Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
On Sep 16, 2013, at 10:05 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: 1) In 2013 I shouldn't still have to fiddle with layouts on my parts. How many Finale releases have we seen that bragged about great new algorithms that avoid collision of printed elements? Yet, I still have to manually edit every ^%%$#$#% part by hand just to achieve the most minimally readable parts. That would be a breakthrough -- one that might have expected in 2000, not 2014. I'm with you on this. 2) How long have we had spell checkers and grammar checkers in word processors? 15-20 years anyway. Why don't we have the same things in music notation by now? Why isn't there a function that says In measure 14, 2 instruments have B naturals that are in conflict with the B-flats in 5 other parts. Why isn't there a function that evaluates my voice leading and suggests better options? I don't agree. I don't need he computer to do the thinking for me. What you're suggesting would open a big can of worms. I'm currently working on an arrangement of Round Midnight, and there are several places where I have both Bbs and B naturals in the same bar, in different voices - reason being, I don't want to write a bunch of Cbs. How is the computer going to determine whether my work is correct or not? I also don't need the computer to suggest better voice leadings. That's why I went to music school. 3) Much of harmonization is more-or-less formulaic. Finale offers a little help with the BIAB Harmonization plug-in, but by now, the state of the art should be much farther down the road. I'd like to point the notation program to an audio snippet from an Elgar symphony and tell the notation program Suggest a harmonization of my melody that is like that. OK, I don't expect that in the next year, but people developing notation programs should have goals like this -- a much bigger vision than just how big to make the margin on the page. Again, I have no need for this. This is another example of trying to get the computer to do the thinking for you. 4) There is a little support for drum grooves. That's good for 2003, but in 2013, the DAW world is now very advanced in looping. I ought to be able to draw upon a library of 1000 drum patterns and loop them in my score just as I would in a DAW. Likewise for the other instruments. What sense could it ever possibly make for me to have to write drum parts from scratch each time? This kind of thing scares me, because we already have so much music pushed on us that is created in this way. I have no interest in this. We are talking about notation software. That implies that someone, some HUMAN, is going to be playing what is written. How about letting the drummer play what he thinks is appropriate? I never write out drum parts in a jazz or pop arrangement. I figure the drummer can come up with something infinitely better than anything I could write. But that's just me. 5) The whole concept of chords has always been a complete mess in Finale. The playback is so bad that nobody will use it, and you can't use any common system of chord spelling without spending loads of time building your own library. What I want to do is type in a chord and have the notation do a sensible comping from that. I don't expect it to be as powerful as BIAB, but I note that Sibelius has a plug-in that does some of this. This doesn't seem like a really heavy lift. Again, I don't need this. I'm fairly proficient at creating my own comping tracks. But I don't do that in Finale, I do it in Digital Performer, and if DP had full-featured notation, I wouldn't need Finale. But the MOTU guys say that full-featured notation will never happen in DP, because the majority of their users don't want or need it (probably because most of them are musically illiterate), and they're afraid that adding full-featured notation would turn DP into bloatware. 6) Likewise, the notation program should be able to read the notes in all the staves and determine the most likely chords in use. In many scores, there would be enough information for the program to guess 80% of them correctly, and then I could spend my time on the other 20%. And the same should apply to any harmonization wizards. It should not be necessary for me to type chord names. The notation program should be able to read what is already in the bass, piano, and guitar to determine how to harmonize the sax soli. Again, asking the computer to do the thinking for you. I have the skill necessary to determine for myself what chord is being played. And I don't need the computer to suggest sax soli voicings - again, learned that in music school. All of these things would, of course, be optional. A person who only wants to model quill and parchment would never be forced to use the advanced capabilities, just as nobody is forced to use a spell checker. I'd like to see a program that does audio recording, MIDI sequencing and
[Finale] Fwd: Simple question on page layout
Interesting discussions about Finale's future; this is obviously topics that engages people. I am tempted to join; shortly I agree to those who say that Finale typically not needs to be able to do more fancy audio things (there are other good tools and they are numerous); neither to have more intelligence in recognizing harmonics and things like that. A good arranger or composer knows the harmonics by heart. What is needed is more editorial help in certain areas...which brings me in to that I got no comment on my last question(s). Perhaps the answer is you need to redo your page layout everytime you add a new part, then please confirm this. If not, I would really appreciate some tips tricks in this subject. Original question below. Thanks /DT = Hi again folks, I have a question that I think is a bit too low level for this list; but I couldn't find this info in the manual... I have a page layout for my parts that has emerged over some years and that I am very satisfied with; and with design I do mainly think about page margins, system margins, number of systems per page etc. When I need to add a new part (as a new stave in the score, followed by Manage parts | New part, the layout is defaulted I think. Anyway it really doesn't match what I want. Yesterday I spent some time restoring a new part by all the quite tricky page layout tools, but it took a while and the effect of changes are not always obvious; after a while I succeeded. Now I need to do the same thing with another score and I don't want to spend the time again restoring the settings for the new part. So my question is actually two-fold 1) What is the best way to create a new part in a given score that adapts to an existing part from the design perspective? 2) Is there any good way to copy a given part design to another part after it has been created? Thanks /DT = ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fwd: Simple question on page layout
I don't think there is any way without redoing. I didn't answer before because I was hoping someone might know better.. :-( Steve P. On 17 Sep 2013, at 09:52, Dan Tillberg dan.h.tillb...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting discussions about Finale's future; this is obviously topics that engages people. I am tempted to join; shortly I agree to those who say that Finale typically not needs to be able to do more fancy audio things (there are other good tools and they are numerous); neither to have more intelligence in recognizing harmonics and things like that. A good arranger or composer knows the harmonics by heart. What is needed is more editorial help in certain areas...which brings me in to that I got no comment on my last question(s). Perhaps the answer is you need to redo your page layout everytime you add a new part, then please confirm this. If not, I would really appreciate some tips tricks in this subject. Original question below. Thanks /DT = Hi again folks, I have a question that I think is a bit too low level for this list; but I couldn't find this info in the manual... I have a page layout for my parts that has emerged over some years and that I am very satisfied with; and with design I do mainly think about page margins, system margins, number of systems per page etc. When I need to add a new part (as a new stave in the score, followed by Manage parts | New part, the layout is defaulted I think. Anyway it really doesn't match what I want. Yesterday I spent some time restoring a new part by all the quite tricky page layout tools, but it took a while and the effect of changes are not always obvious; after a while I succeeded. Now I need to do the same thing with another score and I don't want to spend the time again restoring the settings for the new part. So my question is actually two-fold 1) What is the best way to create a new part in a given score that adapts to an existing part from the design perspective? 2) Is there any good way to copy a given part design to another part after it has been created? Thanks /DT = ___ 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] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
On Tue, September 17, 2013 1:05 am, Craig Parmerlee wrote: I would consider audio-to-notation to be a breakthrough. I dislike transcribing, and almost always turn down jobs because they just don't pay enough to overcome that dislike. This would be really useful for the clients who want transcribing, a tedious job perfect for a computer. Then all that would be needed was proofreading and cleaning up. I don't really understand a preference for the pedestrian and an antipathy for the big ideas. I certainly want to see bugs fixed, but really, our expectations should be higher than that. It should not be an either-or proposition. Exactly. today's DAWs go far beyond what was possible with reel-to-reel recording decks. Sort of. Most of the stuff -- other than looping, stretching, and certain non-linear features -- is still oriented toward the input, mixing board, efx, buss, output. The use of algorithms and parametric analysis and adjustment is pretty much a separate part of the program, or found in external packages like AudioMulch, Max, etc. the products just don't exemplify the vision we have seen in most other technology fields. Yes. 1) In 2013 I shouldn't still have to fiddle with layouts on my parts. Yes. 2) How long have we had spell checkers and grammar checkers in word processors? 15-20 years anyway. Why don't we have the same things in music notation by now? Why isn't there a function that says In measure 14, 2 instruments have B naturals that are in conflict with the B-flats in 5 other parts. Why isn't there a function that evaluates my voice leading and suggests better options? This is both a proofing and learning tool. Suggested changes are always welcome, even if I guess I'd reject most of them. (And I still don't get Lon's and others' aversion to C-flats.) 3) Much of harmonization is more-or-less formulaic. Finale offers a little help with the BIAB Harmonization plug-in, but by now, the state of the art should be much farther down the road. I'd like to point the notation program to an audio snippet from an Elgar symphony and tell the notation program Suggest a harmonization of my melody that is like that. OK, I don't expect that in the next year, but people developing notation programs should have goals like this -- a much bigger vision than just how big to make the margin on the page. Not something I'd generally need, but for popping out quick arrangements using a 'dial' to choose style/period/etc, including the harmonization equivalent of human playback it would be really fine. All the chord stuff you've suggested is nothing I'd use. But what I would use would be an algorithmic plug-in system, and something like Barlow's Autobusk, a program that evaluates existing compositions for some 15 or so parameters (I don't remember exactly how many) and creates music like it. Varying the parameters moves the generated music increasingly away from one style to another -- say, Mozart à Schoenberg. Plugins for genetic algorithms, fractals, etc., would be great. Cross-program, real-time integration (Finale and AudioMulch or Max, Finale and Vegas, etc.) would be remarkable. I can edit my audio in Vegas, for example, so why not my notation? I can sync to video frames in Finale, but it would be great to see my video edits show up in real time and the music give me the option to shift/cut/etc to accommodate. Web integration, realtime Skype (or similar) integration, etc. The application of audio plugins to the playback system (apply electric violin effects to the violin line, defining the symbols, or, as you already mentioned, looping features). Integration with a word processor so that edited text can be updated or composed, and the algorithm create the basic note structure. I don't have to do everything down to the details at first; I think Cage taught us that much 60 years ago. So why should I be limited to pre-Cage thinking? Let me pop in structures and algorithms and loop points, and adjust to my taste later. One of my friends composes by using his own algorithms to generate masses of material for preview and he plucks out bits as it goes along, but has to effortfully convert it to notation later. Why not in real time? It's very Mozartean where only the details matter and the structure can be a dice game, so to speak. Lon reports what he wouldn't use. There are things I don't use -- chords being a big one. I want Finale not only configurable to my style sheets but also easily programmable and linked to other musical software that I use daily. I think Jari is getting to some of that, at least within the Finale context; his latest ability to script graphical elements is incredibly important. Okay, all for now. Just some random (and unproofread) thoughts for the 'big picture' the Craig is suggesting. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
Maybe I'm alone in not wanting every program to do everything.. If I need to mock up or (increasingly) produce a high-quality audio version of something then Digital Performer is perfect. If I need players to play it or it needs to be published then I want absolute control over what it looks like with the program making the best stab possible at it before tweaking. I don't want the two to meet and I don't expect to ever see a notation app that doesn't need tweaking (in every bar...) Otherwise we end up with 'good' notation or 'good' arranging, but never the kind of counter-intuitive rule-breaking that makes something great. Steve P. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fwd: Simple question on page layout
On 2013-09-17 10:52, Dan Tillberg wrote: 1) What is the best way to create a new part in a given score that adapts to an existing part from the design perspective? When you create a new part (or an additional page in an existing part), it's based on the Page Format for Parts settings. Make sure those settings are correct before creating the part. 2) Is there any good way to copy a given part design to another part after it has been created? JW Copy Part Layout, for example. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
On 2013-09-17 07:05, Craig Parmerlee wrote: 1) In 2013 I shouldn't still have to fiddle with layouts on my parts. How many Finale releases have we seen that bragged about great new algorithms that avoid collision of printed elements? Yet, I still have to manually edit every ^%%$#$#% part by hand just to achieve the most minimally readable parts. That would be a breakthrough -- one that might have expected in 2000, not 2014. It's your choice. I usually try to do the layout with one button click for all parts at once (adjusting dynamics/artics/smart shapes/note+measure spacing/system spacing in one go). Then I go to optical check. 2) How long have we had spell checkers and grammar checkers in word processors? 15-20 years anyway. Why don't we have the same things in music notation by now? You mean like in JW Validate? 6) Likewise, the notation program should be able to read the notes in all the staves and determine the most likely chords in use. You mean like in the Chord Tool's function (All-Staff Analysis) in Finale to automatically analyze written notes into chord symbols? Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fwd: Simple question on page layout
Page format for parts, great, will take a look. Could find anything about setting a nominal number of systems per page, e. g. 8 on the first page and 9 for subsequent pages. This is my problem right now and I know that it is possible to fix with some patience but then I have had problems with distance between systems, page margins, system margins...ouchs. Had hoped that I did that once for all :-( Tried the JW Copy Part Layout which had the desired effect on number of systems and margins which is great! However it messed up many measures so that it will take time to re-do the editing. But anyway I think it is a shorter way than struggling with the page layout tools; they are really not comprehensible since they affect each other in for me unpredictable ways. So I'll try this in more detail later this week. Many thanks! /D 2013/9/17 Jari Williamsson jari.williams...@mailbox.swipnet.se On 2013-09-17 10:52, Dan Tillberg wrote: 1) What is the best way to create a new part in a given score that adapts to an existing part from the design perspective? When you create a new part (or an additional page in an existing part), it's based on the Page Format for Parts settings. Make sure those settings are correct before creating the part. 2) Is there any good way to copy a given part design to another part after it has been created? JW Copy Part Layout, for example. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Jari Williamsson It's your choice. I usually try to do the layout with one button click for all parts at once (adjusting dynamics/artics/smart shapes/note+measure spacing/system spacing in one go). Then I go to optical check. Could you explain the process? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fwd: Simple question on page layout
On 2013-09-17 14:26, Dan Tillberg wrote: Page format for parts, great, will take a look. Could find anything about setting a nominal number of systems per page, e. g. 8 on the first page and 9 for subsequent pages. This is my problem right now and I know that it is possible to fix with some patience but then I have had problems with distance between systems, page margins, system margins...ouchs. Had hoped that I did that once for all :-( It's most probably the distance between systems and extra space for first system you should modify in the page format to automatically get the number of systems on each page you need. There are many other approaches as well, but the page format is the most straight-forward. However it messed up many measures so that it will take time to re-do the editing. If you don't want to copy the measure layout, it's the score format you should change (and not use the plug-in). You can redefine the part/score to the score format in the Layout Tool. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fwd: Simple question on page layout
Hello Jari, Dan's experience is the only reason I do not use JW Copy Part Layout. When I contracted Tobias to write his plugin to do this it was important to have two options. One, to copy the layout systems AND the number of measures per system. Two, just copy the systems and NOT the number of measures per system. There are many times when I have the same amount of systems per part but the number of measures per system is not the same. Could you please add this to you plugin before TGTools is obsolete? Thanks, Steve On Sep 17, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Dan Tillberg dan.h.tillb...@gmail.com wrote: Tried the JW Copy Part Layout which had the desired effect on number of systems and margins which is great! However it messed up many measures so that it will take time to re-do the editing. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fwd: Simple question on page layout
Jari, it's not that simple. I may make changes to the systems that work for all layouts that you cannot set globally which is the reason TGTools transfer works in this situation. I've used it in every job since it's inception but the initial reason I asked for it was that every marching band engraving job I had was basically the same tight system layout but not the same amount of measures per system. These jobs don't pay much so you have to figure out a way to make it worth your time through efficiency. This simple plugin was the way to cut a job down in half! Setup one part, and copy it to all the others not worrying about the measures per system being messed with. Thanks, Steve On 9/17/13 7:38 AM, Jari Williamsson jari.williams...@mailbox.swipnet.se wrote: On 2013-09-17 14:26, Dan Tillberg wrote: However it messed up many measures so that it will take time to re-do the editing. If you don't want to copy the measure layout, it's the score format you should change (and not use the plug-in). You can redefine the part/score to the score format in the Layout Tool. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
On 9/17/2013 7:30 AM, Steve Parker wrote: Maybe I'm alone in not wanting every program to do everything.. Again I would look at the parallel in the DAW universe. DAWs, per se, don't do that much. They are essentially frameworks that provide a basic set of capabilities needed by anybody involved with recording or interactive composition. But the real power comes from the add-ons in the form of * plug-in synthesizers * sample libraries * plug-in effects * libraries of loops This is 3 or4 orders of magnitude beyond what the notation programs do with their scripting. In the DAW world, the add-ons are a major industry. I know lots of people who spend maybe $400 for the DAW, but have spent $5000 in various add-ons. Most of the really powerful function comes not from the DAWs but from the add-ons. We can thank Steinberg for much of this because they invented the VST architecture that enabled a lot of that. It really is an open marketplace, not unlike the universe of Andriod or iPhone apps. That is how you get an explosion of capability. Open frameworks. If a colleague wants to use a plug-in that can analyze a recording and remove the reverb (a truly impressive feat), he or she can do that. If you have no need for that, there is no need for me to insult my colleague or view him in any way as a competitor. I simply don't care what plug-in choices my DAW colleagues make. I am happy for everybody to have their choices. We seem to have something of a Stockholm Syndrome that has developed inside the notation world where a there is a sizable faction that is very hostile to any open-ended thinking because they view it as an obstacle to getting their favorite 10-year-old bug fixed. I would simply observe that every significant commercial program I have ever owned has had bugs. For me, the ones that have the least annoying bugs tend to be the products that are driving forward aggressively because they have the most revenues coming in, some of which can be used to fix bugs. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
On 9/17/2013 8:19 AM, Jari Williamsson wrote: On 2013-09-17 07:05, Craig Parmerlee wrote: 1) In 2013 I shouldn't still have to fiddle with layouts on my parts. How many Finale releases have we seen that bragged about great new algorithms that avoid collision of printed elements? Yet, I still have to manually edit every ^%%$#$#% part by hand just to achieve the most minimally readable parts. That would be a breakthrough -- one that might have expected in 2000, not 2014. It's your choice. I usually try to do the layout with one button click for all parts at once (adjusting dynamics/artics/smart shapes/note+measure spacing/system spacing in one go). Then I go to optical check. I don't think I am particularly picky. Most of my writing is for private libraries, not for commercial publication, so I don't insist on an exacting set of layout standards. I just want the parts to be readable. On an average 4-minute big-band arrangement, I bet I have to spend nearly an hour fiddling with the managed parts just to get them to the point where they are readable 2) How long have we had spell checkers and grammar checkers in word processors? 15-20 years anyway. Why don't we have the same things in music notation by now? You mean like in JW Validate? I am not familiar with that one. Can you provide a link to a detailed description? 6) Likewise, the notation program should be able to read the notes in all the staves and determine the most likely chords in use. You mean like in the Chord Tool's function (All-Staff Analysis) in Finale to automatically analyze written notes into chord symbols? Yes, exactly like that. Except I want it to actually work. I don't want it to tell me it can't spell the chord name more than half the time. It should be able to make intelligent judgments about passing tones so that it doesn't label a minor chord as a major. It should give me some control over how complex the suffixes should be. It should be able to process the whole score, not just where I click. It should highlight notes that seem to not fit the chord it has detected. If the bass decides not to play on beat one, the tool should make a reasonable inference about an assumed base note, etc. Other than that, all Staff Analysis is just what I'm looking for. :) Basically if a human can hear it and immediately know the harmonic intent, then it should be possible for the computer to evolve the same intelligence. I know some of the things I'm describing are very challenging. I don't expect all of this by 2016, but I do expect the leading vendors to be thinking the big picture and taking aggressive steps in that direction. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
While I respect Craig's list of priorities, it's pretty much the opposite of what I want. (I also recognize that what Craig wants is probably closer to what the market wants than what I want… ) What I want is a music notation program that makes much more intelligent engraving choices automatically, without having to invoke plug-ins. I want automatic vertical spacing that is actually functional. When adjusting vertical spacing, I want to be able to specify that dragging staves should move them by increments of one staff space unless I specify otherwise. I also want to be able to specify when I want to keep the bottommost staff of a system in place, and when I want it to move. I want courtesy accidentals that update automatically and make intelligent decisions based on musical parameters (i.e., on tied notes at the beginning of a new system, following a multimeasure rest on the same system, octave displacements, etc). I want articulations that are set to appear outside slurs to actually avoid slur tips. I want tuplet brackets that are longer than slurs to go outside the slurs, and those that are shorter than slurs to go inside the slurs. I want hairpin tips and ends to automatically shorten to avoid collisions with dynamics. I want text expressions, dynamics, etc, to erase barlines without having to define enclosures for them. I want beams to automatically avoid creating wedges. I want accidentals on notes with ledger lines to avoid ledger lines. I want accidentals on chords to space themselves correctly, taking into account that, e.g., flats on a fifth can be closer together than sharps on a fifth. I want to allow dotted rests in 4/4, but only dotted eighth rests and smaller. I could go on all day… There's a book that's been discussed a bit on this list, Elaine Gould's Behind Bars. I know some people have found fault with particular aspects of it (I think any serious copyist or engraver is going to have their own issues), but what strikes me is how very few of the engraving standards that she outlines are able to be implemented automatically and reliably by any notation program currently on the market. Whether you agree with everything she recommends or not, any modern notation program ought to be able to accommodate everything recommended in those 650+ pages as a house style, automatically, without recourse to plug-ins. That ought to be the bare minimum, and I hope it's what the Steinberg folks are working towards. As for whether this is a zero-sum game — features cost development time and money to implement. The above is where I'd most want the time and money to go: making it faster, easier, and more automatic to generate high-quality music notation. Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
Just for the record, I also want most of the things you listed. And I think you identified the nub of the problem. As Finale (or any other notation product) exists today, it is in fact a zero sum game because it is a closed system where only MakeMusic (and a few plug-in developers) can deliver the functions. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. The iphone isn't so popular because it is a great phone. It isn't substantially better from other phones. But there is a vast library of apps that integrate with the phone. All DAWs (mostly) have the same functions. The real power is the third party suppliers that add functions via VSTs. What we need is a more open framework where third parties can bring in the real value. And part of what makes the VST market so successful is that the same VST can work on 9 different DAWs, so the VST author has a much broader market that can reward his innovation. I realize I'm probably tilting at windmills to imagine that something like this could ever happen for the notation world. But some of this would be possible if Finale simply had Rewire support and better VST support, which doesn't seem like too much to ask. P.S. I'm still getting my head around your Brooklyn Babylon CD. That is great stuff. I made the mistake of ripping it to MP3 for playing in my car, but that got the tracks out of sequence, which really is a musical crime in this case. So I guess I'll have to use the CD in my car, but when I do that I usually lose the CD inside of about 3 days. On 9/17/2013 12:20 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: While I respect Craig's list of priorities, it's pretty much the opposite of what I want. (I also recognize that what Craig wants is probably closer to what the market wants than what I want… ) What I want is a music notation program that makes much more intelligent engraving choices automatically, without having to invoke plug-ins. I want automatic vertical spacing that is actually functional. When adjusting vertical spacing, I want to be able to specify that dragging staves should move them by increments of one staff space unless I specify otherwise. I also want to be able to specify when I want to keep the bottommost staff of a system in place, and when I want it to move. I want courtesy accidentals that update automatically and make intelligent decisions based on musical parameters (i.e., on tied notes at the beginning of a new system, following a multimeasure rest on the same system, octave displacements, etc). I want articulations that are set to appear outside slurs to actually avoid slur tips. I want tuplet brackets that are longer than slurs to go outside the slurs, and those that are shorter than slurs to go inside the slurs. I want hairpin tips and ends to automatically shorten to avoid collisions with dynamics. I want text expressions, dynamics, etc, to erase barlines without having to define enclosures for them. I want beams to automatically avoid creating wedges. I want accidentals on notes with ledger lines to avoid ledger lines. I want accidentals on chords to space themselves correctly, taking into account that, e.g., flats on a fifth can be closer together than sharps on a fifth. I want to allow dotted rests in 4/4, but only dotted eighth rests and smaller. I could go on all day… There's a book that's been discussed a bit on this list, Elaine Gould's Behind Bars. I know some people have found fault with particular aspects of it (I think any serious copyist or engraver is going to have their own issues), but what strikes me is how very few of the engraving standards that she outlines are able to be implemented automatically and reliably by any notation program currently on the market. Whether you agree with everything she recommends or not, any modern notation program ought to be able to accommodate everything recommended in those 650+ pages as a house style, automatically, without recourse to plug-ins. That ought to be the bare minimum, and I hope it's what the Steinberg folks are working towards. As for whether this is a zero-sum game — features cost development time and money to implement. The above is where I'd most want the time and money to go: making it faster, easier, and more automatic to generate high-quality music notation. Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org ___ 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] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
On 2013-09-17 14:34, Robert Patterson wrote: Could you explain the process? During the projects I've done this year, I've used a system where I've pasted code from my other my different plug-in sources into an automate plug-in. That plug-in used a number of control files (in text format) to set the distances in the cases where there needs to be a correction compared to the default positioning (taking stem direction, other artics, slur tips, ledger lines, etc into account). After all positioning comes spacing (including changing certain types of measures to specific widths), then alignment and then I make a approximate calculation of the vertical span of a system, and respace. The whole process goes outwards in the layout in one step (starting with articulation placement, ending with system positioning placement). Although the process is automatic, the thing that doesn't work good enough yet is the pre- and post-spacing, and the system isn't that flexible (I've more or less just added the editing cases I've needed). I'm now moving towards a totally script-based solution instead, which is almost a totally opposite approach, but it's also a much better way to handle complex tasks such as spacing. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
On 9/17/2013 1:35 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: I agree with Darcy's list of wishes long before playback features, and to them I would add music spacing options by region and part. BTW: if you are looking for an open framework, there is MuseScore. I haven't been following exactly where it is going lately, but I think it has the potential to leave all the others in the dust, just because of the large number of people that seem to be contributing. I certainly think that any new commercial product will have trouble competing with it. The Steinberg offering, for example, seems to be 100% vaporware. If I had a dollar for every vaporware announcement that never saw the light of day, I would be a rich man. I'm not sure it can truly be called vaporware -- isn't vaporware an item which has a name, has a price, has an announced shipping date and then never appears? The Steinberg product is admittedly (by Steinberg and the development team) to be in development with no announced shipping date. There has been no pricing announced and as far as I recall, no product name yet either nor a proposed shipping date. Or do you consider every product which is in development to be vaporware? -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fwd: Simple question on page layout
Great. I'll take a look. Thanks, Steve On 9/17/13 1:03 PM, Jari Williamsson jari.williams...@mailbox.swipnet.se wrote: On 2013-09-17 14:39, Fiskum, Steve wrote: Could you please add this to you plugin before TGTools is obsolete? You are in the JW Lua list as well, I believe? I just posted a script that'll work in 0.05 there. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
I agree with Darcy's list of wishes long before playback features, and to them I would add music spacing options by region and part. BTW: if you are looking for an open framework, there is MuseScore. I haven't been following exactly where it is going lately, but I think it has the potential to leave all the others in the dust, just because of the large number of people that seem to be contributing. I certainly think that any new commercial product will have trouble competing with it. The Steinberg offering, for example, seems to be 100% vaporware. If I had a dollar for every vaporware announcement that never saw the light of day, I would be a rich man. On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jari Williamsson jari.williams...@mailbox.swipnet.se wrote: On 2013-09-17 14:34, Robert Patterson wrote: Could you explain the process? During the projects I've done this year, I've used a system where I've pasted code from my other my different plug-in sources into an automate plug-in. That plug-in used a number of control files (in text format) to set the distances in the cases where there needs to be a correction compared to the default positioning (taking stem direction, other artics, slur tips, ledger lines, etc into account). After all positioning comes spacing (including changing certain types of measures to specific widths), then alignment and then I make a approximate calculation of the vertical span of a system, and respace. The whole process goes outwards in the layout in one step (starting with articulation placement, ending with system positioning placement). Although the process is automatic, the thing that doesn't work good enough yet is the pre- and post-spacing, and the system isn't that flexible (I've more or less just added the editing cases I've needed). I'm now moving towards a totally script-based solution instead, which is almost a totally opposite approach, but it's also a much better way to handle complex tasks such as spacing. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
I think Steinberg notation software is, at this point, the poster boy for 100% vaporware. They put out a video with demos made on a totally different product, for goodness' sake! I wish them only the best, and hope the ultimate product does all that is promised and more, but only vapor is available now. Raymond Horton Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) UMC Composer, Arranger VISIT US AT rayhortonmusic.com On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:56 PM, David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com wrote: On 9/17/2013 1:35 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: I agree with Darcy's list of wishes long before playback features, and to them I would add music spacing options by region and part. BTW: if you are looking for an open framework, there is MuseScore. I haven't been following exactly where it is going lately, but I think it has the potential to leave all the others in the dust, just because of the large number of people that seem to be contributing. I certainly think that any new commercial product will have trouble competing with it. The Steinberg offering, for example, seems to be 100% vaporware. If I had a dollar for every vaporware announcement that never saw the light of day, I would be a rich man. I'm not sure it can truly be called vaporware -- isn't vaporware an item which has a name, has a price, has an announced shipping date and then never appears? The Steinberg product is admittedly (by Steinberg and the development team) to be in development with no announced shipping date. There has been no pricing announced and as far as I recall, no product name yet either nor a proposed shipping date. Or do you consider every product which is in development to be vaporware? -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fwd: Simple question on page layout
On 2013-09-17 14:39, Fiskum, Steve wrote: Could you please add this to you plugin before TGTools is obsolete? You are in the JW Lua list as well, I believe? I just posted a script that'll work in 0.05 there. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
On 9/17/2013 2:18 PM, Raymond Horton wrote: I think Steinberg notation software is, at this point, the poster boy for 100% vaporware. They put out a video with demos made on a totally different product, for goodness' sake! I wish them only the best, and hope the ultimate product does all that is promised and more, but only vapor is available now. But they are not representing it as a product, only as a development project. While the implication may be that they indent to produce a discrete notation product that would be Sibelius: The Next Generation, if you will, it is possible that these efforts would roll back into the Cubase platform to extends its notation capabilities. I don't think suppliers should ever be discouraged from talking about the future as long as they aren't making any solid promises they can't keep. The natural inclination of software suppliers (incumbents especially) is to clam up. There can be several reasons for this: 1) If what they have to say isn't all that impressive, that will lose loyalty during the incubation period. 2) If what they have to say is so-so, they would rather hold everything for a big flashy announcement. 3) If what they have to say is really impressive, they don't want to give the competition a chance to get organized against their messages. And conversely, a newcomer is more likely to talk openly: 1) To get some attention 2) To start to dislodge loyalties with the incumbents 3) To freeze people from buying competitor upgrades in the interim 4) If they decide the incumbents aren't really competing very much anyway. We will have to wait until 2016 to see what 2016 really looks like, but I don't see where some speculation hurts anyone. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
You're thinking of ThinkMusic, not the Steinberg product. http://www.sibeliusblog.com/news/makers-of-music-handwriting-app-video-used-sibelius-and-goodreader-to-create-dramatization/ Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On Sep 17, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Raymond Horton horton.raym...@gmail.com wrote: I think Steinberg notation software is, at this point, the poster boy for 100% vaporware. They put out a video with demos made on a totally different product, for goodness' sake! I wish them only the best, and hope the ultimate product does all that is promised and more, but only vapor is available now. Raymond Horton Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) UMC Composer, Arranger VISIT US AT rayhortonmusic.com On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:56 PM, David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com wrote: On 9/17/2013 1:35 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: I agree with Darcy's list of wishes long before playback features, and to them I would add music spacing options by region and part. BTW: if you are looking for an open framework, there is MuseScore. I haven't been following exactly where it is going lately, but I think it has the potential to leave all the others in the dust, just because of the large number of people that seem to be contributing. I certainly think that any new commercial product will have trouble competing with it. The Steinberg offering, for example, seems to be 100% vaporware. If I had a dollar for every vaporware announcement that never saw the light of day, I would be a rich man. I'm not sure it can truly be called vaporware -- isn't vaporware an item which has a name, has a price, has an announced shipping date and then never appears? The Steinberg product is admittedly (by Steinberg and the development team) to be in development with no announced shipping date. There has been no pricing announced and as far as I recall, no product name yet either nor a proposed shipping date. Or do you consider every product which is in development to be vaporware? -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
I am aligned with Darcy's priorities. Computers ought to be good at these tasks - be able to analyze the parameters and make appropriate adjustments. This seems to me to be the kind of mathematics that can be usefully built into software. Translation of audio files into notation is a more sophisticated problem, one that requires the kind of jumping of levels that computers are less good at. I can think of a number of conditions in which notation decisions reside in areas where choices are sufficiently complex that I'd be reluctant to trust a computer. Just make good notation and engraving practices more automatic and leave the musical decisions to the musician. My 2 cents. Chuck On Sep 17, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Darcy James Argue djar...@earthlink.net wrote: While I respect Craig's list of priorities, it's pretty much the opposite of what I want. (I also recognize that what Craig wants is probably closer to what the market wants than what I want… ) What I want is a music notation program that makes much more intelligent engraving choices automatically, without having to invoke plug-ins. I want automatic vertical spacing that is actually functional. When adjusting vertical spacing, I want to be able to specify that dragging staves should move them by increments of one staff space unless I specify otherwise. I also want to be able to specify when I want to keep the bottommost staff of a system in place, and when I want it to move. I want courtesy accidentals that update automatically and make intelligent decisions based on musical parameters (i.e., on tied notes at the beginning of a new system, following a multimeasure rest on the same system, octave displacements, etc). I want articulations that are set to appear outside slurs to actually avoid slur tips. I want tuplet brackets that are longer than slurs to go outside the slurs, and those that are shorter than slurs to go inside the slurs. I want hairpin tips and ends to automatically shorten to avoid collisions with dynamics. I want text expressions, dynamics, etc, to erase barlines without having to define enclosures for them. I want beams to automatically avoid creating wedges. I want accidentals on notes with ledger lines to avoid ledger lines. I want accidentals on chords to space themselves correctly, taking into account that, e.g., flats on a fifth can be closer together than sharps on a fifth. I want to allow dotted rests in 4/4, but only dotted eighth rests and smaller. I could go on all day… There's a book that's been discussed a bit on this list, Elaine Gould's Behind Bars. I know some people have found fault with particular aspects of it (I think any serious copyist or engraver is going to have their own issues), but what strikes me is how very few of the engraving standards that she outlines are able to be implemented automatically and reliably by any notation program currently on the market. Whether you agree with everything she recommends or not, any modern notation program ought to be able to accommodate everything recommended in those 650+ pages as a house style, automatically, without recourse to plug-ins. That ought to be the bare minimum, and I hope it's what the Steinberg folks are working towards. As for whether this is a zero-sum game — features cost development time and money to implement. The above is where I'd most want the time and money to go: making it faster, easier, and more automatic to generate high-quality music notation. Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 8831 SE 12th Ave. Portland, OR 97202-7097 land line: (503) 954-2107 cell phone: (360) 201-3434 www.chuckisraelsjazz.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
I don't think it's fair to call the Steinberg product vaporware. Steinberg is an established software company that has hired an established development team (almost the entire Sibelius staff) headed by one of the most respected people in the industry, Daniel Spreadbury. So far, they've refrained from making outlandish claims or hyping specific features. The development diaries have been down-to-earth, process-oriented, and realistic about the challenges they face. They've released their music font, Bravura, which is quite nice. http://blog.steinberg.net/2013/05/introducing-bravura-music-font. To qualify as vaporware, a product typically has to make and then break promises (usually release dates), or make hyped-up promises it can't possibly keep. I don't see any indication so far that that's the case here. Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On Sep 17, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Robert Patterson rob...@robertgpatterson.com wrote: I agree with Darcy's list of wishes long before playback features, and to them I would add music spacing options by region and part. BTW: if you are looking for an open framework, there is MuseScore. I haven't been following exactly where it is going lately, but I think it has the potential to leave all the others in the dust, just because of the large number of people that seem to be contributing. I certainly think that any new commercial product will have trouble competing with it. The Steinberg offering, for example, seems to be 100% vaporware. If I had a dollar for every vaporware announcement that never saw the light of day, I would be a rich man. On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jari Williamsson jari.williams...@mailbox.swipnet.se wrote: On 2013-09-17 14:34, Robert Patterson wrote: Could you explain the process? During the projects I've done this year, I've used a system where I've pasted code from my other my different plug-in sources into an automate plug-in. That plug-in used a number of control files (in text format) to set the distances in the cases where there needs to be a correction compared to the default positioning (taking stem direction, other artics, slur tips, ledger lines, etc into account). After all positioning comes spacing (including changing certain types of measures to specific widths), then alignment and then I make a approximate calculation of the vertical span of a system, and respace. The whole process goes outwards in the layout in one step (starting with articulation placement, ending with system positioning placement). Although the process is automatic, the thing that doesn't work good enough yet is the pre- and post-spacing, and the system isn't that flexible (I've more or less just added the editing cases I've needed). I'm now moving towards a totally script-based solution instead, which is almost a totally opposite approach, but it's also a much better way to handle complex tasks such as spacing. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
If I had a dollar for every vaporware announcement that never saw the light of day, I would be a rich man. I would be happy to forward to the list, without charge, my unending, monthly, robot-generated, unsubscribable-from email announcements about Igor :-) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
While I can understand your reservations, many longtime Finale users may not be familiar with Daniel Spreadbury. He is a genius when it comes to notation (and music software in general). He is thoroughly familiar with both Sibelius and Finale, well antiquated with most other music software, and a fine musician as well. Finale's code is, I think, about 25 years old, Sibelius with the exception of the extensive re-write to bring it 64 bit in Sib 7, is about 15 years old. Daniel's team has the advantage of a blank sheet, apparent patience from Steinberg, Yamaha money, and a lot of skill (musical and digital) and creativity. I think there is plenty of room for optimism. MuseScore is interesting but, when I've used it, it seems clumsy in many ways. It seems the developers are only able to do things the way they have seen others do them. I don't see the kind of forward thinking that has always been a part of Sibelius and Finale. On 2013-09-17 12:18, Raymond Horton wrote: I think Steinberg notation software is, at this point, the poster boy for 100% vaporware. They put out a video with demos made on a totally different product, for goodness' sake! I wish them only the best, and hope the ultimate product does all that is promised and more, but only vapor is available now. Raymond Horton Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) UMC Composer, Arranger VISIT US AT rayhortonmusic.com On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:56 PM, David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com wrote: On 9/17/2013 1:35 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: I agree with Darcy's list of wishes long before playback features, and to them I would add music spacing options by region and part. BTW: if you are looking for an open framework, there is MuseScore. I haven't been following exactly where it is going lately, but I think it has the potential to leave all the others in the dust, just because of the large number of people that seem to be contributing. I certainly think that any new commercial product will have trouble competing with it. The Steinberg offering, for example, seems to be 100% vaporware. If I had a dollar for every vaporware announcement that never saw the light of day, I would be a rich man. I'm not sure it can truly be called vaporware -- isn't vaporware an item which has a name, has a price, has an announced shipping date and then never appears? The Steinberg product is admittedly (by Steinberg and the development team) to be in development with no announced shipping date. There has been no pricing announced and as far as I recall, no product name yet either nor a proposed shipping date. Or do you consider every product which is in development to be vaporware? -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
I refuse to argue over the definition of vaporware. The Steinberg product does not exist, and that makes it vapor in my book. You are free to write your own definition. My main point is, it does not matter how good a software developer you are, a great deal of stars have to align for a software product to ever see the light of day. Most of those stars are outside the developer's control. And if by chance it does see the light of day, it has to compete in the marketplace. Remember, Finale is not standing still. (I can't speak for Sibelius.) By 2016 it will be that much further along than any new product that wants to compete with it. I take MM at their word that a Fin2014 release will be forthcoming this year, and it will doubtless have a incremental advancements that make it slightly harder to catch. The version of MuseScore that I tried out 2 years ago was nowhere near Fin/Sib, but it has been and continues to be moving faster than any of them. And I disagree that it is not innovative. It's just that the innovations that are added seem to be the pet projects of those who are willing to put in the time to implement them and may not be the innovations you or I want. On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Darcy James Argue djar...@icloud.comwrote: I don't think it's fair to call the Steinberg product vaporware. Steinberg is an established software company that has hired an established development team (almost the entire Sibelius staff) headed by one of the most respected people in the industry, Daniel Spreadbury. So far, they've refrained from making outlandish claims or hyping specific features. The development diaries have been down-to-earth, process-oriented, and realistic about the challenges they face. They've released their music font, Bravura, which is quite nice. http://blog.steinberg.net/2013/05/introducing-bravura-music-font. To qualify as vaporware, a product typically has to make and then break promises (usually release dates), or make hyped-up promises it can't possibly keep. I don't see any indication so far that that's the case here. Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On Sep 17, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Robert Patterson rob...@robertgpatterson.com wrote: I agree with Darcy's list of wishes long before playback features, and to them I would add music spacing options by region and part. BTW: if you are looking for an open framework, there is MuseScore. I haven't been following exactly where it is going lately, but I think it has the potential to leave all the others in the dust, just because of the large number of people that seem to be contributing. I certainly think that any new commercial product will have trouble competing with it. The Steinberg offering, for example, seems to be 100% vaporware. If I had a dollar for every vaporware announcement that never saw the light of day, I would be a rich man. On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jari Williamsson jari.williams...@mailbox.swipnet.se wrote: On 2013-09-17 14:34, Robert Patterson wrote: Could you explain the process? During the projects I've done this year, I've used a system where I've pasted code from my other my different plug-in sources into an automate plug-in. That plug-in used a number of control files (in text format) to set the distances in the cases where there needs to be a correction compared to the default positioning (taking stem direction, other artics, slur tips, ledger lines, etc into account). After all positioning comes spacing (including changing certain types of measures to specific widths), then alignment and then I make a approximate calculation of the vertical span of a system, and respace. The whole process goes outwards in the layout in one step (starting with articulation placement, ending with system positioning placement). Although the process is automatic, the thing that doesn't work good enough yet is the pre- and post-spacing, and the system isn't that flexible (I've more or less just added the editing cases I've needed). I'm now moving towards a totally script-based solution instead, which is almost a totally opposite approach, but it's also a much better way to handle complex tasks such as spacing. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ 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] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
I'm not going to defend MuseScore because I am not that familiar with it. I am merely a bystander watching it gradually may inroads. But I am but surprised at the dismissive implications of calling Fin and Sib 20-year-old products. Finale 2012 is 2 years old. It would be laughable to compare it with version from 20 years ago, which I believe was still (Mac) 2.6.x. For a laugh, see if you can fire up a 20-yr-old version of Finale. (On Win it might even work.) Then you may have a better appreciation for just how much innovation has happened in the past 20 years. On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Craig Parmerlee cr...@parmerlee.comwrote: On 9/17/2013 8:09 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: The version of MuseScore that I tried out 2 years ago was nowhere near Fin/Sib, but it has been and continues to be moving faster than any of them. And I disagree that it is not innovative. It's just that the innovations that are added seem to be the pet projects of those who are willing to put in the time to implement them and may not be the innovations you or I want. FWIW, you can find the MuseScore road map here: http://musescore.org/en/**developers-handbook/**references/musescore-2.0-* *roadmaphttp://musescore.org/en/developers-handbook/references/musescore-2.0-roadmap Most of the development items are things that have been in Finale and Sibelius, of course. I don't see anything innovative there. It looks like they are doing nothing but reverse engineering the 20-year-old products. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
Don't laugh to hard but I still fire up as far back as 3.5.2 as of today. A lot has changed but a lot is still the same (shape designer, chord suffix dbx, etc..). Finale really needs to OWN these and other very important developments by improving them with continued development. They have done very little with past developments over 20 years to improve them. Their problem has always been to introduce a feature and leave it half done to never revisit unless the user base floods their database with requests leaving those of us who really need the help, out in the dust even when they KNOW it needs to be finished (linked parts with hairpins). They really need to change their model of software development. BTW: I fire up regularly 3.5.2, 97b, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012. I know the pitfalls and achievements with all these versions and the one thing that stands out most of all is the increased lack of care with fonts. It has gotten so much worse since we moved to OSX and I don't blame the OS. Steve On Sep 17, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Robert Patterson rob...@robertgpatterson.com wrote: Finale 2012 is 2 years old. It would be laughable to compare it with version from 20 years ago, which I believe was still (Mac) 2.6.x. For a laugh, see if you can fire up a 20-yr-old version of Finale. ( ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
On some levels I agree. In theory I like all in one. But that usually isn't the end result. One is always lacking. Compromise is usually required you end up with a program that is impossible to learn I'm happy with XML to go back and forth when needed. -- On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 4:30 AM PDT Steve Parker wrote: Maybe I'm alone in not wanting every program to do everything.. If I need to mock up or (increasingly) produce a high-quality audio version of something then Digital Performer is perfect. If I need players to play it or it needs to be published then I want absolute control over what it looks like with the program making the best stab possible at it before tweaking. I don't want the two to meet and I don't expect to ever see a notation app that doesn't need tweaking (in every bar...) Otherwise we end up with 'good' notation or 'good' arranging, but never the kind of counter-intuitive rule-breaking that makes something great. Steve P. ___ 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] What will be the state of notation products by 2016?
The video is what made it instant vaporware. That video reminded me of the movie Tucker. (I'm assuming that there was some Hollywood compression and exaggeration in the film, but for these purposes I'll take the film as as fact.) Tucker and cronies crammed together a car for an early showing that was a total sham, but eventually came up with a product that was innovative and a classic. (He then was forced out of business by corrupt pols in league with the Big Three automakers, but let's hope that is not part of the notation story.) If that movie stopped after that first bogus showing we would have no idea if the Tucker (car) ever came to be. That's where we are now, with the Steinberg-Spreadbury notation app.We had the bogus preview video (which I cannot seem to locate, now) and bright people are hard at work behind the scenes, but only the air expended on their promises is out there. Vaporware. As I said, I wish them only the best. Their success could only help the industry, just as that of Sibelius did. Raymond Horton Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) UMC Composer, Arranger VISIT US AT rayhortonmusic.com On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Craig Parmerlee cr...@parmerlee.comwrote: On 9/17/2013 2:18 PM, Raymond Horton wrote: I think Steinberg notation software is, at this point, the poster boy for 100% vaporware. They put out a video with demos made on a totally different product, for goodness' sake! I wish them only the best, and hope the ultimate product does all that is promised and more, but only vapor is available now. But they are not representing it as a product, only as a development project. While the implication may be that they indent to produce a discrete notation product that would be Sibelius: The Next Generation, if you will, it is possible that these efforts would roll back into the Cubase platform to extends its notation capabilities. I don't think suppliers should ever be discouraged from talking about the future as long as they aren't making any solid promises they can't keep. The natural inclination of software suppliers (incumbents especially) is to clam up. There can be several reasons for this: 1) If what they have to say isn't all that impressive, that will lose loyalty during the incubation period. 2) If what they have to say is so-so, they would rather hold everything for a big flashy announcement. 3) If what they have to say is really impressive, they don't want to give the competition a chance to get organized against their messages. And conversely, a newcomer is more likely to talk openly: 1) To get some attention 2) To start to dislodge loyalties with the incumbents 3) To freeze people from buying competitor upgrades in the interim 4) If they decide the incumbents aren't really competing very much anyway. We will have to wait until 2016 to see what 2016 really looks like, but I don't see where some speculation hurts anyone. ___ 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
