess you're right that an 11x14 
score may just barely fit on one stand (though technically I think it 
extends slightly past the stand on all three sides), but it doesn't 
leave me room for any of my other work implements, and so it's a 
non-starter for me. Two stands side-by-side is a better compromise, 
if a large desk isn't available.

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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question



On 4 Aug 2008, at 12:58 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:

 But in a pinch, an 11x14 score will fit adequately on two regular  
stands put side by side


11x14 scores fit just fine on a single regular Manhasset stand! I  
never need two stands.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY




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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question

2008-08-04 Thread Richard Smith

No I mean 11x14". Like I said, it's not a standard print size (although 
I have seen music printed in that size) but it is a standard photograph 
size. And could easily be produced at any local copy shop or from a wide 
format printer.


For those that don't know, photographers and printers speak of "aspect 
ratio" meaning the ratio of the vertical to horizontal sides.


11x17" is roughly the same aspect ratio as a legal size sheet, just 
bigger. Meaning it's rather long and skinny so if you need lots of 
staves and therefore a longer score, it's a good choice but, in my 
experience, rather unwieldy in rehearsal.


11x14" is similar in aspect ratio to letter, 8x10 (a photo size) and 
9.5x12. It's a bit more squarish. The result is that for scores that fit 
a letter size sheet well but the print is just too small to be 
practical, an 11x14 score will allow you to increase the print size 
significantly while being almost as easy to handle as a letter size score.


If your score needs more staves, like my planned wind band transcription 
of a 40 part choral piece, you probably will have to make a bigger score 
than anything that can be easily handled. Maybe such a piece needs a 
full score for study/reference and a somewhat condensed score from which 
to conduct!


Richard Smith



John Howell wrote:

At 11:20 PM -0500 8/3/08, Richard Smith wrote:
Just a comment on larger scores. I find a 17" score too long to 
handle easily in rehearsal. It hangs over the end of the stand and 
sort of "droops" causing the pages to be difficult to turn.


Clearly some scores really need the extra length, but I find 11x14 a 
very good option for a larger score. It fits the stand nicely so that 
the pages turn easily and the aspect ratio allows for larger print 
while leaving the format very similar to a letter size score. It's 
not a standard size (although it is a standard size for photographs) 
but it's easy enough to just print 11x17 and trim 3" from the bottom 
of the paper.

Just a thought...


Hi, Richard.  Do you mean legal size?  8.5" x 14"?  A double spread in 
that case would be 14" x 17", not 11" x 14".  Or maybe I'm just confused.


Just for reference, the standard desk height for Manhasset stands is 
12.5".  Only one of their stands is larger, the #54 "Regal by 
Manhasset" Conductor's Stand, with a desk that's 32" wide x 15.5" 
high.  But some other companies' conductor stands (including those 
used in our school district) are also larger, and quite able to 
support 17" scores.


John





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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question

2008-08-04 Thread Aaron Sherber

At 12:41 PM 8/4/2008, John Howell wrote:
>Hi, Richard.  Do you mean legal size?  8.5" x 14"?  A double spread
>in that case would be 14" x 17", not 11" x 14".  Or maybe I'm just
>confused.

I think Richard is talking about an 11x14 page size, not spread size. 
This is what I use for most of my large scores as well. I buy a ream 
of 11x17 paper (off-white, 70lb offset) and have the bottom 3" 
trimmed off to give me 11x14.

Most of the places where I have conducted have conductors' stands 
with an oversized desk, something like 30x20; Wenger makes a very 
nice one that many orchestras have. But in a pinch, an 11x14 score 
will fit adequately on two regular stands put side by side, whereas 
an 11x17 score will have too much hanging over the edge.

Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question



On Aug 4, 2008, at 12:41 PM, John Howell wrote:


At 11:20 PM -0500 8/3/08, Richard Smith wrote:
Just a comment on larger scores. I find a 17" score too long to  
handle easily in rehearsal. It hangs over the end of the stand and  
sort of "droops" causing the pages to be difficult to turn.


Clearly some scores really need the extra length, but I find 11x14  
a very good option for a larger score. It fits the stand nicely so  
that the pages turn easily and the aspect ratio allows for larger  
print while leaving the format very similar to a letter size  
score. It's not a standard size (although it is a standard size  
for photographs) but it's easy enough to just print 11x17 and trim  
3" from the bottom of the paper.

Just a thought...


Hi, Richard.  Do you mean legal size?  8.5" x 14"?  A double spread  
in that case would be 14" x 17", not 11" x 14".  Or maybe I'm just  
confused.


Just for reference, the standard desk height for Manhasset stands  
is 12.5".  Only one of their stands is larger, the #54 "Regal by  
Manhasset" Conductor's Stand, with a desk that's 32" wide x 15.5"  
high.  But some other companies' conductor stands (including those  
used in our school district) are also larger, and quite able to  
support 17" scores.




If Richard allows me to speak for him, I'm pretty sure he meant  
11x14, as he wrote. It was a standard score size in the pencil score  
days, and has held over into Finale land. Some of my scores are 11x14  
(particularly the orchestra ones) and they are very convenient. I  
just sometimes need the extra 3" of height for the extra staves...


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question

No, John, he means letter size. The aspect ratio of a 8.5"x11" sheet  
is very similar to the aspect ratio of a 11"x14" sheet, which makes it  
possible to format for the larger size, but print a "study score" at  
the smaller size when necessary, using "fit to page." I often do this  
for grant applications -- they don't need or want a full-sized 11"x14"  
score.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


On 4 Aug 2008, at 12:41 PM, John Howell wrote:

It fits the stand nicely so that the pages turn easily and the  
aspect ratio allows for larger print while leaving the format very  
similar to a letter size score.


Hi, Richard.  Do you mean legal size?  8.5" x 14"?  A double spread  
in that case would be 14" x 17", not 11" x 14".  Or maybe I'm just  
confused.






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

Re: [Finale] Score Binding Question

2008-08-04 Thread John Howell


At 11:20 PM -0500 8/3/08, Richard Smith wrote:
Just a comment on larger scores. I find a 17" score too long to 
handle easily in rehearsal. It hangs over the end of the stand and 
sort of "droops" causing the pages to be difficult to turn.


Clearly some scores really need the extra length, but I find 11x14 a 
very good option for a larger score. It fits the stand nicely so 
that the pages turn easily and the aspect ratio allows for larger 
print while leaving the format very similar to a letter size score. 
It's not a standard size (although it is a standard size for 
photographs) but it's easy enough to just print 11x17 and trim 3" 
from the bottom of the paper.

Just a thought...


Hi, Richard.  Do you mean legal size?  8.5" x 14"?  A double spread 
in that case would be 14" x 17", not 11" x 14".  Or maybe I'm just 
confused.


Just for reference, the standard desk height for Manhasset stands is 
12.5".  Only one of their stands is larger, the #54 "Regal by 
Manhasset" Conductor's Stand, with a desk that's 32" wide x 15.5" 
high.  But some other companies' conductor stands (including those 
used in our school district) are also larger, and quite able to 
support 17" scores.


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] GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY! MAJOR BUG FIX IN 2009!

2008-08-04 Thread Allen Fisher


No. We've not done that for at least 5 years

On Aug 4, 2008, at 7:02 AM, dhbailey wrote:


 if he uninstalls it, will it remove his current Finale fonts?








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

Re: [Finale] Finale 2009 questions/issues

2008-08-04 Thread Robert Patterson

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Jari Williamsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If you added a woodwind part and needed the same elsewhere, you could copy
> the expressions from an existing woodwind staff.
>

Now you are just rationalizing. Clearly for this case a staff set
would be the better solution. I agree one can work around the limit. I
don't think anyone has ever said otherwise.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2009 questions/issues

2008-08-04 Thread Jari Williamsson


Barbara Touburg wrote:
I can't think of a recent example, but I can imagine changes in 
instrumentation in an orchestral piece, where I would have a staff list 
"all woodwinds", I could quickly add an instrument if needed, by simply 
changing the assignment definition. With drag-assigning I would have to 
check every assignment by hand every time something would change in the 
woodwinds.


If you added a woodwind part and needed the same elsewhere, you could 
copy the expressions from an existing woodwind staff.



Another example might be staff lists for ripieni and tutti.
Of A-B-A arias where the B part doesn't include violas (De Fesch does 
this).


Staff sets?

Or for basso continuo where I have a hidden staff for the harpsichord, I 
would be certain that I wouldn't forget to assign an expression to the 
hidden harpsichord.


How do assure that other stuff (notes, artics, smart shapes, and so on) 
that needs to be added to the hidden harpsichord part are there?



Best regards,

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

Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09

2008-08-04 Thread Craig Parmerlee

I didn't say it would be impossible to program F2009 to preserve
unlimited staff lists. Clearly anything like this is possible. The
point is that they very well could have faced a decision where
simplifying the staff lists made their lives considerably easier. This
might be a sensible business decision, considering the direction they
are heading with the expressions. I agree with your points about
springing it on the community without warning.

I have never used more than 2 staff lists, so I'm sure I am not as
sympathetic to the problem as I might be.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I am a programmer, too, and for about as long. I have encountered situations similar to
what you've described below. There may be issues with having large staff lists
(performance, field count bit size, whatever), but I can't see the reason for 4, as
opposed to say, 8 or 16. I am not in their shoes, and maybe they've encountered a limit
beyond my experience, but I find that hard to believe. They've removed features - they
did not warn the user base, they did not "deprecate" old features, and I think
that is what most find offensive. We have had no time to prepare, and have forced some of
us to consider not upgrading (I did upgrade, by the way, and I like WinFin2k9). This is
simply bad business. And, in the battle between business needs and programming, I have
found that programming usually loses. Seeing as they have not cited any programming
benefit, I can only conclude otherwise. Of course, if any of the MM lurkers wish to
correct me, I will stand corrected on that point.

Nevertheless: removal of a capability, no user base preparation (I mean all of us), and,
in my mind, several workable alternatives to what they could have done, instead. Goodness
- they could have written a plug-in that would scan the document and say "hey, too
many staff lists - WB will be upset!" if it were just the publ houses.

Sorry. As a long-time program project manager, this is a hot button for me.

Craig Parmerlee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I wonder if we should be giving them some benefit of the doubt on this
subject. As a professional software designer for 35 years, it seems
entirely plausible to me that they may have faced a point where
preserving unlimited staff names, in combination with other new
features. would have taken significant extra programming and testing
effort. In cases like that, I believe it is appropriate for the system
architects / business planners to make some judgments about their
overall vision for the product. That seems to be the case in this
instance. Their vision is, evidently, that they want to put their
effort into the more elegant organization of expressions.

If there were absolutely no trade-off involved and they made this change
just to be hard-headed, that would be a bad deal. I really doubt that
was the scenario though.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Seems to me that if they wanted to put in limitations for some publishing house, it would not be
unreasonable to put in a "policies" configuration where you can select, say, the WB or
B&H guidelines and styles so the various houses get what they want. For the rest of us peons who
have different "guidelines", we can select the same old personal style we've been using
since, well, forever.

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

Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09

2008-08-04 Thread Robert Patterson


Craig Parmerlee wrote:

I wonder if we should be giving them some benefit of the doubt on this 
subject.  As a professional software designer for 35 years, it seems 
entirely plausible to me that they may have faced a point where 
preserving unlimited staff names, in combination with other new 
features. would have taken significant extra programming and testing 
effort. 


At no point has anyone from MM ever claimed that the artificial limit 
was imposed by a technical constraint. Furthermore, speaking as one who 
knows something of Finale internals, including in particular Fin09 
internals, I see no technical constraint.


If you have 35 years of experience in IT, you'll understand this 
analogy. It's as if they have a relational table for staff lists which 
they are programatically (through the UI) forcing to have exactly 4 
rows. At the data level, though, everything appears to be designed so 
that it could have any number of rows.


Some of the other artificial limits in Finale (4 layers, 12 notes, etc.) 
are imposed by severe technical constraints. I do not believe that any 
such constraint currently exists for staff lists. The problem is, the 
longer we have the limit the more severe the technical constraint 
becomes, because as new code gets added that limit becomes an assumption 
that permeates all future development. (Which is why, for example, it is 
so hard to contemplate changing the number of layers now.) This is one 
of my biggest reasons for having pushed so hard on the staff list issue 
now. It is still fresh.


I hasten to add that I am gleaning my impressions from having worked 
with the PDK, which since Fin06 has become progressively more wrapped 
and isolated from the true internals. But MM could easily shut this 
noise up by claiming there was a technical constraint, yet they have 
not. I basically trust them to be truthful, and a lot of my noise both 
here and on the forums is "tough love."


--
Robert Patterson

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

Re: [Finale] Staff Lists in 2009


Brian Williams wrote:
[snip]

Thank goodness there are still no staff list limits for text entered using
the Repeat tool. What's up with that?



Don't worry -- now that the publishers have learned that 
they can push MakeMusic around, there will be similar 
limitations coming for Repeats in the next Finale version.


I'm worried about how much change-to-be-more-like-Sibelius 
the publishers are going to force onto MakeMusic?


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

Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09


Craig Parmerlee wrote:
I wonder if we should be giving them some benefit of the doubt on this 
subject.  As a professional software designer for 35 years, it seems 
entirely plausible to me that they may have faced a point where 
preserving unlimited staff names, in combination with other new 
features. would have taken significant extra programming and testing 
effort.  In cases like that, I believe it is appropriate for the system 
architects / business planners to make some judgments about their 
overall vision for the product.  That seems to be the case in this 
instance.  Their vision is, evidently, that they want to put their 
effort into the more elegant organization of expressions.
If there were absolutely no trade-off involved and they made this change 
just to be hard-headed, that would be a bad deal.  I really doubt that 
was the scenario though.




That is my thinking on the subject as well, but the only 
justification brought out by the people at MakeMusic seems 
to be that publishers have asked for Finale to be more like 
Sibelius.


Hard-headedness seems to be the only public justification given.

I wonder what other Sibelius-like changes will be coming in 
the future versions, since Publishers seem to be able to get 
MakeMusic to jump when they want.  Will they eliminate the 
pitch-first-then-rhythm data entry since Sibelius doesn't 
allow that?


Will they muck up playback of some D.S. / D.C. forms since 
Sibelius doesn't play them back properly yet?


How about data file format?  Why don't the publishers demand 
that Finale provide Sibelius-format files so that 
submissions can come from either program but can be worked 
on in-house with only one program?


I would love to know what sort of pressure to do things in a 
specific way that publishers are bringing to bear on 
Sibelius to try to get it to work more like Finale, if any?


Is it only a one-way street?  If so, where did Finale drop 
the ball and allow Sibelius to gain such a strong foothold 
that people can demand that Finale be more like Sibelius and 
actually get their way?


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

Re: [Finale] Some comments re Fin09


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Seems to me that if they wanted to put in limitations for some publishing house, it would not be 
unreasonable to put in a "policies" configuration where you can select, say, the WB or 
B&H guidelines and styles so the various houses get what they want. For the rest of us peons who 
have different "guidelines", we can select the same old personal style we've been using 
since, well, forever.

Bruce



Exactly -- impairing potential in the program because 
publishers can't seem to be able to enforce submission 
guidelines strikes me as silly.



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

Re: [Finale] GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY! MAJOR BUG FIX IN 2009!