Re: [Finale] random thoughts on 2014
To David Froom and others , Regarding the use of cautionary accidentals, I'd appreciate your feedback In a non-key signature piece, when a measure of music includes Bb going up a minor 9th to B natural, and this happens multiple times in a measure, is it preferable in your experience, to always include the flat and natural signs so that the performer is clear on the specific pitch desired for each register? Is a parenthesized accidental and natural sign preferable to non-parenthesized? Or, would a performer prefer a one time placement/measure of the accidental and natural signs? Thanks in advance, Bruce Eisenbeil ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] random thoughts on 2014
In my experience it is better to always use accidentals to cancel different octaves. If it happens a lot, depending on the tonality of the piece, you may not need parentheses. Bb to B is an augmented octave. Maybe a better solution is to write a genuine minor ninth of Bb to Cb? Steve P. > On 20 Nov 2013, at 13:19, wrote: > > > To David Froom and others , > > > Regarding the use of cautionary accidentals, I'd appreciate your feedback > > > In a non-key signature piece, when a measure of music includes Bb going up a > minor 9th to B natural, and this happens multiple times in a measure, is it > preferable in your experience, to always include the flat and natural signs > so that the performer is clear on the specific pitch desired for each > register? Is a parenthesized accidental and natural sign preferable to > non-parenthesized? Or, would a performer prefer a one time placement/measure > of the accidental and natural signs? > > > Thanks in advance, > > > Bruce Eisenbeil > > > > ___ > 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] random thoughts on 2014
Hello. Minor 9th up from B flat is C flat, according to what I learned. If so, it is enough to place one b sign to the B and another to the C in the beginning of the measure and musicians will play B flat and then up minor 9th, C flat all the measure. Reg, Diddi On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Steve Parker wrote: > In my experience it is better to always use accidentals to cancel > different octaves. If it happens a lot, depending on the tonality of the > piece, you may not need parentheses. > Bb to B is an augmented octave. > Maybe a better solution is to write a genuine minor ninth of Bb to Cb? > > Steve P. > > > On 20 Nov 2013, at 13:19, wrote: > > > > > > To David Froom and others , > > > > > > Regarding the use of cautionary accidentals, I'd appreciate your feedback > > > > > > In a non-key signature piece, when a measure of music includes Bb going > up a minor 9th to B natural, and this happens multiple times in a measure, > is it preferable in your experience, to always include the flat and natural > signs so that the performer is clear on the specific pitch desired for each > register? Is a parenthesized accidental and natural sign preferable to > non-parenthesized? Or, would a performer prefer a one time > placement/measure of the accidental and natural signs? > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > > > Bruce Eisenbeil > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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] random thoughts on 2014
I have to disagree here. I use courtesy accidentals in my arrangements for a couple of reasons: 1. my players like and often request them 2. I like to hear the correct notes being played rightthe first time. Larry >Courtesy accidentals (ANYWHERE) are for the weak. If you *need* them in the >part, then that means you're not following the key signature. Back to >school! > >patricksheehanmu...@gmail.com >-Original Message- >From: Christopher Smith [mailto:christopher.sm...@videotron.ca] >Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 12:28 PM >To: finale@shsu.edu >Subject: Re: [Finale] random thoughts on 2014 > >If you will permit a somewhat differing opinion, I think there are places >where cautionaries are necessary, even when there isn't a key change, and I >have figured out after many years that NON-parenthesised ones actually are >easier to read. > >I know that parentheses make logical sense, that a parenthesised accidental >is kind of like saying, "I KNOW you know this, but here's a reminder" to >differentiate it from one that is absolutely necessary. But from a distance, >parentheses around an accidental makes all three (sharp, flat, and natural) >into the same outline, so you have to read more closely to see which >accidental it actually is. Already, sharps and naturals are easy to confuse >with each other; the parentheses make it worse. I keep getting caught by >these on the gigs I do where the Finale user is less than professional. And >Sibelius seems to have this redundant accidental default that puts in >accidentals on the SECOND of two tied notes! > >Christopher > > >On Sun Nov 10, at SundayNov 10 12:39 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: >> >> >> For those of us with imperfect eyesight, we cannot always see the >> accidental clearly. If I can see that there is an accidental, then I >> can make a quick judgment about whether it is most likely a flat, sharp, >> or natural and be right almost all the time. People who add unnecessary >> accidental markings without parenthesizing them should be shot, IMHO. >> And people who pencil in unnecessary accidentals BESIDE notes in the >> music should also be shot. If one needs a reminder about a note, write >> the accidental ABOVE the note, with a parenthesis and there will never >> be any confusion. IMHO, the only time an accidental should be penciled >> BESIDE a note is when correcting a misprint. > > > > >___ >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] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
Justin Phillips is no longer with MM. He'll be missed. Thanks Justin for the hands-on help you've given the Finale list over the last few years. http://www.sibeliusblog.com/news/layoffs-and-reorganization-announced-at-makemusic/ Nigel Hanley 0418 977 237 i...@nigelhanley.com nigel.han...@optusnet.com.au ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
On 11/20/2013 9:33 AM, Nigel Hanley wrote: > Justin Phillips is no longer with MM. He'll be missed. Thanks Justin for the > hands-on help you've given the Finale list over the last few years. > > http://www.sibeliusblog.com/news/layoffs-and-reorganization-announced-at-makemusic/ > Thank you for that link -- I feel sorry for Justin and am worried about the future of the company (again!). -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] F2014 not copying triplets correctly
I have a 4/4 measure that consists of three 8th note triplets and a quarter note, and the first 8th note (in the first triplet) is actually an 8th rest. When I drag this to another staff or do a cut/paste everything goes haywire. Finale is interpreting the first elements as a SIXTEENTH NOTE triplet. That messes up all following triplets, and shoves some of my notes out of their triplet bracket, which means that there are now too many beats for the measure, so an extra measure is inserted for all staffs. In other words, a real mess. Is anybody else seeing this behavior? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
Although I have not upgraded for several years, this news is nonetheless, of concern. The link describes major restructuring and a search for people to fill positions of "software developer; a software QA engineer; and a product designer." So they got out a new version, with its inevitable bugs, fired everyone, and are trying to find people to replace them. That sounds pretty chaotic to me. What also caught my attention in the article was this: "...a key part of MakeMusic's marketing strategy for Finale 2014 is to tout that "while others take music notation software development for granted, Finale is doubling down to provide you and your music a clear path to tomorrow." That is the most meaningless, tortuous, tangled-metaphor, marketing-speak sentence that I have seen in long, long time. There is not a single phrase in it that makes any sense at all. "Doubling down"? "others take software development for granted"? Is it supposed to be a great relief that Finale is there to give my "music a clear path to tomorrow"? It's laughable. Richard Yates > -Original Message- > From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [mailto:finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf Of > Nigel Hanley > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:33 AM > To: finale@shsu.edu > Subject: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic > > Justin Phillips is no longer with MM. He'll be missed. Thanks Justin for the hands- > on help you've given the Finale list over the last few years. > > http://www.sibeliusblog.com/news/layoffs-and-reorganization-announced-at- > makemusic/ > > > Nigel Hanley > > 0418 977 237 > i...@nigelhanley.com > nigel.han...@optusnet.com.au > > > ___ > 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] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
The author(s) must have studied at the federal government school of copywriting. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Richard Yates wrote: > Although I have not upgraded for several years, this news is nonetheless, > of > concern. The link describes major restructuring and a search for people to > fill positions of "software developer; a software QA engineer; and a > product > designer." So they got out a new version, with its inevitable bugs, fired > everyone, and are trying to find people to replace them. That sounds pretty > chaotic to me. > > What also caught my attention in the article was this: "...a key part of > MakeMusic's marketing strategy for Finale 2014 is to tout that "while > others > take music notation software development for granted, Finale is doubling > down to provide you and your music a clear path to tomorrow." > > That is the most meaningless, tortuous, tangled-metaphor, marketing-speak > sentence that I have seen in long, long time. There is not a single phrase > in it that makes any sense at all. "Doubling down"? "others take software > development for granted"? > > Is it supposed to be a great relief that Finale is there to give my "music > a > clear path to tomorrow"? > > It's laughable. > > Richard Yates > > > > -Original Message- > > From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [mailto:finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf > Of > > Nigel Hanley > > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:33 AM > > To: finale@shsu.edu > > Subject: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic > > > > Justin Phillips is no longer with MM. He'll be missed. Thanks Justin for > the hands- > > on help you've given the Finale list over the last few years. > > > > > http://www.sibeliusblog.com/news/layoffs-and-reorganization-announced-at- > > makemusic/ > > > > > > Nigel Hanley > > > > 0418 977 237 > > i...@nigelhanley.com > > nigel.han...@optusnet.com.au > > > > > > ___ > > 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] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
Wow..smart move MakeMusicnot Sent from my iSomething -- On Nov 20, 2013, at 6:35 AM, Nigel Hanley wrote: > Justin Phillips is no longer with MM. He'll be missed. Thanks Justin for the > hands-on help you've given the Finale list over the last few years. > > http://www.sibeliusblog.com/news/layoffs-and-reorganization-announced-at-makemusic/ > > > Nigel Hanley > > 0418 977 237 > i...@nigelhanley.com > nigel.han...@optusnet.com.au > > > ___ > 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] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
That's a good possibility. Just be sure I was not missing something I looked up "double down." I think they liked the connotations of the word being something like "bold and decisive" but looked no further (like in a dictionary). The closest definition (OED) shows that the term "double-down" may inadvertently be close to the truth: "to engage in risky behavior, especially when one is already in a dangerous situation." Richard Yates > The author(s) must have studied at the federal government school of copywriting. > Anne Erickson > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Richard Yates > wrote: > > > Although I have not upgraded for several years, this news is > > nonetheless, of concern. The link describes major restructuring and a > > search for people to fill positions of "software developer; a software > > QA engineer; and a product designer." So they got out a new version, > > with its inevitable bugs, fired everyone, and are trying to find > > people to replace them. That sounds pretty chaotic to me. > > > > What also caught my attention in the article was this: "...a key part > > of MakeMusic's marketing strategy for Finale 2014 is to tout that > > "while others take music notation software development for granted, > > Finale is doubling down to provide you and your music a clear path to > > tomorrow." > > > > That is the most meaningless, tortuous, tangled-metaphor, > > marketing-speak sentence that I have seen in long, long time. There is > > not a single phrase in it that makes any sense at all. "Doubling > > down"? "others take software development for granted"? > > > > Is it supposed to be a great relief that Finale is there to give my > > "music a clear path to tomorrow"? > > > > It's laughable. > > > > Richard Yates > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [mailto:finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On > > > Behalf > > Of > > > Nigel Hanley > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:33 AM > > > To: finale@shsu.edu > > > Subject: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic > > > > > > Justin Phillips is no longer with MM. He'll be missed. Thanks Justin > > > for > > the hands- > > > on help you've given the Finale list over the last few years. > > > > > > > > http://www.sibeliusblog.com/news/layoffs-and-reorganization-announced- > > at- > > > makemusic/ > > > > > > > > > Nigel Hanley > > > > > > 0418 977 237 > > > i...@nigelhanley.com > > > nigel.han...@optusnet.com.au > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > 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] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
On 2013-11-20 16:27, Richard Yates wrote: > The link describes major restructuring and a search for people to > fill positions of "software developer; a software QA engineer; and a product > designer." So they got out a new version, with its inevitable bugs, fired > everyone, and are trying to find people to replace them. That sounds pretty > chaotic to me. You're seriously misreading the article. Please, do at least 1 minute research yourself. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
Obviously they want to keep their dirty laundry inside the company, which is understandable. It is also understandable that after investing so much to fund that 2.5 year hiatus between products, the owners really couldn't chance shaking things up before the product launch. The fact that they did this 3 weeks after the product launch is telling. That means that the owners felt very strongly that they needed to make major changes, and they are doing so at their first real opportunity. That much is perfectly clear. What isn't so clear is what the new direction is. Are they going the way of Avid, essentially shutting it down and milking the cash cow? It doesn't really appear so. If that isn't the idea, then what are they trying to do? I would point out that Finale 2014 essentially provides no real advancement in the start of the art. It is clearly a better implementation of the same old features than what we had with 2011 and 2012. But there is nothing at all innovative in this package. That's not really a criticism. Other than some typical bugs that I'm sure will be worked out in due course, I really like Finale 2014 and don't regret the upgrade at all. It "feels" better to use. Lots of little things seem to work better, But without real innovation: a) you cannot ask much for the upgrade price, and b) not many users will rush forward with their wallets open. And that makes for a business case that simply doesn't work. You have to either strip it down to the thinnest possible skeleton crew or else you have to make a commitment to truly innovate. There is no middle ground. The cash cow strategy would be attractive financially, but probably only works for another year or two as Steinberg and others should be bringing fresher products to the market. The fact that MakeMusic did create several new openings gives me hope that they are going to try to get back into an innovation mode, which is the only way the product will be able to exist 5 years from now. If Justin and others are tuning in, I'd like to thank them for all their efforts. As person who has been on both ends of these reorganizations (being "restructured" personally and having to carry out the "restructuring") I know that can be personally devastating. But there is life after that, and soon you will look upon the years at MakeMusic as a time of great learning that serves you well in the rest of your professional life. On 11/20/2013 10:27 AM, Richard Yates wrote: > Although I have not upgraded for several years, this news is nonetheless, of > concern. The link describes major restructuring and a search for people to > fill positions of "software developer; a software QA engineer; and a product > designer." So they got out a new version, with its inevitable bugs, fired > everyone, and are trying to find people to replace them. That sounds pretty > chaotic to me. > > What also caught my attention in the article was this: "...a key part of > MakeMusic's marketing strategy for Finale 2014 is to tout that "while others > take music notation software development for granted, Finale is doubling > down to provide you and your music a clear path to tomorrow." > > That is the most meaningless, tortuous, tangled-metaphor, marketing-speak > sentence that I have seen in long, long time. There is not a single phrase > in it that makes any sense at all. "Doubling down"? "others take software > development for granted"? > > Is it supposed to be a great relief that Finale is there to give my "music a > clear path to tomorrow"? > > It's laughable. > > Richard Yates > > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and doubling down
On 11/20/2013 10:40 AM, Richard Yates wrote: > That's a good possibility. Just be sure I was not missing something I looked > up "double down." I think they liked the connotations of the word being > something like "bold and decisive" but looked no further (like in a > dictionary). The closest definition (OED) shows that the term "double-down" > may inadvertently be close to the truth: "to engage in risky behavior, > especially when one is already in a dangerous situation." > > Richard Yates I hadn't thought of that, but you are right. You would probably enjoy the NPR show "A Way With Words" if you are not already a regular listener. In this case, remember that the people running the company are venture capitalists, so they really are gamblers -- more so than the average business person. To a gambler, doubling down may be a random, reckless reaction. But it also may be a calculated move reflecting confidence in the face of favorable odds. My guess is that the ownership got pretty frusterated losing over 2 years in an effort that may have greatly improved the product foundation, but doesn't really open up new revenue streams. In that context, I translate "doubling down" to mean "OK, we put the money into getting the product fixed. Now we have to charge forward adding new capability that will fix our business, giving us a lot more revenue." In this sense, "doubling down" means you have an expectation of either hitting big or going bust. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
On Nov 20, 2013, at 7:55 AM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: What isn't so clear is what the new direction is. Are they going the way of Avid, essentially shutting it down and milking the cash cow? It doesn't really appear so. If that isn't the idea, then what are they trying to do? Avids shutting down? I don't think so. I would point out that Finale 2014 essentially provides no real advancement in the start of the art. It is clearly a better implementation of the same old features than what we had with 2011 and 2012. But there is nothing at all innovative in this package. That's not really a criticism. Other than some typical bugs that I'm sure will be worked out in due course, I really like Finale 2014 and don't regret the upgrade at all. It "feels" better to use. Lots of little things seem to work better, It's easy to throw around "there is no innovation", but what do you really mean by that? Did they not include that feature that you wanted but you've never spelled out? There are plenty of things that move notation forward in finale 2014. But without real innovation: a) you cannot ask much for the upgrade price, and b) not many users will rush forward with their wallets open. And that makes for a business case that simply doesn't work. You have to either strip it down to the thinnest possible skeleton crew or else you have to make a commitment to truly innovate. There is no middle ground. The cash cow strategy would be attractive financially, but probably only works for another year or two as Steinberg and others should be bringing fresher products to the market. Again, what do you want? What would be "real innovation"? Making it work better on Mac os x? Providing more sounds? Define a fileformat for the future? What? I think both finale and Sibelius are pretty much the top of what you can do with notation. I don't really know what people expect other than little refinements to the programs in each version. The fact that MakeMusic did create several new openings gives me hope that they are going to try to get back into an innovation mode, which is the only way the product will be able to exist 5 years from now. So your "expert" analysis is that these new openings are really the way towards innovation? Hardly. Innovation starts at the top and I don't see anything that makes me believe the top of the organization is poised to magically start "innovating". But I don't think they did what avid did, which was to basically shit can the whole development team. Also, I don't see the Steinberg guys doing anything amazing either.and I have been following their blog. If they somehow merge cubase with something like Sibelius then that would be awesome, butat this point they don't have anything nor any real timeframe on anything. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and doubling down
My experience with venture capitalists is that they want to make money. Period. And they usually invest in companies that have a goal and actual potential. And MakeMusic does have this. In fact, their smartmusic stuff is doing really well (supposedly subscriptions are still being added). Of the two (Sibelius and finale) I think finale is moving forward. Avid is really all about protools and everything else is second fiddle. On Nov 20, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: > > I hadn't thought of that, but you are right. You would probably enjoy > the NPR show "A Way With Words" if you are not already a regular listener. > > In this case, remember that the people running the company are venture > capitalists, so they really are gamblers -- more so than the average > business person. To a gambler, doubling down may be a random, reckless > reaction. But it also may be a calculated move reflecting confidence in > the face of favorable odds. > > My guess is that the ownership got pretty frusterated losing over 2 > years in an effort that may have greatly improved the product > foundation, but doesn't really open up new revenue streams. In that > context, I translate "doubling down" to mean "OK, we put the money into > getting the product fixed. Now we have to charge forward adding new > capability that will fix our business, giving us a lot more revenue." > > In this sense, "doubling down" means you have an expectation of either > hitting big or going bust. > > _ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Converting Fin's AIFF to mp3
I'm wondering if this thread might be a clue in a problem I've been having in Finale 2012 for Mac: I get my score playing back reasonably well, with all the instruments sounding natural enough to create a good demo. However, when I convert to MP3 it sounds thin and long notes stutter like they're gasping for breath. Barely usable. Does anyone have any ideas what's going on? Why is there a disparity between playback and export to MP3? Greg Scheer ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] DS al fine
HI folks, Sorry to trouble you with this one. I've had this problem before and can't remember what the solution is. DS al fine etc show on the score but not on all of the parts (which seems stupid to me!) Could someone please remind me what I need to do to make them appear on all parts. Thanks, Lawrence -- Lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] random thoughts on 2014
Larry, I agree. The only exception is when the music is especially "busy" with lots of notes. The parentheses often make it difficult to read on the fly. Then you have the decision to make as to whether the "unnecessary" accidental hurts more than it helps. It is sometimes a very close call. "Chord"ially, John John Witmer Clemson Downs Retirement Center - Original Message - From: "Lawrence David Eden" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [Finale] random thoughts on 2014 >I have to disagree here. I use courtesy accidentals in my > arrangements for a couple of reasons: > > 1. my players like and often request them > 2. I like to hear the correct notes being played rightthe first time. > > Larry > > > > > > >>Courtesy accidentals (ANYWHERE) are for the weak. If you *need* them in >>the >>part, then that means you're not following the key signature. Back to >>school! >> >>patricksheehanmu...@gmail.com >>-Original Message- >>From: Christopher Smith [mailto:christopher.sm...@videotron.ca] >>Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 12:28 PM >>To: finale@shsu.edu >>Subject: Re: [Finale] random thoughts on 2014 >> >>If you will permit a somewhat differing opinion, I think there are places >>where cautionaries are necessary, even when there isn't a key change, and >>I >>have figured out after many years that NON-parenthesised ones actually are >>easier to read. >> >>I know that parentheses make logical sense, that a parenthesised >>accidental >>is kind of like saying, "I KNOW you know this, but here's a reminder" to >>differentiate it from one that is absolutely necessary. But from a >>distance, >>parentheses around an accidental makes all three (sharp, flat, and >>natural) >>into the same outline, so you have to read more closely to see which >>accidental it actually is. Already, sharps and naturals are easy to >>confuse >>with each other; the parentheses make it worse. I keep getting caught by >>these on the gigs I do where the Finale user is less than professional. >>And >>Sibelius seems to have this redundant accidental default that puts in >>accidentals on the SECOND of two tied notes! >> >>Christopher >> >> >>On Sun Nov 10, at SundayNov 10 12:39 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: >>> >>> >>> For those of us with imperfect eyesight, we cannot always see the >>> accidental clearly. If I can see that there is an accidental, then I >>> can make a quick judgment about whether it is most likely a flat, >>> sharp, >>> or natural and be right almost all the time. People who add >>> unnecessary >>> accidental markings without parenthesizing them should be shot, IMHO. >>> And people who pencil in unnecessary accidentals BESIDE notes in the >>> music should also be shot. If one needs a reminder about a note, write >>> the accidental ABOVE the note, with a parenthesis and there will never >>> be any confusion. IMHO, the only time an accidental should be penciled >>> BESIDE a note is when correcting a misprint. >> >> >> >> >>___ >>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] DS al fine
I see this when I use old templates to create new pieces in 2012. Usually it's a combination of two things: 1. the staff is set to NOT show text repeats. Staff Attributes has the solution. You can also use the plugin Global Staff Attributes to change them all at once, though this makes bass staves of piano parts show them, too. 2. the staff assignment for the text repeat somehow gets set to only a few staves. Right click and choose Edit Assignment (then follow the steps) to get it to show. This gets very long when there are a lot of repeats in a tune (like the 15 minute medley I did a while back.) Christopher On Wed Nov 20, at WednesdayNov 20 12:20 PM, Lawrence Yates wrote: > HI folks, > > Sorry to trouble you with this one. I've had this problem before and can't > remember what the solution is. > > DS al fine etc show on the score but not on all of the parts (which seems > stupid to me!) > > Could someone please remind me what I need to do to make them appear on all > parts. > > Thanks, > > Lawrence > > -- > Lawrenceyates.co.uk > ___ > 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] random thoughts on 2014
On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:00 PM, Bruce Eisenbeil wrote: > In a non-key signature piece, when a measure of music includes Bb going up a > minor 9th to B natural, and this happens multiple times in a measure, is it > preferable in your experience, to always include the flat and natural signs > so that the performer is clear on the specific pitch desired for each > register? Is a parenthesized accidental and natural sign preferable to > non-parenthesized? Or, would a performer prefer a one time placement/measure > of the accidental and natural signs? Bb to Cb is better, and A# to B even better; but there are many times when, depending on what follows or precedes, Bb to B is the best choice, and I assume you're asking about that. I give the cautionary natural without parentheses. And I continue to give the natural if there are any intervening Bbs. The only time I don't give a cautionary is when something is repeated immediately. I have never had a complaint, actually only hear appreciation. We often don't get to hear a rehearsal until the day before the concert. At that point, if a note has been learned wrong by the player, pointing out will mean that it will still be wrong at the concert, but will be played self-consciously or hesitantly. So the aim is to make things as clear as possible, leaving no question about what the note is supposed to be. And yes, as others have said, look at what the performer writes into her/his copy of your score. If they put in an accidental or natural, that means you should have done it. We're talking non-key-signature music. David Froom ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] random thoughts on 2014
There are many situation for non-parenthesized courtesy accis even in music with key signatures. One that people often forget is a situation where the key signature does not agree with the key of the moment. Take for example a piece in G major that has modulated to D major (without a printed key change). If there is .e.g. a V/IV chord in the musical progression, the C-natural should absolutely have a courtesy natural whether there are any C#'s nearby or not. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:22 PM, David Froom wrote: > On 20 Nov 2013, at 1:00 PM, Bruce Eisenbeil wrote: > > > In a non-key signature piece, when a measure of music includes Bb going > up a minor 9th to B natural, and this happens multiple times in a measure, > is it preferable in your experience, to always include the flat and natural > signs so that the performer is clear on the specific pitch desired for each > register? Is a parenthesized accidental and natural sign preferable to > non-parenthesized? Or, would a performer prefer a one time > placement/measure of the accidental and natural signs? > > Bb to Cb is better, and A# to B even better; but there are many times > when, depending on what follows or precedes, Bb to B is the best choice, > and I assume you're asking about that. I give the cautionary natural > without parentheses. And I continue to give the natural if there are any > intervening Bbs. The only time I don't give a cautionary is when something > is repeated immediately. > > I have never had a complaint, actually only hear appreciation. We often > don't get to hear a rehearsal until the day before the concert. At that > point, if a note has been learned wrong by the player, pointing out will > mean that it will still be wrong at the concert, but will be played > self-consciously or hesitantly. So the aim is to make things as clear as > possible, leaving no question about what the note is supposed to be. > > And yes, as others have said, look at what the performer writes into > her/his copy of your score. If they put in an accidental or natural, that > means you should have done it. > > We're talking non-key-signature music. > > David Froom > > > > ___ > 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] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
On 11/20/2013 11:15 AM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > I think both finale and Sibelius are pretty much the top of what you can do > with notation. I don't really know what people expect other than little > refinements to the programs in each version. Everything about the process of notation can be made a full order of magnitude more intuitive and productive. Where are their future customers coming from? There are many potential customers who have tried these notation products and found them overwhelming. I know a lot of folks here wear the Finale learning curve like a badge of honor. But the flip side of that coin is that it prevents sales to much larger numbers of customers. You have to make the product less arcane by a factor of 10 to reach these customers. And it can be done. It just takes more vision than has been demonstrated. Moreover, a good part of the potential market is sophisticated musicians (and educators) who are very tuned into the broader world of "music technology". If MakeMusic wants to reach the next generation of musicians -- the real opinion leaders -- Finale will have to be much more interoperable and seamless with the DAW world, and much more inclusive of the best plug-in technologies that are ubiquitous in the DAW world. Makemusic will not have a financially viable product in 2 years if they do not embrace those concepts. I realize that functionally, Finale will continue to suit most folks here just fine, but there will simply not be enough revenue to fund the product's continuation. And I assure you that venture people are very tuned in to the ROI. They don't look upon this as a civic cause or a charity. Regarding Avid, the situation is much more severe than you described. Sibelius is not being developed in any significant way. It is as close to an end-of-line product as one gets without formally announcing that. There may be small tactical releases in the future, and perhaps some merging of function with ProTools, but no major new advancement of the notation art. The developers are all with Steinberg now. It appears to me the venture guys running MakeMusic have decided NOT to go the direction that Avid went. They are well aware of Steinberg's efforts and fully understand they have something like an 18 month window to establish their strongest position when the Steinberg product comes to market. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
On Wed, November 20, 2013 11:15 am, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > Again, what do you want? What would be "real innovation"? Making it work > better on Mac os x? Providing more sounds? Define a fileformat for the > future? What? > I think both finale and Sibelius are pretty much the top of what you can do > with notation. I don't really know what people expect other than little > refinements to the programs in each version. This is what I posted in the NewMusicBox discussion a few weeks ago. This is what these programs can do, instead of mucking around in 'little refinements' -- come into the 21st century: "...It’s a far cry from the promise of notation software when Finale first arrived a quarter-century ago. "My wishlist for notation software includes full vector graphical editing (right down to bending staves and having their contents follow), full audio editing capability linked to Sonar, Audition and Vegas (and whatever equivalent Mac folks use), integration where possible with Pd/AudioMulch/Max, pen (handwritten notation) input and editing, and integration/scripting of algorithmic and generative routines." Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] 2014 - small FAN issue
FYI - for users of Bill Duncan fonts: character 208 (the small slash used for rhythmic notation note heads) requires custom FAN adjustment. Everything else I have encountered so far seems to be OK. If anyone is having difficulty with this, I will be glad to help. Chuck Chuck Israels 8831 SE 12th Ave. Portland, OR 97202-7097 land line: (503) 954-2107 cell phone: (360) 201-3434 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
Finally, someone with some "specifics" instead of just throwing around the word "innovation". Vector editing would be interesting, especially if you could save those vectors in some sort of library. Audio editing.not sure if that is a biggie. Finale does have, I think, the ability to include/record audio. But how many people actually use that? What I'd like to see is way way better midi/notation integration. I'm still amazed at the poor midi output Finale generates when I dump a score out of it and load it into Digital Performer or Logic. On Nov 20, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > On Wed, November 20, 2013 11:15 am, Eric Dannewitz wrote: >> Again, what do you want? What would be "real innovation"? Making it work >> better on Mac os x? Providing more sounds? Define a fileformat for the >> future? What? >> I think both finale and Sibelius are pretty much the top of what you can do >> with notation. I don't really know what people expect other than little >> refinements to the programs in each version. > > This is what I posted in the NewMusicBox discussion a few weeks ago. This is > what these programs can do, instead of mucking around in 'little refinements' > -- come into the 21st century: > > "...It’s a far cry from the promise of notation software when Finale first > arrived a quarter-century ago. > > "My wishlist for notation software includes full vector graphical editing > (right down to bending staves and having their contents follow), full audio > editing capability linked to Sonar, Audition and Vegas (and whatever > equivalent Mac folks use), integration where possible with Pd/AudioMulch/Max, > pen (handwritten notation) input and editing, and integration/scripting of > algorithmic and generative routines." > > Dennis > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
On Wed, November 20, 2013 2:39 pm, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > Audio editing.not sure if that is a biggie. Finale does have, I think, the > ability to include/record audio. But how many people actually use that? I'm not sure. I certainly do, and have for years. I have scores that include electronic sections that need to show as waveforms, fx tracks, include synth instrument versions, etc. It would be a great boon for scoring, say, to include and EDIT sound effects and music right in-score -- think of Vegas, with its music generator. The whole score could be built in place instead of swapping out to an audio application, bringing it back, stretching or shrinking, transposing, etc. > What I'd like to see is way way better midi/notation integration. I'm still > amazed at the poor midi output Finale generates when I dump a score out of it > and load it into Digital Performer or Logic. INTEGRATION with them, exactly, so that edits in Logic or Sonar would appear in the Finale score, in the audio file, and multi-vice-versa. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
On Nov 20, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: > On 11/20/2013 11:15 AM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: >> I think both finale and Sibelius are pretty much the top of what you can do >> with notation. I don't really know what people expect other than little >> refinements to the programs in each version. > > Everything about the process of notation can be made a full order of > magnitude more intuitive and productive. But you fail to list anything > > Where are their future customers coming from? There are many potential > customers who have tried these notation products and found them > overwhelming. I know a lot of folks here wear the Finale learning curve > like a badge of honor. But the flip side of that coin is that it > prevents sales to much larger numbers of customers. You have to make the > product less arcane by a factor of 10 to reach these customers. And it > can be done. It just takes more vision than has been demonstrated. Honestly, there is hardly any difference in the "learning curve" of Finale compared to Sibelius. Finale 2014 is WAY less "arcane" than say Finale 2000. They have made HUGE leaps in making the program easier. Some of us might even call it dumbing down the program. Future customers? Honestly, you expect a notation software to take off like wild fire? Future customers are those who are interested in writing out pieces to be performed by people. There is a very very tiny market for that compared to say something like Ableton Live where you are looping stuff together and could care less what it looks like notated (and the average Ableton user probably can't read music to being with). The "future" customers are going to be those concerned with the written/printed notation, and those persons are going to want and easy and flexible tool to use. Finale is that tool. Sibelius is easy, but you can't make it do stuff like you can in Finale. > > Moreover, a good part of the potential market is sophisticated musicians > (and educators) who are very tuned into the broader world of "music > technology". If MakeMusic wants to reach the next generation of > musicians -- the real opinion leaders -- Finale will have to be much > more interoperable and seamless with the DAW world, and much more > inclusive of the best plug-in technologies that are ubiquitous in the > DAW world. I don't really know how MakeMusic can make headway here. It does something, and does it well. It notates. While I'd LOVE to see it include DAW features, I don't think it will. That would be pretty much like writing a whole new program. If you look at what Avid did when it first got Sibelius, the next version of ProTools had some rudimentary talking between the two programs. I don't think Avid has done anything since with that (I don't know as I don't use ProTools anymore currently). I think it was a great idea, but ProTools really doesn't have very good Midi editing abilities (at least last time I used it) compared to say Digital Performer. Perhaps if big DAWs adopted MusicXML format..but that has been around for a long time, and I don't think ANY of the DAWs I use (Digital Performer or Logic X Pro) have anything MusicXML in them. > > Makemusic will not have a financially viable product in 2 years if they > do not embrace those concepts. I realize that functionally, Finale will > continue to suit most folks here just fine, but there will simply not be > enough revenue to fund the product's continuation. And I assure you > that venture people are very tuned in to the ROI. They don't look upon > this as a civic cause or a charity. So the concepts are what again? Make it less "arcane" to get more customers, make it more "intuitive and productive", and make it interoperable and seamless with the DAW world. Again, they are DOING that. What about just having MakeMusic make the best tool for notation that is out there? I think they are still doing that, and I will happily buy an upgrade when TGTools works with it. Venture people invest in something that has potential. I worked at a startup that was trying to be bought by several venture capital companies, and they are very complete usually in looking at the books, talking to the staff about what is going on. > > Regarding Avid, the situation is much more severe than you described. > Sibelius is not being developed in any significant way. It is as close > to an end-of-line product as one gets without formally announcing > that. There may be small tactical releases in the future, and perhaps > some merging of function with ProTools, but no major new advancement of > the notation art. The developers are all with Steinberg now. It > appears to me the venture guys running MakeMusic have decided NOT to go > the direction that Avid went. They are well aware of Steinberg's > efforts and fully understand they have something like an 18 month window > to establish their strongest positio
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
These are great ideas. A lot of people use Digital Performer for scoring as it has fairly good editing of notation and is a full blown DAW. http://www.motu.com/newsitems/marc-mann-on-dp-and-danny-elfman http://www.motu.com/newsitems/and-the-oscar-goes-to-michael-giacchino http://www.motu.com/newsitems/dario-marianelli-wins-oscar-for-best-music-original-score And I believe Lord Of The Rings was scored using Digital Performer... I sorta wish MOTU would have bought MakeMusic. On Nov 20, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > On Wed, November 20, 2013 2:39 pm, Eric Dannewitz wrote: >> Audio editing.not sure if that is a biggie. Finale does have, I think, >> the >> ability to include/record audio. But how many people actually use that? > > I'm not sure. I certainly do, and have for years. I have scores that include > electronic sections that need to show as waveforms, fx tracks, include synth > instrument versions, etc. It would be a great boon for scoring, say, to > include and EDIT sound effects and music right in-score -- think of Vegas, > with its music generator. The whole score could be built in place instead of > swapping out to an audio application, bringing it back, stretching or > shrinking, transposing, etc. > >> What I'd like to see is way way better midi/notation integration. I'm still >> amazed at the poor midi output Finale generates when I dump a score out of it >> and load it into Digital Performer or Logic. > > INTEGRATION with them, exactly, so that edits in Logic or Sonar would appear > in the Finale score, in the audio file, and multi-vice-versa. > > Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
The likelihood that the Steinberg product will both A) meet its (unoffiicial mind you) release date target and B) be the be-all, end-all notation product some are touting it as is highly unlikely. I don't mean to sound like I would be unhappy if it happened, but I've been around this track too many times before. If they are saying now 18 months, then if it is one of the extremely few planned software projects lucky enough to actually see the light of day, 36-48 months is a more likely release time frame. And while it will do some one thing the developers are determined to revolutionize far better than Fin or Sib, we'll be lucky if the overall feature set is 75% of what Fin and Sib have. And even that one revolutionized thing will probably only target a specific user subset. There is something enticing about a clean slate: a fresh architecture on contemporary toolsets. But the reality is, by the time you bring a large software project to market, your toolset that was so new at the beginning has been superceded and your wonderful flexibile program architecture has been utterly compromised by real-world demands. When it comes to software, I have far greater faith in incremental change. The incremental changes in both Fin and Sib are actually pretty revolutionary when you consider them over the last 10-15 years. I am sorry to see Sib sidelined because it could slow the pace of change in Fin. Meanwhile, I hold out little hope for a software product whose only output so far is a couple of blog posts. I hope I'm wrong. BTW: Personally, I would see the many remaining notation deficiencies addressed before turning Finale into a DAW program. Maybe the various DAW companies (like MOTU) could be persuaded to support MusicXML? (Do they already? The only reason I say this is someone said they were using MIDI files.) On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz < bath...@maltedmedia.com> wrote: > On Wed, November 20, 2013 2:39 pm, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > > Audio editing.not sure if that is a biggie. Finale does have, I > think, the > > ability to include/record audio. But how many people actually use that? > > I'm not sure. I certainly do, and have for years. I have scores that > include > electronic sections that need to show as waveforms, fx tracks, include > synth > instrument versions, etc. It would be a great boon for scoring, say, to > include and EDIT sound effects and music right in-score -- think of Vegas, > with its music generator. The whole score could be built in place instead > of > swapping out to an audio application, bringing it back, stretching or > shrinking, transposing, etc. > > > What I'd like to see is way way better midi/notation integration. I'm > still > > amazed at the poor midi output Finale generates when I dump a score out > of it > > and load it into Digital Performer or Logic. > > INTEGRATION with them, exactly, so that edits in Logic or Sonar would > appear > in the Finale score, in the audio file, and multi-vice-versa. > > Dennis > > > > > > ___ > 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] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
does every version have to be "innovative"? hm, innovative means "new" apparently. how much more "new" shit do you think can really be crammed into a mature notation programme today without first vastly improving the frame all this stuff you want needs to carry it? there were some serious improvements that are well worth the money for the upgrade (i haven't yet only for reasons of system change and software i would then also have to upgrade and loss of eudora etc. etc.) -- as you point out. but in the rest of your message, you sound like someone who needs a finale water bottle ® with your upgrade or some sparkly new button that does essentially nothing new or better than the old one. sorry, not me. i have been dreaming of a ground-up makeover for years. craig, man, turn down the doomsday rhetoric and "double down" into some real facts please. :-) At 10:54 -0500 11/20/13, Craig Parmerlee wrote: >I would point out that Finale 2014 essentially >provides no real advancement in the start of the >art. It is clearly a better >implementation of the same old features than >what we had with 2011 and 2012. But there is >nothing at all innovative in this package. >That's not really a criticism. Other than some >typical bugs that I'm sure will be worked out in >due course, I really like Finale 2014 and don't >regret the upgrade at all. It "feels" better to >use. Lots of little things seem to work better, ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
I use Digital Performer, and I don't see MusicXML. They do have Final Cut Pro XML, OMF, AAF, and AudioDesk (which I believe is a scaled down version of DP they ship with their hardware interfaces). Generally, the midi from Finale is OK, but to really be able to switch back and forth between it and something else, MIDI isn't really going to do it.. NOT Sent while Skydiving -- On Nov 20, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: > The likelihood that the Steinberg product will both A) meet its > (unoffiicial mind you) release date target and B) be the be-all, end-all > notation product some are touting it as is highly unlikely. I don't mean to > sound like I would be unhappy if it happened, but I've been around this > track too many times before. > > If they are saying now 18 months, then if it is one of the extremely few > planned software projects lucky enough to actually see the light of day, > 36-48 months is a more likely release time frame. And while it will do some > one thing the developers are determined to revolutionize far better than > Fin or Sib, we'll be lucky if the overall feature set is 75% of what Fin > and Sib have. And even that one revolutionized thing will probably only > target a specific user subset. > > There is something enticing about a clean slate: a fresh architecture on > contemporary toolsets. But the reality is, by the time you bring a large > software project to market, your toolset that was so new at the beginning > has been superceded and your wonderful flexibile program architecture has > been utterly compromised by real-world demands. > > When it comes to software, I have far greater faith in incremental change. > The incremental changes in both Fin and Sib are actually pretty > revolutionary when you consider them over the last 10-15 years. I am sorry > to see Sib sidelined because it could slow the pace of change in Fin. > Meanwhile, I hold out little hope for a software product whose only output > so far is a couple of blog posts. I hope I'm wrong. > > BTW: Personally, I would see the many remaining notation deficiencies > addressed before turning Finale into a DAW program. Maybe the various DAW > companies (like MOTU) could be persuaded to support MusicXML? (Do they > already? The only reason I say this is someone said they were using MIDI > files.) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
On 11/20/2013 4:09 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > I use Digital Performer, and I don't see MusicXML. They do have Final Cut Pro > XML, OMF, AAF, and AudioDesk (which I believe is a scaled down version of DP > they ship with their hardware interfaces). > [snip] My first thought when reading about the reorganization at MakeMusic is that the new owners, being venture capitalists and not software developers, are looking to reshape the Finale team so they can make it more marketable to another company such as Cakewalk. Steinberg is developing their own notation program, Avid has Sibelius to go along with ProTools, Presonus bought up Notion, so the only independent notation program is Finale. Thinking like a venture capitalist, that's what I would do -- invest in modernizing the code so that it could more easily be incorporated into another product line, get a new upgrade out the door to recoup some of the investment as well as prove to potential corporate buyers that there's a thriving marketplace still, then unload just Finale or possibly the whole company or spinoff SmartMusic on its own and sell that also to some educational software company. Only time will tell -- in the meantime I'm satisfied with Finale2014, at least so far. The only problem I've run into is that when I print, if I need to change something in the printer driver, such as duplexing, once I OK that dialog the entire Finale Print dialog disappears. Then when I click Print again in Finale, the computer beeps at me as if I was a stupid fool and Finale's print dialog appears again. I have no idea if that's a Finale problem, a Win8.1/Finale-combination problem or what, but it's annoying since I can't set up the duplexing from within Finale's print dialog. -- 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] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
Chances are that the print dialog is still there, behind the Finale window. Same problem with Finale 2012 (Win7), which insists on being on top when it shouldn't; this happens for me in print dialogs and the 3rd party pdf printer I use. BTW, the internal pdf generator has known bugs in both Finale 2012 and 2014 -- it produces stray triplet "3" characters along the bottom of certain pages -- plus the pdf's it produces are 4-5 times larger at the same quality level than other pdf software I've used. -Lee Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com -Original Message- From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [mailto:finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf Of David H. Bailey Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 1:37 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic On 11/20/2013 4:09 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > I use Digital Performer, and I don't see MusicXML. They do have Final Cut Pro XML, OMF, AAF, and AudioDesk (which I believe is a scaled down version of DP they ship with their hardware interfaces). > [snip] My first thought when reading about the reorganization at MakeMusic is that the new owners, being venture capitalists and not software developers, are looking to reshape the Finale team so they can make it more marketable to another company such as Cakewalk. Steinberg is developing their own notation program, Avid has Sibelius to go along with ProTools, Presonus bought up Notion, so the only independent notation program is Finale. Thinking like a venture capitalist, that's what I would do -- invest in modernizing the code so that it could more easily be incorporated into another product line, get a new upgrade out the door to recoup some of the investment as well as prove to potential corporate buyers that there's a thriving marketplace still, then unload just Finale or possibly the whole company or spinoff SmartMusic on its own and sell that also to some educational software company. Only time will tell -- in the meantime I'm satisfied with Finale2014, at least so far. The only problem I've run into is that when I print, if I need to change something in the printer driver, such as duplexing, once I OK that dialog the entire Finale Print dialog disappears. Then when I click Print again in Finale, the computer beeps at me as if I was a stupid fool and Finale's print dialog appears again. I have no idea if that's a Finale problem, a Win8.1/Finale-combination problem or what, but it's annoying since I can't set up the duplexing from within Finale's print dialog. -- 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] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
Hi all, Regarding MusicXML support in DAWs, Cubase supports MusicXML import and export, while Logic and SONAR support MusicXML export. Please let MOTU know that you want to see MusicXML support added to Digital Performer. It means more coming from customers like you than vendors like us. Regarding the reorganization, let me quote what my colleague Beth Sorensen posted on our forum and sent to Philip at the Sibelius Blog for clarification: "Yvonne Grover, formerly MakeMusic QA Manager, is now Notation Product Manager. Erin Vork continues in her role as Notation and Garritan Product Specialist. Those are the people you will most likely see here on the forum. We of course have many other people who are communicating with customers regularly, including people in sales, educational services, trade shows, and social media. "It is always sad to see our colleagues leave, but the departures from the company are a small part of the overall reorganization. Justin was the only person to depart from the Finale team. We had one departure from the SmartMusic team and two others from corporate positions. "None of these departures involved technology staff. We are currently hiring for 2 positions in the technology organization and another in the product management organization. We have more hires planned for the future. Finale 2014 has been well received in the marketplace and we are preparing our first maintenance update to address issues reported here and elsewhere." Best regards, Michael Good VP of R&D MakeMusic, Inc. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] DS al fine
That's it! - Thank you. I still cannot for the life of me think why the default is that they should not show. I cannot think of any circumstance in which I would want to tell only half of the orchestra that there is a DC. Thanks again, Lawrence On 20 November 2013 18:09, Christopher Smith wrote: > I see this when I use old templates to create new pieces in 2012. Usually > it's a combination of two things: > > 1. the staff is set to NOT show text repeats. Staff Attributes has the > solution. You can also use the plugin Global Staff Attributes to change > them all at once, though this makes bass staves of piano parts show them, > too. > > 2. the staff assignment for the text repeat somehow gets set to only a few > staves. Right click and choose Edit Assignment (then follow the steps) to > get it to show. > > This gets very long when there are a lot of repeats in a tune (like the 15 > minute medley I did a while back.) > > Christopher > > > On Wed Nov 20, at WednesdayNov 20 12:20 PM, Lawrence Yates wrote: > > > HI folks, > > > > Sorry to trouble you with this one. I've had this problem before and > can't > > remember what the solution is. > > > > DS al fine etc show on the score but not on all of the parts (which seems > > stupid to me!) > > > > Could someone please remind me what I need to do to make them appear on > all > > parts. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Lawrence > > > > -- > > Lawrenceyates.co.uk > > ___ > > 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 > > -- Lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
This forum is not a focus group. It seems to me the majority of people here are long-term users who are content with the mode of operation that has existed for over a decade. So I have no interest in a one-sided discussion that will inevitably be a list of reasons why "it can't be done." If Finale wanted to convent a focus group, I would be happy to share my thoughts that are based on 50 years as a musician and 40 years involvement in complex software design, including innovative user interfaces. I stand by my statement that (almost) everything about the notation process can and should be made at least an order of magnitude more intuitive and productive. A big exception to that is the managed parts feature. I think they did a very nice job with that concept. There is room for refinements, but not a magnitude improvement. On 11/20/2013 3:04 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > On Nov 20, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: > >> On 11/20/2013 11:15 AM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: >>> I think both finale and Sibelius are pretty much the top of what you can do >>> with notation. I don't really know what people expect other than little >>> refinements to the programs in each version. >> Everything about the process of notation can be made a full order of >> magnitude more intuitive and productive. > But you fail to list anything > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
On 11/20/2013 3:19 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: > The likelihood that the Steinberg product will both A) meet its > (unoffiicial mind you) release date target ... > > If they are saying now 18 months, then if it is one of the extremely few > planned software projects lucky enough to actually see the light of day, I don't believe they have made any such projection. The 18 months was my own speculation based on where they stand in the component design and coding and unit testing process today. It was just a "for instance" date, and the exact number isn't particularly important. What seems certain is that Stenberg is committed to it, and they have the deep pockets of Yamaha behind them. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
On 11/20/2013 4:36 PM, David H. Bailey wrote: > My first thought when reading about the reorganization at MakeMusic is > that the new owners, being venture capitalists and not software > developers, are looking to reshape the Finale team so they can make it > more marketable to another company such as Cakewalk. Steinberg is > developing their own notation program, Avid has Sibelius to go along > with ProTools, Presonus bought up Notion, so the only independent > notation program is Finale. Thinking like a venture capitalist, that's > what I would do -- invest in modernizing the code so that it could > more easily be incorporated into another product line, get a new > upgrade out the door to recoup some of the investment as well as prove > to potential corporate buyers that there's a thriving marketplace > still, then unload just Finale or possibly the whole company or > spinoff SmartMusic on its own and sell that also to some educational > software company. It is an interesting thought. This is definitely the normal "KKR" mode of operation used over and over by turnaround specialists. The situation may be slightly different in this instance because the present ownership has a longer term involvement with Coda/MakeMusic. They didn't race in a buy the company for a quick flip. Instead they bought it to protect a sizable investment they already had made. Nonetheless, I think you make a solid point that ownership's goal is surely to prepare the company to be attractive as an exit plan. I don't know that the reorganization foreshadows breaking the company into component pieces to sell off individually. But it isn't bad to keep that option open. The universe of buyers is not particularly large, as there has already been a lot of consolidation in the music technology business. Avid bought Sibelius, which made a little sense. But then they proceeded to gut that development team. Avid hasn't made a profit for over 5 years. because of that experience, others are probably not eager to jump into the notation space. Steinberg is backed by Yamaha, and having an advanced notation product makes perfect sense for Yamaha, given their marketing reach throughout the entire music business. But they have already placed their bets with Daniel Spreadbury. I believe that Cakewalk is the most likely target. They were acquired by Roland a few years back, and that almost killed Cakewalk/Sonar. Things just moved too slowly under Roland. Roland is selling Cakewalk to Gibson, which is one of the real Goliaths in the music business. Most of Gibson's properties are on the performing side, but the acquisition of Cakewalk indicates an interest in growing into the software side of the music technology business. They have the muscle to support this long-term. Beyond that, I just don't see very many good fits. Maybe one of the big music publishing houses would be interested in owning the notation product that most of the new scores are written with. But that's a long shot, I'd think. I guess there is the Steinway/Conn/Selmer/UMI thing. But they really are into physical instruments and not anything electronic. There are second tier companies like Vienna Instruments, which is a competitor of Garritan, and perceived as more of an upscale product. They might have an interest, but that seems like a big bite for them to swallow. Considering all of the above, if Gibson isn't interested, then I don't see a good acquisition play. That leaves the ownership with the need to make the company attractive enough to take it public again. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] #5
OK so while we are on the subject ;) Why are accidentals called accidentals? 'don't bout you but I place them there on purpose not by accident ;) Actually, that statement is from a composition teacher that I once had. It is one of my favorites. Terry On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 10:16 AM, Chuck Israels wrote: There's a reason they are called "courtesy". Chuck On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:07 AM, Jim Dukey wrote: > Weak? Then I've known and played with SO Many Weak Players, > from the San Francisco Symphony, and virtually ALL groups I've ever played in. > Players who mark their parts to be SURE of the accidentals. > Check your precious Finale Parts sometime, see what the players marked in. > Or the Conductor. > See how they ruined them… > ___ > 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 ___ 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] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
This is my opinion only guys. I can happily do my projects in F2008 and you can also. Yes, there are some additions that would be nice but the fact is we are dealing with a system, music notation, that was created many years ago and hasn't changed significantly. Finale, Sibelius and now Steinberg give most of us the tools we need. And the fact is that notation is becoming less important with younger pop musicians. So the market is shrinking. As already stated companies have to make the stock holder happy. I remember Dick Grove once said to "your success as a composer or arranger/producer is not being made by someone that understands creativity or even like music, it is being made by a bean counter." I sincerely feel we are at the start gloomy period for Finale. I also hope I'm wrong. Musically, Terry On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:46 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: On 11/20/2013 4:36 PM, David H. Bailey wrote: > My first thought when reading about the reorganization at MakeMusic is > that the new owners, being venture capitalists and not software > developers, are looking to reshape the Finale team so they can make it > more marketable to another company such as Cakewalk. Steinberg is > developing their own notation program, Avid has Sibelius to go along > with ProTools, Presonus bought up Notion, so the only independent > notation program is Finale. Thinking like a venture capitalist, that's > what I would do -- invest in modernizing the code so that it could > more easily be incorporated into another product line, get a new > upgrade out the door to recoup some of the investment as well as prove > to potential corporate buyers that there's a thriving marketplace > still, then unload just Finale or possibly the whole company or > spinoff SmartMusic on its own and sell that also to some educational > software company. It is an interesting thought. This is definitely the normal "KKR" mode of operation used over and over by turnaround specialists. The situation may be slightly different in this instance because the present ownership has a longer term involvement with Coda/MakeMusic. They didn't race in a buy the company for a quick flip. Instead they bought it to protect a sizable investment they already had made. Nonetheless, I think you make a solid point that ownership's goal is surely to prepare the company to be attractive as an exit plan. I don't know that the reorganization foreshadows breaking the company into component pieces to sell off individually. But it isn't bad to keep that option open. The universe of buyers is not particularly large, as there has already been a lot of consolidation in the music technology business. Avid bought Sibelius, which made a little sense. But then they proceeded to gut that development team. Avid hasn't made a profit for over 5 years. because of that experience, others are probably not eager to jump into the notation space. Steinberg is backed by Yamaha, and having an advanced notation product makes perfect sense for Yamaha, given their marketing reach throughout the entire music business. But they have already placed their bets with Daniel Spreadbury. I believe that Cakewalk is the most likely target. They were acquired by Roland a few years back, and that almost killed Cakewalk/Sonar. Things just moved too slowly under Roland. Roland is selling Cakewalk to Gibson, which is one of the real Goliaths in the music business. Most of Gibson's properties are on the performing side, but the acquisition of Cakewalk indicates an interest in growing into the software side of the music technology business. They have the muscle to support this long-term. Beyond that, I just don't see very many good fits. Maybe one of the big music publishing houses would be interested in owning the notation product that most of the new scores are written with. But that's a long shot, I'd think. I guess there is the Steinway/Conn/Selmer/UMI thing. But they really are into physical instruments and not anything electronic. There are second tier companies like Vienna Instruments, which is a competitor of Garritan, and perceived as more of an upscale product. They might have an interest, but that seems like a big bite for them to swallow. Considering all of the above, if Gibson isn't interested, then I don't see a good acquisition play. That leaves the ownership with the need to make the company attractive enough to take it public again. ___ 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] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
On 11/20/2013 9:07 PM, terry cano wrote: > This is my opinion only guys. > I can happily do my projects in F2008 and you can also. Yes, there are some > additions that would be nice but the fact is we are dealing with a system, > music notation, that was created many years ago and hasn't changed > significantly. Finale, Sibelius and now Steinberg give most of us the tools > we need. And the fact is that notation is becoming less important with > younger pop musicians. So the market is shrinking. > As already stated companies have to make the stock holder happy. I remember > Dick Grove once said to > "your success as a composer or arranger/producer is not being made by someone > that understands creativity or even like music, it is being made by a bean > counter." > I sincerely feel we are at the start gloomy period for Finale. I also hope > I'm wrong. > Musically, > Terry In any tech business, if you sit still, you lose ground. And you correctly identified some specific reasons for that in the notation business. The only way to counter that is to evolve the product to have substantially greater value for the existing customer base or to make the product attractive to new customers -- ideally both. There is absolutely no question that there is a body of potential customers who would like to use computer notation, but the products have such a steep learning curve that they give up. We all know people like that. Offhand I can immediately think of 15 fellow musicians that meet that description. And curiously, about 1/3 of them have purchased a Finale or Sibelius release sometime in the past and given up. If they aren't buying upgrades, they aren't helping the product move forward. And there is another body of users who are very tech savvy and would use notation, but work primarily in the DAW space. Many of these people spend hundreds -- even thousands of dollars every year on VSTs and other software. Many of them would drop hundreds on a notation product if it fit into their world. Without reaching one or both of those markets, I have to agree with your assessments. But those customers are reachable by a supplier who understands that we don't have to stop once we have perfected the emulation of quill and parchment. Will it be Finale and their intrepid base of loyal, long-term users or will it be somebody else? That is the question, I believe. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] #5
My music theory teacher always called them "on purposes", not accidentals' John - Original Message - From: "terry cano" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:52 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] #5 > OK so while we are on the subject ;) Why are accidentals called > accidentals? 'don't bout you but I place them there on purpose not by > accident ;) Actually, that statement is from a composition teacher that I > once had. > It is one of my favorites. > Terry > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 10:16 AM, Chuck Israels > wrote: > > There's a reason they are called "courtesy". > > Chuck > > > On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:07 AM, Jim Dukey wrote: > >> Weak? Then I've known and played with SO Many Weak Players, >> from the San Francisco Symphony, and virtually ALL groups I've ever >> played in. >> Players who mark their parts to be SURE of the accidentals. >> Check your precious Finale Parts sometime, see what the players marked >> in. >> Or the Conductor. >> See how they ruined them… >> ___ >> 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 > > > > > ___ > 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] #5
Accidental: something that happens, when the music strays from its original key. Klaus > > From: John Witmer >To: finale@shsu.edu >Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:32 AM >Subject: Re: [Finale] #5 > > >My music theory teacher always called them "on purposes", not accidentals' > >John >- Original Message - >From: "terry cano" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:52 PM >Subject: Re: [Finale] #5 > > >> OK so while we are on the subject ;) Why are accidentals called >> accidentals? 'don't bout you but I place them there on purpose not by >> accident ;) Actually, that statement is from a composition teacher that I >> once had. >> It is one of my favorites. >> Terry >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 10:16 AM, Chuck Israels >> wrote: >> >> There's a reason they are called "courtesy". >> >> Chuck >> >> >> On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:07 AM, Jim Dukey wrote: >> >>> Weak? Then I've known and played with SO Many Weak Players, >>> from the San Francisco Symphony, and virtually ALL groups I've ever >>> played in. >>> Players who mark their parts to be SURE of the accidentals. >>> Check your precious Finale Parts sometime, see what the players marked >>> in. >>> Or the Conductor. >>> See how they ruined them… >>> ___ >>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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] Layoffs and reorganization announced at MakeMusic
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: There is absolutely no question that there is a body of potential > customers who would like to use computer notation, but the products have > such a steep learning curve that they give up. We all know people like > that. > If they thought Finale and Sibelius were difficult, Score would have them reaching for the Advil bottle ;) THAT is one difficult program to master. Wowsa. Thanks, Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notion and Presonus
On 11/20/2013 4:36 PM, David H. Bailey wrote: > Steinberg is developing their own notation program, Avid has Sibelius > to go along with ProTools, Presonus bought up Notion, so the only > independent notation program is Finale. I had missed the news about Presonus and Notion. That is very interesting. Things are moving quickly. There are lots of DAWs out there, but I think the 5 most significant players (just my opinion) are: - Avid ProTools because of their specialized hardware and presence in the high end studios. They own Sibelius. - Yamaha/Steinberg Cubase/Nuendo because of their user base and history of software standard-setting. They are developing a next-generation notation product. - Presonus StudioOne as a real up-and-comer. Very well liked, and rapid feature delivery by the vendor. They just acquired Notion. - Gibson/Cakewalk SONAR because of their long tradition in MIDI sequencing and a super-loyal and very active user base. They have a minimal notation capability today. - Reaper because of their very low price ($60) -- great price-performer for the hobbyist. The first four are the "professional" and "very serious hobbyist" products, I believe. I included Reaper because its very low price has bought a big user base. There are lots of others (Reason, Garageband, Ableton, Acid, Logic, etc), but I don't think they are taken as seriously as the 5 I listed. It is very interesting that the first three all have some priority on adding high-end notation to their product line. I believe that reflects a fundamental generational change. Yesterday's composer was often classically trained, starting with music theory, study of the ancient works, etc. The old model is to compose in a score and maybe later get the music produced. Today's musician is often a more intuitive, experimental composer, composing interactively while creating the performance itself. In other words, they are a DAW-first musician, and the score may come later. There is another group of musicians that works very heavily with video, and again, many of them find the interactive style of composing the most natural way to work. But many of them eventually need to involve other musicians -- sometimes even full orchestras in the performance of their music, so they want to be able to do professional quality notation. This, I believe, is why we are seeing the notation products absorbed into the biggest DAW suppliers. And as I mentioned elsewhere, the one that stands out as not having such a notation capability is Cakewalk, which is in the process of being acquired by Gibson. Gibson talked pretty big about the Cakewalk acquisition being their entry point into software. If a Gibson/Finale connection were to come about, I think that would be excellent. That is a company with dynamic leadership, deep pockets, and a considerable amount of vision. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re(2): #5
>From the Latin, Accidere indeed means "something that happens", in addition to >an expected course of events. The word is composed by the particle "A" >(versus, in the direction of...) and "Cidere" (to fall). Giovanni Giovanni Andreani www.giovanniandreani.eu >Accidental: something that happens, when the music strays from its >original key. > >Klaus > > >> >> From: John Witmer >>To: finale@shsu.edu >>Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:32 AM >>Subject: Re: [Finale] #5 >> >> >>My music theory teacher always called them "on purposes", not accidentals' >> >>John >>- Original Message - >>From: "terry cano" >>To: >>Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:52 PM >>Subject: Re: [Finale] #5 >> >> >>> OK so while we are on the subject ;) Why are accidentals called >>> accidentals? 'don't bout you but I place them there on purpose not by >>> accident ;) Actually, that statement is from a composition teacher that I >>> once had. >>> It is one of my favorites. >>> Terry >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 10:16 AM, Chuck Israels >>> wrote: >>> >>> There's a reason they are called "courtesy". >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> >>> On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:07 AM, Jim Dukey wrote: >>> Weak? Then I've known and played with SO Many Weak Players, from the San Francisco Symphony, and virtually ALL groups I've ever played in. Players who mark their parts to be SURE of the accidentals. Check your precious Finale Parts sometime, see what the players marked in. Or the Conductor. See how they ruined them... ___ 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
