[Finale] Re: Duplicating linked parts for similar instruments
I agree! It is high time that MAKE MUSIC sorted this bug. It is the only thing that really holds up the linked parts facility, which I think is a huge time saver. I just couldn't imagine going back to the old slog of extracting parts in every score! You've only got to get you head around the section in the manual and just learn how it all works, after that it's a breeze. With small scores one can afford separate staves for each instrument, so the grace note bug is not so much of a problem (but still a bug all the same), but with orchestral, orch choir, wind orchestras etc., having individual staves for each instrument means a reduction in the overall layout percentages making the score too small to read comfortably unless you blow it up onto A3 size. It is also much easier for conductors when similar instrument parts are grouped onto one stave (Horns, Clts, Tpts, etc.) - as was traditionally engraved. If anyone knows of a work around for the grace note bug I'd be very grateful to know. I have tried all kinds of things - altering the grace note parameters under Doc. options, dragging notes, changing spacing defaults, even inserting hidden notes between the grace note and the main note, although this can work to a degree, but it plays havoc with spacing in other parts and the playback will never be the same. I'm still on 2009 so I can't speak for any improvement they might have made in the upgrades, if any. Jonathan Yes, using voicing rules. Unless you have any grace notes. (There is an annoying bug with voiced linked parts + grace notes.) Cheers, - DJA ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Duplicating linked parts for similar instruments
In case you missed it, here is my kludge (but it IS a kludge!) The best kludge for linked, voiced parts with grace notes in them is to have a different copy of the file with the default grace note spacing changed just for those parts. All the other parts (non- voiced, or those without grace notes) still reside in the same file with the score. People who make changes to the score can just copy the entire score over to the other grace note file, as the only thing different is the default grace note setting. Should be relatively painless (well, considering the gravity of the bug!). Easier than extracting the parts, especially if there are many of them and you make edits a lot. Christopher On Thu Dec 17, at ThursdayDec 17 2:48 AM, Jonathan Smith wrote: I agree! It is high time that MAKE MUSIC sorted this bug. It is the only thing that really holds up the linked parts facility, which I think is a huge time saver. I just couldn't imagine going back to the old slog of extracting parts in every score! You've only got to get you head around the section in the manual and just learn how it all works, after that it's a breeze. With small scores one can afford separate staves for each instrument, so the grace note bug is not so much of a problem (but still a bug all the same), but with orchestral, orch choir, wind orchestras etc., having individual staves for each instrument means a reduction in the overall layout percentages making the score too small to read comfortably unless you blow it up onto A3 size. It is also much easier for conductors when similar instrument parts are grouped onto one stave (Horns, Clts, Tpts, etc.) - as was traditionally engraved. If anyone knows of a work around for the grace note bug I'd be very grateful to know. I have tried all kinds of things - altering the grace note parameters under Doc. options, dragging notes, changing spacing defaults, even inserting hidden notes between the grace note and the main note, although this can work to a degree, but it plays havoc with spacing in other parts and the playback will never be the same. I'm still on 2009 so I can't speak for any improvement they might have made in the upgrades, if any. Jonathan Yes, using voicing rules. Unless you have any grace notes. (There is an annoying bug with voiced linked parts + grace notes.) Cheers, - DJA ___ 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] TAN: Is Bratschen Obsolete?
At 5:56 PM -0800 12/15/09, Ryan wrote: Is the term Bratschen for violas obsolete in German? Would it be better to use Violen? If you like, I could ask on the OrchestraList. Or the ViolaList. I'm certainly not aware of any change from the traditional terminology, which is embedded in every German-published score I've ever seen, but there's no reason why I would be. I would think that there might be confusion between the term for alto-tenor violin and that for viola da gamba if that change were made, but then there's already confusion with the term viol in English, which mean viola da gamba but could be taken to mean bass viol (i.e. string bass or double bass or bass violin). 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:john.how...@vt.edu) 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] TAN: Is Bratschen Obsolete?
To John Howell, Get your galoshes out, Herr Docktor! I hear you are due for some BIG snow Friday! We in Tidewater are not expecting anything but more RAIN! Guy Hayden ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] TAN: Is Bratschen Obsolete?
At 1:19 PM -0500 12/17/09, Guy Hayden wrote: To John Howell, Get your galoshes out, Herr Docktor! I hear you are due for some BIG snow Friday! We in Tidewater are not expecting anything but more RAIN! Que sera, sera! And here in the mountains, accurate predictions seem to be awfully difficult. But my grades are due Saturday, and I can submit them from home as long as my Internet connection works! On the other hand, on the weather report a little while ago they were showing a fairly weird Low off the coast, and saying that there's no telling what it might bring to your area. Let's both just stay warm! 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:john.how...@vt.edu) 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] TAN: Is Bratschen Obsolete?
On 16 Dec 2009, at 17:36, John Howell wrote: At 5:56 PM -0800 12/15/09, Ryan wrote: Is the term Bratschen for violas obsolete in German? Would it be better to use Violen? If you like, I could ask on the OrchestraList. Or the ViolaList. I'm certainly not aware of any change from the traditional terminology, which is embedded in every German-published score I've ever seen, but there's no reason why I would be. I would think that there might be confusion between the term for alto-tenor violin and that for viola da gamba if that change were made, but then there's already confusion with the term viol in English, which mean viola da gamba but could be taken to mean bass viol (i.e. string bass or double bass or bass violin). There's no confusion and I have seen Violen or Viola in many German scores. If you look at lists of musicians on web pages of German orchestras you'll see both Bratsche and Viola being used (I just checked Mannheim, where I work, and SWR Baden-Baden, who both use Viola, and the Berliner Philharmoniker, who use Bratche). Michael ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
AW: [Finale] TAN: Is Bratschen Obsolete?
Bratsche, that is...;-) Bratche is an americanism...;-) as is Herr Docktor (correct: Herr Doktor) Bratsche in german is just a synonym for viola which is italian, actually. It is still in use, despite of all the Bratschen-Witze (viola jokes) that are around. I read a lot of American literature, and quite a lot of german that is misspelled (missspelled?) (I don't know, but this would be using the new german orthographic rules...;-))) Never mind... Just my 2 cent(imes) Kurt -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [mailto:finale-boun...@shsu.edu] Im Auftrag von Florence + Michael Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Dezember 2009 00:39 An: finale@shsu.edu Betreff: Re: [Finale] TAN: Is Bratschen Obsolete? On 16 Dec 2009, at 17:36, John Howell wrote: At 5:56 PM -0800 12/15/09, Ryan wrote: Is the term Bratschen for violas obsolete in German? Would it be better to use Violen? If you like, I could ask on the OrchestraList. Or the ViolaList. I'm certainly not aware of any change from the traditional terminology, which is embedded in every German-published score I've ever seen, but there's no reason why I would be. I would think that there might be confusion between the term for alto-tenor violin and that for viola da gamba if that change were made, but then there's already confusion with the term viol in English, which mean viola da gamba but could be taken to mean bass viol (i.e. string bass or double bass or bass violin). There's no confusion and I have seen Violen or Viola in many German scores. If you look at lists of musicians on web pages of German orchestras you'll see both Bratsche and Viola being used (I just checked Mannheim, where I work, and SWR Baden-Baden, who both use Viola, and the Berliner Philharmoniker, who use Bratche). Michael ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: AW: [Finale] TAN: Is Bratschen Obsolete?
Isn’t Bratsche Italian also, just in a Germanized spelling? The full Italian term is Viola da Braccio as contrasted to Viola da Gamba (arm versus leg). Why not go with the Swedes: altfiol? A month ago I bought myself a bratsch (the Danish spelling) just for the fun of it. My repertory is very small, but then it is largely out of tune. Klaus in DK --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Kurt Gnos kurtg...@bluewin.ch wrote: From: Kurt Gnos kurtg...@bluewin.ch Subject: AW: [Finale] TAN: Is Bratschen Obsolete? To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Friday, December 18, 2009, 12:54 AM Bratsche, that is...;-) Bratche is an americanism...;-) as is Herr Docktor (correct: Herr Doktor) Bratsche in german is just a synonym for viola which is italian, actually. It is still in use, despite of all the Bratschen-Witze (viola jokes) that are around. I read a lot of American literature, and quite a lot of german that is misspelled (missspelled?) (I don't know, but this would be using the new german orthographic rules...;-))) Never mind... Just my 2 cent(imes) Kurt -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [mailto:finale-boun...@shsu.edu] Im Auftrag von Florence + Michael Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Dezember 2009 00:39 An: finale@shsu.edu Betreff: Re: [Finale] TAN: Is Bratschen Obsolete? On 16 Dec 2009, at 17:36, John Howell wrote: At 5:56 PM -0800 12/15/09, Ryan wrote: Is the term Bratschen for violas obsolete in German? Would it be better to use Violen? If you like, I could ask on the OrchestraList. Or the ViolaList. I'm certainly not aware of any change from the traditional terminology, which is embedded in every German-published score I've ever seen, but there's no reason why I would be. I would think that there might be confusion between the term for alto-tenor violin and that for viola da gamba if that change were made, but then there's already confusion with the term viol in English, which mean viola da gamba but could be taken to mean bass viol (i.e. string bass or double bass or bass violin). There's no confusion and I have seen Violen or Viola in many German scores. If you look at lists of musicians on web pages of German orchestras you'll see both Bratsche and Viola being used (I just checked Mannheim, where I work, and SWR Baden-Baden, who both use Viola, and the Berliner Philharmoniker, who use Bratche). Michael ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] scale page vs. scale system
i'm upgrading my templates and am wondering if: 1) anyone feels there is some advantages of using one over the other as a default for the file 2) anyone has a brilliant solution to the different appearance of fixed font expressions with enclosures in PT and (reduced) SC, an issue that i have been fighting with for years (solution is 2 sets of enclosed expressions...)! i have until now used a specific page scaling and kept system scaling at 100% for score and (linked) parts. so my default page scaling settings look like: parts: x% score: x% (small formations, can be used as performance score), or y% (for orch and lg ensemble scores) i thought i could adjust this to avoid problems with fixed font size appearances with enclosures but can't find a solution. in this screen capture, the left is the score reduced to 50% page scaling. both windows are viewed at 400%. http://newmusicnotation.com/TEMPFILES/linked_fixedfont.pdf what do you all use system scaling for in the default document? -- shirling neueweise new music notation | translation | arts management mailto:shirl...@newmusicnotation.com :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: Duplicating linked parts for similar instruments
It is high time that MAKE MUSIC sorted this bug. amen, babycakes! however, we all know that here, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE send your comments to makemusic support as well. the linked parts are yet another otherwise terribly important feature that was incompletely implemented and has had only oblique and insignificant corrrections to fundamental errors in its functionality. It is the only thing that really holds up the linked parts facility the only thing, really? don't you think a feature of this sort should by default allow (off the top of my head): - independent SC/PT adjustments to smart shape start/end adjustments - independent SC/PT adjustments to stem and beam positioning - cue notes to be hidden in the score only without ridiculous workarounds - different clef changes in SC/PT without ridiculous workarounds - umm, some accidental issue that others have had but i haven't run into (because mainly transposed scores) - enclosures to appear identically in SC/PT on expressions using fixed font sizes for grace notes, in some circumstances i have been able to cheat using tuplets in another layer (surrouding notes/rests hidden) reduced to the same size as the grace notes, but i think this solution is more suited to new music than traditional notation. With small scores one can afford... i think it is unacceptable that any user who paid for the 2007 upgrade (where linked parts were introduced) even dares to think such things. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: AW: [Finale] TAN: Is Bratschen Obsolete?
My repertory is very small, but then it is largely out of tune. sounds like you're ready for the orchestra. HAHAHAHAHAHA. erm... sorry. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] scale page vs. scale system
SN jef chippewa wrote: i'm upgrading my templates and am wondering if: 1) anyone feels there is some advantages of using one over the other as a default for the file This may be linked to closely to individual choices on workflow to provide a universal answer, but my preference is to apply scaling to the smallest possible unit, so for general use I use a page size scaling of 100 percent, and apply scaling to system, staves, notes, or noteheads as desired. I don't use a default document; I work from specific templates, or from scratch. If I work from scratch, I do the page layout first, and save the layout as a template in the event I ever need to re-use it. 2) anyone has a brilliant solution to the different appearance of fixed font expressions with enclosures in PT and (reduced) SC, an issue that i have been fighting with for years (solution is 2 sets of enclosed expressions...)! Nearly all of my work has been choral or keyboard; I have very limited experience with parts, and none at all with linked parts. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Duplicating linked parts for similar instruments
On Thu Dec 17, at ThursdayDec 17 8:30 PM, SN jef chippewa wrote: It is high time that MAKE MUSIC sorted this bug. amen, babycakes! however, we all know that here, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE send your comments to makemusic support as well. the linked parts are yet another otherwise terribly important feature that was incompletely implemented and has had only oblique and insignificant corrrections to fundamental errors in its functionality. It is the only thing that really holds up the linked parts facility the only thing, really? don't you think a feature of this sort should by default allow (off the top of my head): - independent SC/PT adjustments to smart shape start/end adjustments - independent SC/PT adjustments to stem and beam positioning - cue notes to be hidden in the score only without ridiculous workarounds - different clef changes in SC/PT without ridiculous workarounds Staff Styles, which is what I use for different clef changes, isn't as ridiculous as some other workarounds. - umm, some accidental issue that others have had but i haven't run into (because mainly transposed scores) - enclosures to appear identically in SC/PT on expressions using fixed font sizes for grace notes, in some circumstances i have been able to cheat using tuplets in another layer (surrouding notes/rests hidden) reduced to the same size as the grace notes, but i think this solution is more suited to new music than traditional notation. I could barely imagine this last one! Holy manual spacing, Batman! Your other points stand. I am really enjoying, however, the different measure numbers available in score and parts now, since the 2010 update. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
