Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 3 Oct 2009 at 21:04, Aaron Sherber wrote: > On 10/3/2009 5:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > But Microsoft is not on the yearly upgrade merry-go-round. They > > release patches for their current version, but once the previous > > version reaches a certain point in its lifecycle, only dangerous > > problems are patched. > > > > The current Finale pricing already *is* a yearly bug fix. > > David, this is exactly what I've been saying. The Microsoft model is > what I expect when I buy software. The Finale model is what I expect > from a subscription. But I buy Finale the same way I buy MS software -- when I'm ready for a new version, I buy it. I use Office 2003 and Office 97 (for supporting my clients) and a little bit of Office 2000 (for supporting Access apps deployed running in A2000). I'm just starting with Office 2007 (really only Access 2007) because my clients haven't needed it, and I'm very conservative in adopting new software. There isn't any distinction between the two models based on the way *I* buy upgrades to Finale -- I buy only when a large number of significant enhancements have accumulated to make it worthwhile. I could have easily bought a Finale upgrade in the last 2 or 3 years and benefited greatly from doing so. I haven't only because I haven't been financially well off, and the version I have allows me to get done what I need to do. Since it's not paying work, there's no way I can count a few hours saved as paying for the upgrade. On the other hand, last Wednesday I had to prepare some parts for a rehearsal that night, and perhaps linked parts would have made that faster, so that I would have been able to get back to my paying work sooner that afternoon. But the kinds of things that caused me grief in that project were not really things that linked parts (or any of the other numerous truly useful enhancements to Finale since version 2003) would have helped with, to be honest, so I can't say that the specific project where I was doing unpaid work at the expense of paid work would have contributed to paying for the upgrade. I really think the "subscription" thing is a matter for the people who are paid engravers and have to keep up with yearly upgrades -- those folks lose money when they are unproductive because of glitches in Finale, and a $100 upgrade is easily paid for in a few hours saved time. On the other hand, for those of us who do our engraving gratis, there's no amount of hours saved multiplied by an hourly rate of $0 that will offset the upgrade price. And that's why we don't buy it like a subscription. Changing the terminology won't change my Finale purchase pattern on iota. Would it change yours? I doubt it. The real question is: Would it change the way MM plans their releases? And that we just can't know. -- 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] OT: minor 6th
On Oct 3, 2009, at 4:04 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: I remember having this pointed out to me by Charles Ellison (I'm pretty sure you know him!) in my first improv class in university. Do you see Charles there in Montreal? Please give him our best. He was trying to show us some different ways of handling "wrong" notes, and I (with the arrogance that only an eighteen year old could possibly possess!) challenged him, in front of the class, to make a major third sound "right" on a minor chord. He did on his trumpet, without hesitation. I then said, "Oh yeah, but can you start on beat 1 and hold it, and make it sound good?" (I told you I was arrogant!) and he did, in several different ways, all brilliant. We stood there with our mouths open, then my pal beside me nudged me. "Got it?" he asked with a grin. Takes more to hold a major third on a minor chord - that's the tough one! But even that can be made to work (much harder though). Miles plays A naturals in the background riff in Walkin' - right through the Bb7 in meas. 5-6 of the form (I know, it's the 7th, not the 3rd, but it's functioning the same way as if it were the 3rd of Fmin/Bb). Startled me at first, but it functions as a pedal note, and I hardly notice it now. As Hiro says, the groove is more important. I work with Barry Harris from time to time (pleasure for me), and he speaks about Monk calling an Am7b5 a Cmin6/A. I never did get why this was important to Monk or to Barry, who is usually into simplifying the way one needs to think about harmony rather than making it more complex. I'm not convinced that all theory is equally useful. Some things seem like going from NY to Philly by way of Cleveland. Chuck I did. Christopher ___ 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] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 10/3/2009 5:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: But Microsoft is not on the yearly upgrade merry-go-round. They release patches for their current version, but once the previous version reaches a certain point in its lifecycle, only dangerous problems are patched. The current Finale pricing already *is* a yearly bug fix. David, this is exactly what I've been saying. The Microsoft model is what I expect when I buy software. The Finale model is what I expect from a subscription. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 10/3/2009 5:24 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: If Finale were a subscription program, would I be paying every year to keep using Finale 2003? Would I pay less each year to keep using it? Or would I not have to pay anything unless I wanted the current version? I answered this in my previous email. In the software subscription models I've seen, you buy the software and can use it for however long you want. The subscription part is to keep getting updates (and support, in some cases). So if you bought Fin03 and liked it, you wouldn't have to pay any more money to use it. But if you wanted any bugfixes after the first year, you'd have to pay the subscription fee to get them. If the latter, I can't see how this would be any different at all from what you already have. Right. This is what I've said a couple of times now. The difference is one of expectiations. Put simply, when I buy software, I expect bug fixes for a couple of years. Finale doesn't do that. They give you bugfixes for only one year (or less), which is more like a subscription model. So I would rather they just call it that. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
On Sat Oct 3, at SaturdayOct 3 7:45 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: The Satin Doll E-7 / A7 is not Related II minor / V7 of II. If they were, they needs to be Locrean and Mixo b13. Instead, they are parallel lift of D-7 / G7, meaning whatever D-7 / G7 got has to be applied to E-7 / A7. The answer is Dorian / Mixo. My point is not on improvisation but comping rather. The chord scale theory determines voicing, yes? Improviser expect correct tensions voiced by the comping. Say you are on a function gig. The swing jazz type of gig. The pianist thinks "I have choices". S/he voices that E-7 with b9 as if it were a Spanish song but you are grooving on one note, natural 9th, like Coltrane would do. Well, I would say first that the pianist has to listen a bit better, not necessarily that she made a bad choice. I understand your point about "first choice" scales (I agree! Really!) but it doesn't end there. Or you are comping for someone. Without doubt, you are voicing the 9th but your bass player is waling on Phrygian. Are you saying you don't mind this? I would. Well, actually in that case, I would NOT have a problem with it at all. Bass lines are in a different "place" than comping and front line are. Bass players often use, say, melodic minor on a dominant walking up to a minor root when everyone else is playing an altered dominant. This kind of bass players' "musica ficta" is common and well-documented. Depending on how the player did it, from a point of sensitivity and informed musicality, I would be perfectly at ease with some forms of "mismatching" with the bass. But on the subject of matching and mismatching comping chords with front line: Charlie Parker was well-known for asking pianists (well, Bud Powell anyway) to play the unaltered dominant while he played a minor third higher than the actual chord (Bb7 mixo over an unaltered G7). Bud was one who cottoned on pretty quick and had started going with Bird on the substitute, but Bird insisted he liked how it sounded when he played the Bb7 over the G7. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
On 2009/10/03, at 19:04, Christopher Smith wrote: I think you are absolutely right, that there are a lot of choices available, all of which can sound great when executed musically. But I still maintain that chord scale theory gives us E phrygian, E aeolian, E dorian, E phygian maj7 (same as D melodic minor) and E locrian maj7 (same as D harmonic minor), just for starters. All of those can sound excellent at that spot in the tune, and all are supported by chord scale theory. Assuming of course, that we have the same definition of chord scale theory, as I mentioned. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I feel my point has not be heard. Of course there are many choices for improviser. After all that's what the 1/3 of jazz is about (groove goes to the rest of 2/3), but the point is one have to know what is most correct answer before trying to be creative. The Satin Doll E-7 / A7 is not Related II minor / V7 of II. If they were, they needs to be Locrean and Mixo b13. Instead, they are parallel lift of D-7 / G7, meaning whatever D-7 / G7 got has to be applied to E-7 / A7. The answer is Dorian / Mixo. My point is not on improvisation but comping rather. The chord scale theory determines voicing, yes? Improviser expect correct tensions voiced by the comping. Say you are on a function gig. The swing jazz type of gig. The pianist thinks "I have choices". S/he voices that E-7 with b9 as if it were a Spanish song but you are grooving on one note, natural 9th, like Coltrane would do. Or you are comping for someone. Without doubt, you are voicing the 9th but your bass player is waling on Phrygian. Are you saying you don't mind this? I would. My problem with the current state of jazz theory is that everyone tells too many different things, while there is only one best answer. Improvisation is not freedom without rules. You can't brake rules if you don't know it (or should I say 'enforce it' :-). -- - 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] OT: minor 6th
On Sat Oct 3, at SaturdayOct 3 12:42 PM, Chuck Israels wrote: Sorry, on your original example again, it depends on context. E phrygian on Em7 might seem obvious in the key of C, but what about bar 3 of Satin Doll? E Dorian is a perfectly playable scale there, Because you are temporarily in D, no? - or at least pointing strongly in the direction of D. Well, strictly speaking (according to chord scale theory!) we are pointing in the direction of D MINOR in the key of C, so the F sharp would be an altered note. But that is perfectly fine with me! Nevertheless, I can hear F naturals in descending bass lines there too. To remove all ambiguity from music is to impoverish the language. Sensitivity to the choice of non-chord tones can control subtleties, but I have found situations in which those choices are less important to the overall effect of the musical gesture than I think they are, when I am composing more slowly than the tempo at which the music will be heard. I am not proposing ignorance of this issue, just putting in its place. Chuck I think you are absolutely right, that there are a lot of choices available, all of which can sound great when executed musically. I remember having this pointed out to me by Charles Ellison (I'm pretty sure you know him!) in my first improv class in university. He was trying to show us some different ways of handling "wrong" notes, and I (with the arrogance that only an eighteen year old could possibly possess!) challenged him, in front of the class, to make a major third sound "right" on a minor chord. He did on his trumpet, without hesitation. I then said, "Oh yeah, but can you start on beat 1 and hold it, and make it sound good?" (I told you I was arrogant!) and he did, in several different ways, all brilliant. We stood there with our mouths open, then my pal beside me nudged me. "Got it?" he asked with a grin. I did. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
On Sat Oct 3, at SaturdayOct 3 1:57 PM, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote: At 11:19 -0400 03/10/09, Christopher Smith wrote: On Sat Oct 3, at SaturdayOct 3 10:34 AM, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote: At 9:51 -0400 03/10/09, Christopher Smith wrote: On Sat Oct 3, at SaturdayOct 3 9:03 AM, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote: I also do not use the chord scale theory as a basis for improvisation nor in my playing neither in my teaching, simply because I think good melodies are made of chord tones plus non- harmonic tones, and those can be either diatonic or cromatic ones. Not all notes of a melody need to be from the "chord scale". Also, there is no time in improvisation, specialy when chords change fast, to play a full scale for each chord; and picking up scale tones at random won't work either in building a good melody. If you say that good melody notes can be diatonic or chromatic ones, then you use chord scale theory. Chord scale theory only tells us which notes are more likely to be considered as "diatonic" rather than "chromatic" and gives us an easy way to practice them. After a while, we just know them and don't worry about it much any more. Christopher Unless I'm mistaken, chord scale theory says if you are in Cmaj you use C major scale for CMaj7, dorian mode for Dm7 phrygian for Em7, lydian for FMaj7, etc. What I say that all diatonic non- harmonic tones for all those chords come from the C major scale. You build your improvisation with chord tones from those chords plus passing tones, neighbooring tones, scale runs, whatever... from the C major sale only, or cromatic notes. To say that the phrygian mode gives me the diatonic notes for the Em7 chord in Cmajor is redundant, don't you think? Harold I don't know about "redundant", but it gets a lot more useful when talking about the kinds of chords we were discussing. What scale is considered to be "diatonic" on an Fm chord in the key of C major? F melodic minor is a good one, but there are cases to be made for F dorian, C harmonic minor (starting from F, of course, if we are talking about chord scales) and that weird scale I don't know the name for, like an F lydian but with A flat. On Bb7 in Cmajor it is a split between using a passing E or passing Eb, and chord scale theory helps up with these less- obvious choices (it depends on context.) We were particularly talking about m7(b5) chords, which on a II chord in minor work nicely with locrian, but as a VI chord in minor or as a II chord in MAJOR might be better with locrian maj2. Christopher Sorry, on your original example again, it depends on context. E phrygian on Em7 might seem obvious in the key of C, but what about bar 3 of Satin Doll? E Dorian is a perfectly playable scale there, on that chord, and we aren't even into Freddie Hubbard territory yet. I still think there is a lot of chord scale theory that can help us. ___ Fm in C major: Diatonic notes are from C minor scale from which it is borrowed, except if it has a maj7, as in FmMaj7, but then it is obvious you need to substitute E for Eb, making it an F melodic minor, up and down. If there is no mention of 7th in the symbol, you may use either scale in improvisation, since you can imply wathever 7th you want added to the chord, because there is no other melody going on. Em7 in Satin Doll You might have a point there. But you still can use F natural in the second Em7, as it goes to Dm7 via its secondary dominant. Also, one usually adds a 9th to the Em7 chord and a 13th to the A7, and that puts you momentarily in the D major region (IIm7-V7 of D), and thus your E dorian scale. My question: how does one know, from the chord scale theory, that the scale to use in the Em7 chord of Satin Doll is the dorian? How does the theory tell you that, except by showing you that for the moment you are in the D major territoty? I wouldn't say that chord scale theory says anything about THE scale to use anywhere; it's about choice and what those choices imply. If you interpret the 3rd and 4th bars of Satin Doll as being temporarily in D major, then that and chord scale theory give you E dorian. See below for more discussion. My point is, if you know what tonal region you are, you can easily figure out what notes are diatonic, and don't need chord scale theory. Harold Honestly, I am starting to wonder if you have a different definition of chord scale theory than I do. I don't think of chord scale theory as saying "THIS scale, and ONLY this scale is the right one" but rather giving some choices and nomenclature, so you can group solutions that occur in similar situations. There is an aspect of chord scale theory (at least the way I teach it) that talks about "first choice" scales, those being the ones closest to the key, but NOT by any means the most musical or desirable! It's meant to be
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 3 Oct 2009 at 11:24, Aaron Sherber wrote: > As I said earlier, when I buy a > piece of software, I expect more than a year's worth of bug fixes, and I > expect major bugs to be fixed even after the next version comes out. For > example, MS continues to put out critical fixes for Office long after > the next version is released. If Makemusic just said "You can buy the > software, and you get one year's worth of free upgrades" -- which is > essentially what their practice it -- then I woudn't be bothered so much > by having to shell out that money each year to get fixes to longstanding > bugs. But Microsoft is not on the yearly upgrade merry-go-round. They release patches for their current version, but once the previous version reaches a certain point in its lifecycle, only dangerous problems are patched. The current Finale pricing already *is* a yearly bug fix. And don't fool yourself into think that Microsoft doesn't answer a lot of bug reports with "we fixed that in the next version and will never fix it in the previous one, so you have to upgrade to get the bug fix." It happens *all the time*. Indeed, MS has recently introduced in the crash reporting a default recommendation that you might be able to avoid the bug you're experiencing by upgrading to the current version -- it's quite annoying. Last of all, you just can't compare a small company like MM to Microsoft, which is a huge, huge company with many major product lines that can cross-subsidize each other in their off years. That is, the release schedules for the major product lines can be staggered such that the revenue stream remains fairly stable and finances the whole operation. MM is just not big enough for that. It doesn't have any second major product line, just a number of inter-related products that are based around the same technologies. There is no independence there, and the different products have significant dependencies that require that they work together (e.g., SmartMusic and Finale cannot be developed on independent schedules, since SmartMusic is only viable if Finale can be used to produce current SmartMusic formats). I can't see how calling the yearly upgrade a subscription changes the reality of it, unless it allowed them to slipstream patches/upgrades without changing the Finale version numbers. That is, what under the current system is called Finale 2010 might be 2009B instead. But would this change the difficulty of the task of producing the next yearly version release? I don't think so. Might it reduce expectations for how much in the way of new features each yearly release would have? Perhaps. But that would also likely reduce the motivation for upgrading. Again, if there were a financial scenario where MM could make this change and increase revenues, or keep revenues flat and improve customer satisfaction, there's no way MM wouldn't do it. So I can only conclude either that the forecasts show it wouldn't keep revenues flat or betterm, or that the models are too ambiguous to justify risking the future of the company on something that might very well be disastrous. -- 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] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 3 Oct 2009 at 8:18, Aaron Sherber wrote: > I think I wouldn't mind > all of this so much if Makemusic just came out and said that they're > switching to a subscription model. I'm not crazy about subscription > models, but it's a more honest description of MM's business practices, > and somehow I don't think I'd grumble so much about shelling out that > $100 each year. How, exactly, would that work for someone like me? I'm a relatively casual user of Finale (I don't use it every day, though I've done quite a lot of work in it since I first bought it in 1991 at the $250 academic discount -- I was an enrolled NYU grad student at the time, so totally legit), and have purchased only 3 upgrades, Finale 3.52, Finale 97 and Finale 2003 (were I not in the economic doldrums, I would have purchased one of the recent upgrades, keeping with an every 5 years or so schedule). If Finale were a subscription program, would I be paying every year to keep using Finale 2003? Would I pay less each year to keep using it? Or would I not have to pay anything unless I wanted the current version? If the latter, I can't see how this would be any different at all from what you already have. If you want to always have the current version, you pay $99 (or whatever) each year and get the current version. If you don't want to get the current version, you don't pay. Were MM to go to a true subscription model where you paid each year and the software would stop working after the subscription was out (like AV software, for instance, which everyone HATES), then I'd abandon Finale immediately for something else. The only thing that would make that viable is if the price were substantially lower. If, for instance, the yearly subscription were $35, then that wouldn't be so terrible, but it would also be, I think, a huge drop in revenue for MM. I just can't see how there's any other option for MM than the current one as long as they have a revenue and programming model that is structured around yearly releases. In order to switch to a once very 2-3 years release schedule, you've got to know you're going to have a significant revenue stream in the off years, and I don't believe MM is doing so well (from the published financial information) that they have a lot of leeway in that regard. Also, the first such "mega-release" would be harder than the later ones, and also would be under more pressure to have major features. And they'd have to charge a higher price, but surely it couldn't be the more than the price the yearly releases would have cost, or they'd be losing revenue while having higher costs. I just don't see how there's any way for them to get off the treadmill. Finale *users*, on the other hand, can get off the treadmill any time they want. I've for years argued that the knee-jerk upgrade is silly, except for the pro engravers who need to keep up with the current version and need to exchange files with others. I think there are a lot more Finale users who don't have the interoperability problem than there are those who do, so I think most people oughtn't be considering the upgrade very year. In the last five years, there's been a big change in almost all non- free software categories, and that's that many classes of software have reached a level of maturity that there's very little to be gained from upgrading to new versions. The most widely used Windows software, Microsoft Word, is really unchanged in terms of major features from Word 97 on. Sure, lots of small things have been added, and UI tweaked and shuffled, but the Word of today offers almost no significant capabilities that were absent in Word 97. In my opinion, music notation software is reaching that same point. Sibelius's automatic spacing is a great example of a huge feature, but once that's in place (and working reliably), what else is there? Exactly what can be added to music notation software that is not there already that is going to be a major productivity enhancer? Sibelius needs to fix it's slurs (so does Finale), but other than that, what? Because of that, the music notation software package either needs to get better UI or it needs to become significantly faster. I guess one area for Finale would be that page layout could get smarter, but it's such a complicated thing that I'm not sure it's possible without imposing rigid rules. So, I'm just not sure how a company like MM is ever going to be able to muster the resources to do something major like revise the file format so that it can be cross-compatible between versions. That kind of thing is a huge operation, and it results in no new functionality, and it only serves to suppress sales (if you can work with people with later versions, why should you upgrade?). I'm not suggesting that MM decides not to do this because they want to force people into buying, just that the cost/benefit ratio is such that it would put significant downward pre
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
On 2009/10/03, at 10:05, Christopher Smith wrote: I don't think Monk did. His changes were not that detailed. Honestly, my changes in my own music are not that detailed, either. I write more detail in the rare circumstances where I really need something in particular, but usually I write as little detail as I can get away with. But we aren't talking about MY music, are we? We are talking about interpreting an existing set of pitches in a tune written by someone else. I didn't know we were talking about Monk. I only saw a thread saying C-/A is the same as A-7(b5), and I said that's not true. Monk is too special. 'Round Midnight, he wrote a song in Eb minor with Eb Major key signature. He was tired of other musicians sitting in his gigs, and he started to write confusing lead sheets to screw them up, and discourage them to sit in. Y'know, the theoretical correctness is only a tool. You can be creative only when you mastered what it is supposed to be. I learned this from Picasso. In general, I don't like "Open To Interpretation". On the other hand, I do have a few "Open To Interpretation" pieces for small groups, where all the dominant chord has no tension written. This is a composer's choice, not the comping player's. Here is the summary of my point: * I don't want chord instrument players to put tensions as they feel like it. Note that creative rehamonization is a totally different subject here. * I have no problem improviser choosing notes as they feel as long as they sound great. Note that there aren't many improvisors who can hit avoid note and still sounding great. Look, Coltrane hits avoid not on purpose to be creative, and he knows that is the avoid note! He can do it since he grooves on that avoid note. * I hate improvisor ask me what scale to be used for the chord I wrote, except when I wrote ambiguously on purpose. -- - 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] OT: minor 6th
At 11:19 -0400 03/10/09, Christopher Smith wrote: >On Sat Oct 3, at SaturdayOct 3 10:34 AM, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote: > >>At 9:51 -0400 03/10/09, Christopher Smith wrote: >>>On Sat Oct 3, at SaturdayOct 3 9:03 AM, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote: >>> I also do not use the chord scale theory as a basis for improvisation nor in my playing neither in my teaching, simply because I think good melodies are made of chord tones plus non-harmonic tones, and those can be either diatonic or cromatic ones. Not all notes of a melody need to be from the "chord scale". Also, there is no time in improvisation, specialy when chords change fast, to play a full scale for each chord; and picking up scale tones at random won't work either in building a good melody. >>> >>> >>>If you say that good melody notes can be diatonic or chromatic ones, then >>>you use chord scale theory. Chord scale theory only tells us which notes are >>>more likely to be considered as "diatonic" rather than "chromatic" and gives >>>us an easy way to practice them. After a while, we just know them and don't >>>worry about it much any more. >>> >>>Christopher >> >>Unless I'm mistaken, chord scale theory says if you are in Cmaj you use C >>major scale for CMaj7, dorian mode for Dm7 phrygian for Em7, lydian for >>FMaj7, etc. What I say that all diatonic non-harmonic tones for all those >>chords come from the C major scale. You build your improvisation with chord >>tones from those chords plus passing tones, neighbooring tones, scale runs, >>whatever... from the C major sale only, or cromatic notes. To say that the >>phrygian mode gives me the diatonic notes for the Em7 chord in Cmajor is >>redundant, don't you think? >> >>Harold > >I don't know about "redundant", but it gets a lot more useful when talking >about the kinds of chords we were discussing. What scale is considered to be >"diatonic" on an Fm chord in the key of C major? F melodic minor is a good >one, but there are cases to be made for F dorian, C harmonic minor (starting >from F, of course, if we are talking about chord scales) and that weird scale >I don't know the name for, like an F lydian but with A flat. > >On Bb7 in Cmajor it is a split between using a passing E or passing Eb, and >chord scale theory helps up with these less-obvious choices (it depends on >context.) > >We were particularly talking about m7(b5) chords, which on a II chord in minor >work nicely with locrian, but as a VI chord in minor or as a II chord in MAJOR >might be better with locrian maj2. > >Christopher > >Sorry, on your original example again, it depends on context. E phrygian on >Em7 might seem obvious in the key of C, but what about bar 3 of Satin Doll? E >Dorian is a perfectly playable scale there, on that chord, and we aren't even >into Freddie Hubbard territory yet. I still think there is a lot of chord >scale theory that can help us. >___ Fm in C major: Diatonic notes are from C minor scale from which it is borrowed, except if it has a maj7, as in FmMaj7, but then it is obvious you need to substitute E for Eb, making it an F melodic minor, up and down. If there is no mention of 7th in the symbol, you may use either scale in improvisation, since you can imply wathever 7th you want added to the chord, because there is no other melody going on. Em7 in Satin Doll You might have a point there. But you still can use F natural in the second Em7, as it goes to Dm7 via its secondary dominant. Also, one usually adds a 9th to the Em7 chord and a 13th to the A7, and that puts you momentarily in the D major region (IIm7-V7 of D), and thus your E dorian scale. My question: how does one know, from the chord scale theory, that the scale to use in the Em7 chord of Satin Doll is the dorian? How does the theory tell you that, except by showing you that for the moment you are in the D major territoty? My point is, if you know what tonal region you are, you can easily figure out what notes are diatonic, and don't need chord scale theory. Harold ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
Sorry, on your original example again, it depends on context. E phrygian on Em7 might seem obvious in the key of C, but what about bar 3 of Satin Doll? E Dorian is a perfectly playable scale there, Because you are temporarily in D, no? - or at least pointing strongly in the direction of D. Nevertheless, I can hear F naturals in descending bass lines there too. To remove all ambiguity from music is to impoverish the language. Sensitivity to the choice of non-chord tones can control subtleties, but I have found situations in which those choices are less important to the overall effect of the musical gesture than I think they are, when I am composing more slowly than the tempo at which the music will be heard. I am not proposing ignorance of this issue, just putting in its place. Chuck on that chord, and we aren't even into Freddie Hubbard territory yet. I still think there is a lot of chord scale theory that can help us. ___ 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] The Finale nail in the coffin
On Oct 2, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: Because of their incompatibility policy, I have asked my clients not to upgrade past 2007 -- but one had already begun work in 2008. Now that his material is headed my way, we *both* have to buy 2010 to be able to work together. I, too require all submissions to be in 2K7 or earlier. In one case, the client had upgraded to 2K9, but fortunately has saved all his earlier Finale versions. He grumbled alot, but finally realized there was nothing to be done but to take his work in 2K9, send it back to 2K7 via Music XML, and clean up the resulting mess before sending it to me. It's also possible (though I haven't actually done this yet) for someone to send me their work in PDF form--but that would require exchanges of marked proofsheets in paper form if the work is to be cleaned up for publication. BTW, I also just discovered that if you double-click a PostScript file--even one made from Finale 2.x--it will open perfectly in Preview. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 10/3/2009 8:34 AM, dhbailey wrote: I would definitely object to a subscription model, since that implies that if one wishes to stop subscribing then the software will stop working as of whatever date the current subscription runs out. That's not what software subscription implies, in my experience. If the subscription only carries with it automatic updates with an annual fee but will not render the software useless if one cancels one's subscription then it really isn't any different from the current system. Except that it changes expectations. As I said earlier, when I buy a piece of software, I expect more than a year's worth of bug fixes, and I expect major bugs to be fixed even after the next version comes out. For example, MS continues to put out critical fixes for Office long after the next version is released. If Makemusic just said "You can buy the software, and you get one year's worth of free upgrades" -- which is essentially what their practice it -- then I woudn't be bothered so much by having to shell out that money each year to get fixes to longstanding bugs. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
On Sat Oct 3, at SaturdayOct 3 10:34 AM, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote: At 9:51 -0400 03/10/09, Christopher Smith wrote: On Sat Oct 3, at SaturdayOct 3 9:03 AM, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote: I also do not use the chord scale theory as a basis for improvisation nor in my playing neither in my teaching, simply because I think good melodies are made of chord tones plus non- harmonic tones, and those can be either diatonic or cromatic ones. Not all notes of a melody need to be from the "chord scale". Also, there is no time in improvisation, specialy when chords change fast, to play a full scale for each chord; and picking up scale tones at random won't work either in building a good melody. If you say that good melody notes can be diatonic or chromatic ones, then you use chord scale theory. Chord scale theory only tells us which notes are more likely to be considered as "diatonic" rather than "chromatic" and gives us an easy way to practice them. After a while, we just know them and don't worry about it much any more. Christopher Unless I'm mistaken, chord scale theory says if you are in Cmaj you use C major scale for CMaj7, dorian mode for Dm7 phrygian for Em7, lydian for FMaj7, etc. What I say that all diatonic non-harmonic tones for all those chords come from the C major scale. You build your improvisation with chord tones from those chords plus passing tones, neighbooring tones, scale runs, whatever... from the C major sale only, or cromatic notes. To say that the phrygian mode gives me the diatonic notes for the Em7 chord in Cmajor is redundant, don't you think? Harold I don't know about "redundant", but it gets a lot more useful when talking about the kinds of chords we were discussing. What scale is considered to be "diatonic" on an Fm chord in the key of C major? F melodic minor is a good one, but there are cases to be made for F dorian, C harmonic minor (starting from F, of course, if we are talking about chord scales) and that weird scale I don't know the name for, like an F lydian but with A flat. On Bb7 in Cmajor it is a split between using a passing E or passing Eb, and chord scale theory helps up with these less-obvious choices (it depends on context.) We were particularly talking about m7(b5) chords, which on a II chord in minor work nicely with locrian, but as a VI chord in minor or as a II chord in MAJOR might be better with locrian maj2. Christopher Sorry, on your original example again, it depends on context. E phrygian on Em7 might seem obvious in the key of C, but what about bar 3 of Satin Doll? E Dorian is a perfectly playable scale there, on that chord, and we aren't even into Freddie Hubbard territory yet. I still think there is a lot of chord scale theory that can help us. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
At 9:51 -0400 03/10/09, Christopher Smith wrote: >On Sat Oct 3, at SaturdayOct 3 9:03 AM, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote: > >> I also do not use the chord scale theory as a basis for improvisation nor in >> my playing neither in my teaching, simply because I think good melodies are >> made of chord tones plus non-harmonic tones, and those can be either >> diatonic or cromatic ones. Not all notes of a melody need to be from the >> "chord scale". Also, there is no time in improvisation, specialy when chords >> change fast, to play a full scale for each chord; and picking up scale tones >> at random won't work either in building a good melody. > > >If you say that good melody notes can be diatonic or chromatic ones, then you >use chord scale theory. Chord scale theory only tells us which notes are more >likely to be considered as "diatonic" rather than "chromatic" and gives us an >easy way to practice them. After a while, we just know them and don't worry >about it much any more. > >Christopher Unless I'm mistaken, chord scale theory says if you are in Cmaj you use C major scale for CMaj7, dorian mode for Dm7 phrygian for Em7, lydian for FMaj7, etc. What I say that all diatonic non-harmonic tones for all those chords come from the C major scale. You build your improvisation with chord tones from those chords plus passing tones, neighbooring tones, scale runs, whatever... from the C major sale only, or cromatic notes. To say that the phrygian mode gives me the diatonic notes for the Em7 chord in Cmajor is redundant, don't you think? Harold ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
On Sat Oct 3, at SaturdayOct 3 8:45 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: On 2009/10/03, at 8:29, Christopher Smith wrote: I have to respectfully disagree with you here, Hiro, on both points. First of all, the PITCH CONTENT of both chords is the same. Therefore, they are the same, and any other interpretive points (like what scale to play or what extensions to add to the voicing) occur in the ear of the player, not prescriptively in the chord symbol. Secondly, there is nothing inherent in the Am7(b5) chord symbol that dictates locrian, as there is no mention of the second degree at all. Depending on the context, the locrian maj2 scale might be a better choice (and I'm not even going into other choices!) Granted, it usually shows up as a II chord in Gminor, where probably locrian might be the first choice. But what about a VI chord following a Im(maj7) in Cm, or an altered II chord in G major? Both those situations might like locrian maj2 better than locrian. But I accept the concept that a musician from the 40s might be more likely to choose the Bnat if he sees Cm/A rather than Am7 (b5), which wasn't common in those circles at the time. Today, with a schooled jazz musician, it would be another matter. That, I believe, was the original point of the question. Oh C'mon! If you want natural 9th - as the composer of the piece - you would had wrote A-9(b5), right? :-) I don't think Monk did. His changes were not that detailed. Honestly, my changes in my own music are not that detailed, either. I write more detail in the rare circumstances where I really need something in particular, but usually I write as little detail as I can get away with. But we aren't talking about MY music, are we? We are talking about interpreting an existing set of pitches in a tune written by someone else. I am serious. I am tired of people writing vague instructions to the improvisor. If your chord symbols are clear to suggest what the composer wants, you save rehearsal time, and your composition will sound great on sight reading. When I wrote for Mike Stern who had no chance to rehearse with us, I gave slashes only and I wrote "blow whatever you hear". No question was asked! And he sounded great! This didn't work with Dave Liebman. He wanted to know all the harmony I wrote behind his solo. I'm not often in a position where I care that much about whether someone will choose a natural 9th or a flat 9th on one of MY m7(b5) chords. However, interpreting what Monk or some other composer might have written affects my choices as an improvisor (and yes, I DO consider them to be MY choices, not Monk's, though I try to respect his harmonic systems as much as I am able to while being true to myself. I could choose to be a shallow exploiter of his legacy, or I could choose to be a true exponent of his music, as filtered through my experience.) I think this discussion is underlining a basic difference in jazz and classical analysis. In classical analysis, you only interpret what is actually there, while in jazz there is a whole lot of analysis about what ISN'T there and what might happen in the cracks. Not everything is a free choice in jazz, and I think we are differing on what parts of the harmony might be considered to be more prescribed, and which parts are more open to interpretation. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] you can't be serious... (tobias?!?!?!)
Dear Jef, For whatever reason, this function has worked for me since the beginning of 2010 through various OS versions (10.4 - .5). Chuck On Oct 3, 2009, at 4:38 AM, shirling & neueweise wrote: Try mousing the TG tools menu to get it to work. nope, it don't work still. i tried different settings in the TG options, i simply can't get this to work, but it has worked perfectly for me up to 2008 (i never used 2009). i'm using EngraverFontSet, and even added this in the list of "extra fonts" to recognize. is everyone else using 2010 able to use this function? it would be good to know, maybe it is due to something on my end (OSX.4.11), so please let me know if you can use this successfully, either by key commands or via the menus. ___ 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] OT: minor 6th
On Sat Oct 3, at SaturdayOct 3 9:03 AM, Haroldo Mauro Jr. wrote: I also do not use the chord scale theory as a basis for improvisation nor in my playing neither in my teaching, simply because I think good melodies are made of chord tones plus non- harmonic tones, and those can be either diatonic or cromatic ones. Not all notes of a melody need to be from the "chord scale". Also, there is no time in improvisation, specialy when chords change fast, to play a full scale for each chord; and picking up scale tones at random won't work either in building a good melody. If you say that good melody notes can be diatonic or chromatic ones, then you use chord scale theory. Chord scale theory only tells us which notes are more likely to be considered as "diatonic" rather than "chromatic" and gives us an easy way to practice them. After a while, we just know them and don't worry about it much any more. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
At 5:35 -0400 03/10/09, dhbailey wrote: >A-NO-NE Music wrote: >> >>On 2009/10/02, at 18:18, Robert Lingnau wrote: >> >>>To answer your question: Yes, C MI 6 with the 6th in the bass is A MI7 (b5). >> >>They are not the same. A-7(b5) dictates Locrian. C-6 forces you to avoid >>7th to voice, meaning the 7th will be b7th or natural 7th which will be a >>choice for the improviser. >> >>Again, most important thing here is that 6 chord by definition tells you not >>to voice the 7th. >> > >Knowing of course that your expertise in these matters far exceeds mine, how >exactly does any chord designation "force" anything on an improviser? And how >does A-locrian differ from C-dorian (which I would expect to be played over >Cmin(maj6)) other than in the starting note? Suggest, certainly, but force? I agree with you that there is no difference. I also do not use the chord scale theory as a basis for improvisation nor in my playing neither in my teaching, simply because I think good melodies are made of chord tones plus non-harmonic tones, and those can be either diatonic or cromatic ones. Not all notes of a melody need to be from the "chord scale". Also, there is no time in improvisation, specialy when chords change fast, to play a full scale for each chord; and picking up scale tones at random won't work either in building a good melody. >Avoiding the 7th in voicing the chord, leaving the choice of b7 or natural7 to >the improviser, how would that differ between the two chord designations? >Would someone really add a Bb or a Bnat to the A-7(b5)? I guess they could >add the 9th pretty easily, but so, too, could they add the Bb or Bnat in a >Cmin(maj6)/A designation, couldn't they, since the A would be in the bass and >thus farther away from where the Bb/Bnat would be voiced? This is what I think. Considering you have a Cm6 chord, you can choose either one of the 7ths in a melody. For instance if you play a descendig scalewise group of notes from D to A the Bb sounds good; and if you play a rising group from, say, C to Eb, the B natural will sound good also. As for the chord, you never use a b7 in a min6 chord, but you could add a Maj7th if the melody permits. For instance, if the melody is the root, you don't use the Maj7th, but if the melody is the 9th, the added Maj7h would soung good as in the chord C, A, Eb, G, B (rising from C) and a D in the melody. Harold ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
On 2009/10/03, at 8:29, Christopher Smith wrote: I have to respectfully disagree with you here, Hiro, on both points. First of all, the PITCH CONTENT of both chords is the same. Therefore, they are the same, and any other interpretive points (like what scale to play or what extensions to add to the voicing) occur in the ear of the player, not prescriptively in the chord symbol. Secondly, there is nothing inherent in the Am7(b5) chord symbol that dictates locrian, as there is no mention of the second degree at all. Depending on the context, the locrian maj2 scale might be a better choice (and I'm not even going into other choices!) Granted, it usually shows up as a II chord in Gminor, where probably locrian might be the first choice. But what about a VI chord following a Im(maj7) in Cm, or an altered II chord in G major? Both those situations might like locrian maj2 better than locrian. But I accept the concept that a musician from the 40s might be more likely to choose the Bnat if he sees Cm/A rather than Am7(b5), which wasn't common in those circles at the time. Today, with a schooled jazz musician, it would be another matter. That, I believe, was the original point of the question. Oh C'mon! If you want natural 9th - as the composer of the piece - you would had wrote A-9(b5), right? :-) I am serious. I am tired of people writing vague instructions to the improvisor. If your chord symbols are clear to suggest what the composer wants, you save rehearsal time, and your composition will sound great on sight reading. When I wrote for Mike Stern who had no chance to rehearse with us, I gave slashes only and I wrote "blow whatever you hear". No question was asked! And he sounded great! This didn't work with Dave Liebman. He wanted to know all the harmony I wrote behind his solo. -- - 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] The Finale nail in the coffin
Aaron Sherber wrote: [snip]> Having said all of that, I'll flip-flop again. I think I wouldn't mind all of this so much if Makemusic just came out and said that they're switching to a subscription model. I'm not crazy about subscription models, but it's a more honest description of MM's business practices, and somehow I don't think I'd grumble so much about shelling out that $100 each year. I would definitely object to a subscription model, since that implies that if one wishes to stop subscribing then the software will stop working as of whatever date the current subscription runs out. If the subscription only carries with it automatic updates with an annual fee but will not render the software useless if one cancels one's subscription then it really isn't any different from the current system. The current system is essentially a subscription model except that nothing prevents older versions from still working, and the moment MakeMusic introduces any such nonsense will be the last I will even consider giving them any of my money. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
On Sat Oct 3, at SaturdayOct 3 2:47 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: On 2009/10/02, at 18:18, Robert Lingnau wrote: To answer your question: Yes, C MI 6 with the 6th in the bass is A MI7 (b5). They are not the same. A-7(b5) dictates Locrian. C-6 forces you to avoid 7th to voice, meaning the 7th will be b7th or natural 7th which will be a choice for the improviser. Again, most important thing here is that 6 chord by definition tells you not to voice the 7th. I have to respectfully disagree with you here, Hiro, on both points. First of all, the PITCH CONTENT of both chords is the same. Therefore, they are the same, and any other interpretive points (like what scale to play or what extensions to add to the voicing) occur in the ear of the player, not prescriptively in the chord symbol. Secondly, there is nothing inherent in the Am7(b5) chord symbol that dictates locrian, as there is no mention of the second degree at all. Depending on the context, the locrian maj2 scale might be a better choice (and I'm not even going into other choices!) Granted, it usually shows up as a II chord in Gminor, where probably locrian might be the first choice. But what about a VI chord following a Im(maj7) in Cm, or an altered II chord in G major? Both those situations might like locrian maj2 better than locrian. But I accept the concept that a musician from the 40s might be more likely to choose the Bnat if he sees Cm/A rather than Am7(b5), which wasn't common in those circles at the time. Today, with a schooled jazz musician, it would be another matter. That, I believe, was the original point of the question. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
On 2009/10/03, at 5:35, dhbailey wrote: Knowing of course that your expertise in these matters far exceeds mine, how exactly does any chord designation "force" anything on an improviser? And how does A-locrian differ from C-dorian (which I would expect to be played over Cmin(maj6)) other than in the starting note? Suggest, certainly, but force? No, no. I used the word "force" on voicing, not available scale to the improviser. Avoiding the 7th in voicing the chord, leaving the choice of b7 or natural7 to the improviser, how would that differ between the two chord designations? Would someone really add a Bb or a Bnat to the A-7(b5)? I guess they could add the 9th pretty easily, but so, too, could they add the Bb or Bnat in a Cmin(maj6)/A designation, couldn't they, since the A would be in the bass and thus farther away from where the Bb/Bnat would be voiced? Unless you know the music well, you won't add 9th to Locrian chord. Once in a while, I hear pianist voices 9th to a Locrian chord when I am improvising, which really hurts me! Of course Herbie Hancock can do it and no one will even question that 9th :-) It really seems to come down to how the people playing the particular song or playing in a particular school of jazz thought feel most comfortable about things rather than any hard-and-fast- nobody-would-do-that sort of rules. My opinion is different. Just as notation is psychological (F flat is not E!), so is chord symbol. I sometime write something like F Maj7/ D. Even though the derived scale may be the same with D-9, it is a psychologically different chord. On the other hand, I write polyphonic chord such as D over C when I absolutely do not want to hear B in the voicing. The Locrian chord is a Locrian chord. It has a tritone from the root. C-6/A is a tonic chord. They will give the different sense of function to the improviser. And I don't like the Locrian chord is called half diminished. The derived scale, the Locrian scale is far different from diminished scales, which is determined by the key of the moment, so is the function. So, why people call it a half diminished scale? -- - 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] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 10/3/2009 12:38 AM, Michael Greensill wrote: Now I know I don't have to upgrade every time but they always reel you in with something that can't have taken much effort to program, like chord symbols being attached to beats in 2010. But should they charge $100 for that feature. And half the time we're paying the $100 to have fixes to things that were the programmers fault in the first place. I know I posted an anti-Makemusic sentiment earlier in the thread, but now I'm going to support the other side. First of all, as has been pointed out here many times, we have no way of knowing what is easy or hard to implement for the Finale programmers. Some of us on this list do some programming, and may have a slightly better idea than most, but even so, you can't make this sort of assessment without knowing the program in question. And the particular example you gave (chord symbols attached to beats) is almost certainly *not* something easy to do. Second, I always look at these things in terms of my time. There have been several Finale upgrades which added seemingly minor things, hardly worth the price of upgrading. But my bottom line question is, Will these minor features save me enough time to justify the upgrade price? For most of us, if the new features in the upgrade save us more than 2 or 3 hours over the course of the year, the answer is probably yes. A good case in point is the ability to optimize in groups. My recollection is that the year that was introduced, there wasn't much else in the upgrade that interested me, but that one feature saved me several hours of work and made the upgrade worth it. Having said all of that, I'll flip-flop again. I think I wouldn't mind all of this so much if Makemusic just came out and said that they're switching to a subscription model. I'm not crazy about subscription models, but it's a more honest description of MM's business practices, and somehow I don't think I'd grumble so much about shelling out that $100 each year. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
Whoah, that changes everything! First of all, particularly in jazz with 7th chords and extended chords, we need the bass note to know what the function of the chord is. Without knowing the style of the excerpt you supplied, in a jazz or "Tin Pan Alley" context missing the bass notes, I would say that progression in the key of Eb was most likely Cm7 F9 F7 (then probably going to either Fm7 or Bb7 after that) I would further surmise that the first chord is on a relatively accented part of the phrase, say beat 1 of a measure, while the other two chords come on beat 3 and 4, and so are functionally the same chord. The bass note makes all the difference. I rather suspect that Bb is not the bass note of the first chord, nor A the bass note of the second chord. This is not the "C minor chord with the 6th in the bass" that Monk had mentioned. Good thing Guy asked for a context! Christopher On Fri Oct 2, at FridayOct 2 10:26 PM, timothy price wrote: On Oct 2, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Guy Hayden wrote: You have ACEbG. Half diminished in sound but what came before it and what comes after it? Correction, Playing in the key of Eb: BbCEbG: ACEbG; ACEbF; etc. timothy price ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] you can't be serious... (tobias?!?!?!)
Try mousing the TG tools menu to get it to work. nope, it don't work still. i tried different settings in the TG options, i simply can't get this to work, but it has worked perfectly for me up to 2008 (i never used 2009). i'm using EngraverFontSet, and even added this in the list of "extra fonts" to recognize. is everyone else using 2010 able to use this function? it would be good to know, maybe it is due to something on my end (OSX.4.11), so please let me know if you can use this successfully, either by key commands or via the menus. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] TAN: Cocoa Booklet no longer working in Snow Leopard
On 03.10.2009 Brian Williams wrote: In OS 10.5, select "Finishing" under the 3rd pop-up menu (the one that defaults to "Copies & Pages"). There you will find an option for booklet printing that works great on my HP Laserjet 5200. I use it to print choral booklets all the time. I have 10.6, and there is an option for Booklet printing (it has a separate popup entry) but everything in this field is grayed out, and unselectable. Not sure why that is. Johannes ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
A-NO-NE Music wrote: On 2009/10/02, at 18:18, Robert Lingnau wrote: To answer your question: Yes, C MI 6 with the 6th in the bass is A MI7 (b5). They are not the same. A-7(b5) dictates Locrian. C-6 forces you to avoid 7th to voice, meaning the 7th will be b7th or natural 7th which will be a choice for the improviser. Again, most important thing here is that 6 chord by definition tells you not to voice the 7th. Knowing of course that your expertise in these matters far exceeds mine, how exactly does any chord designation "force" anything on an improviser? And how does A-locrian differ from C-dorian (which I would expect to be played over Cmin(maj6)) other than in the starting note? Suggest, certainly, but force? Avoiding the 7th in voicing the chord, leaving the choice of b7 or natural7 to the improviser, how would that differ between the two chord designations? Would someone really add a Bb or a Bnat to the A-7(b5)? I guess they could add the 9th pretty easily, but so, too, could they add the Bb or Bnat in a Cmin(maj6)/A designation, couldn't they, since the A would be in the bass and thus farther away from where the Bb/Bnat would be voiced? It really seems to come down to how the people playing the particular song or playing in a particular school of jazz thought feel most comfortable about things rather than any hard-and-fast-nobody-would-do-that sort of rules. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] you can't be serious... (tobias?!?!?!)
Chuck Israels wrote: [snip]> Still, I agree that dependence on 3rd party plugins is a drag. I am still waiting for Tobias to catch up with 2010 and can imagine that it is not necessarily a high priority item for him. With the constant annual upgrades which break previous plug-ins, I would think that keeping TGTools updated would become quite a drag and will be thankful whenever Tobias has found the time to complete the task. Yet another argument for MakeMusic going to at least an every-other-year upgrade path -- they could do a better job of ensuring fewer bugs in the final release version, they could actually add excellent value and not just issue one year's upgrade as a paid bug-fix for a previous year's programming shortcomings *and* third party plug-in developers who have actual lives beyond their commitment to keeping their plug-ins current could actually time the release of new versions of their plug-ins to coincide with the new versions of the program. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: minor 6th
On 2009/10/02, at 18:18, Robert Lingnau wrote: To answer your question: Yes, C MI 6 with the 6th in the bass is A MI7 (b5). They are not the same. A-7(b5) dictates Locrian. C-6 forces you to avoid 7th to voice, meaning the 7th will be b7th or natural 7th which will be a choice for the improviser. Again, most important thing here is that 6 chord by definition tells you not to voice the 7th. -- - 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
