Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
On 25/07/05, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 01:16 PM 7/25/05 +, Robert Patterson wrote: > >> one must remember that different pages have different staff >> configurations. (Look at any Mahler Symphony score.) On one >> page Fls 1&2 share a staff. The next page they may split onto >> 2 staves. Even worse, on one page Hns 1,3,5,7 share a staff, >> but on another page there are four horn staves, arranged 1/2, >> 3/4, 5/7, 6/8. On another there are 2 staves, etc. > > If I can just mention once again the importance of changing Finale's > assignment approach from staff+layer to line. If the data always follows > the line, not the staff, then shared staves, a2, tacit, etc., (almost) > always work out. I second that, however there may be a workaround to get multiple-line staves into separate parts with a combination of Sibelius-like Dynamic Parts and TGTools' Smart Explosion. Unfortunately it would probably only work efficiently on parts where (for example) two flutes share a staff for the whole score, but here it is: It would involve creating a separate "Parts" file like so many of us are already used to doing. The difference would be that you would run TGTools' Smart Explosion only on the necessary staves in the "Parts" file before printing out the actual parts. This method would require you only to Explode the multi-line staves each time you want to create a new set of parts (then, theoretically, the exploded lines would have their own Dynamic Parts). This would also require all changes to be made to the score, since that exploded Parts file would not be linked to the main Score file. This is only a mental exercise at this point, but it still points out a potential benefit to including Sibelius-like Dynamic Parts in Finale without a slew of new options. Of course, I'm not suggesting that MakeMusic! should implement Dynamic Parts without improving at all upon the Sib4 model, but no complete rethinking of the feature is absolutely *necessary* to achieve an effect that would satisfy a (hopefully) large number of Finale users (myself included). -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Life would be so much easier if only (3/2)^12=(2/1)^7. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
At 01:16 PM 7/25/05 +, Robert Patterson wrote: >one must remember that different pages have different staff >configurations. (Look at any Mahler Symphony score.) On one >page Fls 1&2 share a staff. The next page they may split onto >2 staves. Even worse, on one page Hns 1,3,5,7 share a staff, >but on another page there are four horn staves, arranged 1/2, >3/4, 5/7, 6/8. On another there are 2 staves, etc. If I can just mention once again the importance of changing Finale's assignment approach from staff+layer to line. If the data always follows the line, not the staff, then shared staves, a2, tacit, etc., (almost) always work out. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
David Bailey: > > I'm not sure you can say the output is superior -- the ability to work > in modes that Sibelius doesn't approve of is superior in Finale, but the > output to paper can look gorgeous with either program > I believe this is what I said, too, in so many words. > So, apparently, if you organize your workflow > and the parts entry in a certain way, you will be able to accomplish > something similar to, but not quite equal to, a built-in ability to have > separate parts for multi-part staves. > Fair enough, and no doubt frequently useful. But to go the last mile, one must remember that different pages have different staff configurations. (Look at any Mahler Symphony score.) On one page Fls 1&2 share a staff. The next page they may split onto 2 staves. Even worse, on one page Hns 1,3,5,7 share a staff, but on another page there are four horn staves, arranged 1/2, 3/4, 5/7, 6/8. On another there are 2 staves, etc. TGTools is extremely powerful for automatically splitting these onto (in the case of 8 horns) 8 separate staves, provided you have deployed them carefully in the score. Also, don't underrate the importance of treating string divisi differently in scores than in parts. In scores, combining divisi on single staves is common and frequently practical. In parts, the much better practice is to break them out onto separate staves, unless the entire divisi passage is completely homophonic and straightforward (and even then only to facilitate a page turn). Separate staves are particularly important when each divisi part contains doublestops. Where you run into trouble is that the system breaks occur at different places, which means the part splits into multiple staves (and returns to single staves) on different bars than in the score. I use TGTools Smart Explode for this as well, although since it wasn't really designed for it, I have to use it in patches. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
Robert Patterson wrote: None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking is an ease-of-use feature and 2) Finale's output is still essentially equal to if not superior to Sib's. (Specifically, it is superior when the user wants a notation that Sib doesn't approve of.) If you tell me that I can split a part in the score into multiple staves in the score and still have the linking work, then I'll be impressed. [snip] I'm not sure you can say the output is superior -- the ability to work in modes that Sibelius doesn't approve of is superior in Finale, but the output to paper can look gorgeous with either program, and can look awful with either program, depending on the engraver's eye of the user. Ease of use in certain engraving areas is far superior in Finale, but Siblius is rapidly closing that gap, as the program has loosened its "Why would you want to do that? Don't you even think about it!" attitude. The ability to split a multi-part staff into separate parts isn't part of Sibelius' dynamic parts capability yet, but I'm sure they will figure out a way. There have already been several workarounds discussed on the Sibelius list, one that one of the Finn brothers (can't remember, Jonathan or Ben) suggests, and one that Daniel Spreadbury suggests, and another that an end-user suggested. It involves using voices (Sibelius' version of Finale's layers) and filtering (sort of Sibelius' version of Show Active Layer Only). So, apparently, if you organize your workflow and the parts entry in a certain way, you will be able to accomplish something similar to, but not quite equal to, a built-in ability to have separate parts for multi-part staves. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
Michael Cook wrote: On 24 Jul 2005, at 17:10, Robert Patterson wrote: I remain skeptical that Sib's dynamic linking will be able to maintain your high standards when this amount of revision is required. (Specifically, an amount of revision that forces an entirely new page layout in the parts.) Nevertheless, I certainly can envision that it would have made life easier. I just had a look at the the Sibelius demo: it's no problem to change all sorts of things in a part without affecting the score in any way. You can change the paper size or page margins and redo the layout (making new system breaks, page breaks...). You can apply a different house style to each part, if you really want to. And all those various settings for each part get saved along with the file, so you can send the single file to anybody else and, assuming they have Sibelius 4, they can print it out and get exactly what you intended. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: Long slurs -- Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
On Jul 24, 2005, at 9:43 PM, John Howell wrote: Keeping in mind that there was an awful lot that Mosaic couldn't and still can't do, and that MOTU has stopped development, they had this feature from the very beginning. Every slur has not 3 but 4 adjustment points and is almost infinitely adjustable. I also discovered that you could grab the slur at any point to adjust it, not just on those 4 points. Just like linked scores and parts, these were in the program at least as early as 1992. Were Mosaic's programmers smarter than Finale's or were they just pursuing different goals? Or maybe working with better consulting musicians at that time? Dunno. It's not like there's anything high-tech about adding a factor that extends the middle of a slur. It's a bit of math, but that's elementary for the computer, whether today or 10 years ago or even 20 years ago. I think the Bezier curves are extremely powerful for such a straightforward equation, but it really needs that option to stretch it in the middle. Do that, and you'll have everything you need for professional looking slurs, I think. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: Long slurs -- Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
At 4:34 PM -0700 7/24/05, Mark D Lew wrote: It doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to fix. As I understand it, slurs are current drawn as a Bezier curve (actually, the space enclosed by two almost-parallel Bezier curves) and the slur tool gives the user access to the control points. Why not just introduce one more value that calls for x distance of straight line inserted in the middle of the slur? The midpoint and slope of the curve(s) is easily calculated. The program could just calculate the curve as if the control points are all displaced by a distance of x/2 inward toward the midpoint, split the curve in half, draw each with the actual endpoints, and then fill in the middle with a straight line -- pretty much the same thing that pre-digital engravers with their curve templates did for long slurs for decades. Keeping in mind that there was an awful lot that Mosaic couldn't and still can't do, and that MOTU has stopped development, they had this feature from the very beginning. Every slur has not 3 but 4 adjustment points and is almost infinitely adjustable. I also discovered that you could grab the slur at any point to adjust it, not just on those 4 points. Just like linked scores and parts, these were in the program at least as early as 1992. Were Mosaic's programmers smarter than Finale's or were they just pursuing different goals? Or maybe working with better consulting musicians at that time? Really good looking defaults (except for note spacing, like everybody else), linked score and parts, adjustable slurs. 1992. What can I tell you!? John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
At 10:57 PM 7/24/2005, you wrote: The filters certainly help a lot, but they aren't as bright as the TGTools plug-in. Dealing with more than 2 parts on a staff takes more effort, since the "select players for deletion" filters don't work in those situations, and if you have 2 voices in a single measure along with instances of single voice chords, that filter doesn't work. The TGTools option also understands how to handle specific text, such as solo, and can automatically remove text that wouldn't ordinarily be included on the separate parts. Yes, I agree that TGTools is more powerful in this regard, although I find the process a touch clumsy visually. I find that Sibelius also fails to consistently assign dynamics to the correct parts when different voices are used in different measures. Well that's up to the user. Each expression can be assigned to a specific voice or all voices, and at the same time can be attached to specific notes where dynamics diverge or clarity is needed (although you have to keep an eye on those attachment lines!). Dan Carno Daniel Carno Music Engraving Services Quality work in Sibelius, Finale, and Score 4514 Makyes Road Syracuse, New York 13215 (315) 492-2987 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
--- Dan Carno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 07:49 PM 7/24/2005, you wrote: > >Sibelius' Dynamic Parts does not cover this. You > will > >either need to extract the part the old-fashioned > way > >and split it, or create both flute staves on the > >score. They also don't have the option of a TGTools > >plug-in for helping with this. > > Hi Tyler, > > Not sure what you mean by your last sentence. If > you are talking about > splitting an a2 extracted part into separate parts, > Sibelius has pretty > nifty filtering for this that is nearly foolproof. > > Dan Carno The filters certainly help a lot, but they aren't as bright as the TGTools plug-in. Dealing with more than 2 parts on a staff takes more effort, since the "select players for deletion" filters don't work in those situations, and if you have 2 voices in a single measure along with instances of single voice chords, that filter doesn't work. The TGTools option also understands how to handle specific text, such as solo, and can automatically remove text that wouldn't ordinarily be included on the separate parts. I find that Sibelius also fails to consistently assign dynamics to the correct parts when different voices are used in different measures. Sibelius filters are awesome, and I find them to be very handy. It's just for this specific purpose TGTools seems to outperform them. Tyler Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
At 07:49 PM 7/24/2005, you wrote: Sibelius' Dynamic Parts does not cover this. You will either need to extract the part the old-fashioned way and split it, or create both flute staves on the score. They also don't have the option of a TGTools plug-in for helping with this. Hi Tyler, Not sure what you mean by your last sentence. If you are talking about splitting an a2 extracted part into separate parts, Sibelius has pretty nifty filtering for this that is nearly foolproof. Dan Carno Daniel Carno Music Engraving Services Quality work in Sibelius, Finale, and Score 4514 Makyes Road Syracuse, New York 13215 (315) 492-2987 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Finale's output quality
On 24 Jul 2005 at 15:00, Lee Actor wrote: > > > If you tell me that I can split a part in the score into multiple > > > staves in the score and still have the linking work, then I'll be > > > impressed. > > > > It may be that the kind of work you do would make that really > > valuable, but I've never had a single project where I'd have had any > > need for that. > > Apparently you've never done any work with full orchestra, or concert > band, or any large ensemble where it is SOP for multiple wind parts to > appear on a single staff in the score, but extracted into single > parts. . . . No, all my work is chamber music, early music and vocal music with parts -- no doubling parts at all. > . . . This fits the description of 95% of the work I do with > Finale. Well, to reiterate a point I've made before, I don't think anyone is suggesting that MakeMusic implement linked parts in a fashion that would make it impossible to continue to extract doubling parts in the same fashion as you've always done it. [] > One other thing: whether the parts and the score are linked or not, I > still have to add cues (the most time-consuming factor for me in doing > parts), and lay out decent page turns (I've tried Finale's automated > page turn plug-in, but I don't think it's adequate). Using TGTool's > Smart Explosion of Multi-part Staves, the remaining cleanup I > currently do on parts in Finale is relatively minor compared to those > two other items, so having linked score/parts would only be a minor > time savings for me, even if it did handle multi-part staves. I'm not > saying I wouldn't prefer it, or that it wouldn't come in handy for > those inevitable changes after everything is 100% "done", just that I > don't see it as the 2nd coming that some apparently do. Well, for me, extracting parts is the most painful thing I have to do. The worst part of it is when I learn new things about Finale that I have to go back and re-apply to existing scores and parts that were prepared and extracted some time ago. Maybe everyone else is so brilliant that they know everything about Finale already, but I'm not -- I'm constantly learning things that I need to go back and incorporate to make my Finale scores better. Or maybe people don't go back and incorporate improvements of this nature in "finished" projects. Or maybe it's the nature of my work, which is of three types: 1. work for my dissertation, which can't be said to be "finished" until, well, who knows when. 2. my own compositions, which get revised after run-throughs and performances. 3. works I've edited/scored up for use with the NYU Collegium, where I often come back and make changes to fix problems found in using the parts. For all of these, linked parts would cut down massively on the amount of work it takes to go back and tweak the parts based on new information. And right now, part preparation is taking about the same amount of time as the whole layout of the score process. If that could be reduced even by half, it would be a huge time savings for me. And I can't imagine that it wouldn't be a large time savings for the non-doubled parts for large ensembles, either (assuming it handles cues at least the way Sibelius does, by allowing you to enter music in the score that appears only in the parts). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
Tyler Turner wrote: Sibelius' Dynamic Parts does not cover this. You will either need to extract the part the old-fashioned way and split it, or create both flute staves on the score. They also don't have the option of a TGTools plug-in for helping with this. You are right that to separate two parts they must first be extracted. There are tools for this and it's not that hard. One thing I haven't figured out yet - when you actually do a manual part extraction, creating a separate part file, does that file maintain the changes you've made to the dynamic version of that part? We can't tell from the demo version. Yes the formatting from the dynamic parts is extracted with the part. It would be quite easy to leave any extractions needed until the very end and all other editing and corrections have been done May I add that, as a very active french hornist, I really prefer two parts to a stave. I have a much better idea of what's going on. That's just a personal preference. I realize different engraving jobs may have different requirements. What I DON'T like is three (or more) parts per stave. The middle voice(s) are to hard to isolate from the outer ones at sight and require too much concentration. I have limited RAM :) Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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
Long slurs -- Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
On Jul 24, 2005, at 7:21 AM, Robert Patterson wrote: Finale's quality of output is capable of meeting the most rigorous engraving standards I know of, with only one exception. Finale cannot produce a proper long slur mark. (Neither can Sibelius, nor any other program except the now defunct SCORE.) It's surprising that neither program has set out to correct this. For several years now it's been the one glaring gap in Finale's ability to produce professional-looking output. Pretty much anything else you can kludge one way or another, but with a long slur you're stuck. You're pretty much forced to raise the endpoints and settle for a long spindly curve. On several occasions, it has even affected my editorial decision-making: If a long slur is only marginally important, I'll sometimes choose to just leave it out, simply because Finale is incapable of drawing a proper looking one. Could it be that people have grown so accustomed to seeing curved long slurs that it's now considered normal and no one minds anymore? It doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to fix. As I understand it, slurs are current drawn as a Bezier curve (actually, the space enclosed by two almost-parallel Bezier curves) and the slur tool gives the user access to the control points. Why not just introduce one more value that calls for x distance of straight line inserted in the middle of the slur? The midpoint and slope of the curve(s) is easily calculated. The program could just calculate the curve as if the control points are all displaced by a distance of x/2 inward toward the midpoint, split the curve in half, draw each with the actual endpoints, and then fill in the middle with a straight line -- pretty much the same thing that pre-digital engravers with their curve templates did for long slurs for decades. The new x value would then be accessible to the user either by direct input or by a new handle in the slur tool that could be dragged back and forth for immediate eyeball feedback. Adding this new variable would actually help with many types of slurs. For example, those short slurs with a tall slope, you'd be able to put a more attractive curve on the endpoints than is currently possible. Most important, for those long slur stretching all the way across the page, you could put in a big stretch so that each end curves like a short slur with a big straight passage across the middle, just like it should be. As an added bonus, there could be a global slur option somewhere that says if a slur is more than y long, it automatically adds a stretch value of z. All the templates could come with some sensible value there, so that the non-power users wouldn't even have to think about long slurs. They'd come out reasonably nice by default. I'm the sort of user who likes to fuss over my files a lot anyway, so a lot of the ease-of-use requests don't make so much difference to me, since it's something I'm probably going to want to take the time to tweak anyway. This, on the other hand, would make an enormous difference. Unlike other failings of Finale where there's some roundabout kludge or plug-in to help you get it done, for a long slur there's just no way to do it at all no matter how much time you spend on it. It forces even the best and most meticulous engraver to put out an flawed product. Just as important to MakeMusic, perhaps, would be the marketing hook. If they would fix long slurs in one of their upgrades they'd once again be able to claim truthfully that Finale can create professional looking output that Sibelius et al cannot match. mdl P.S. Someone please remind me what the MM feature request email is, so I can forward this to them. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Finale's output quality
> > If you tell me that I can split a part in the score into multiple > > staves in the score and still have the linking work, then I'll be > > impressed. > > It may be that the kind of work you do would make that really > valuable, but I've never had a single project where I'd have had any > need for that. Apparently you've never done any work with full orchestra, or concert band, or any large ensemble where it is SOP for multiple wind parts to appear on a single staff in the score, but extracted into single parts. This fits the description of 95% of the work I do with Finale. I agree with Robert, it would be very impressive for a notation program to understand the relationship between multiple-parts-on-a-staff in the score and the individual extracted (for want of a better word) parts, and maintain the link between them for editing purposes, but until then I'll continue to take extra care that my full score is really, truly "finished" before extracting parts (and some of my orchestral scores are more than 100 pages). One other thing: whether the parts and the score are linked or not, I still have to add cues (the most time-consuming factor for me in doing parts), and lay out decent page turns (I've tried Finale's automated page turn plug-in, but I don't think it's adequate). Using TGTool's Smart Explosion of Multi-part Staves, the remaining cleanup I currently do on parts in Finale is relatively minor compared to those two other items, so having linked score/parts would only be a minor time savings for me, even if it did handle multi-part staves. I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer it, or that it wouldn't come in handy for those inevitable changes after everything is 100% "done", just that I don't see it as the 2nd coming that some apparently do. Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
On 24 Jul 2005 at 16:42, Robert Patterson wrote: > None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking > is an ease-of-use feature and 2) Finale's output is still essentially > equal to if not superior to Sib's. (Specifically, it is superior when > the user wants a notation that Sib doesn't approve of.) > > If you tell me that I can split a part in the score into multiple > staves in the score and still have the linking work, then I'll be > impressed. It may be that the kind of work you do would make that really valuable, but I've never had a single project where I'd have had any need for that. But linked parts in Finale implemented in a way that is similar to Sibelius 4 would be an absolutely enormous productivity benefit for me, in all the engraving that I do. And my bet is that there are lots more people like me than there are people like you, who depend on something that I would never use at all. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
--- Richard Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Robert Patterson" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > " Personally, I still think dynamically linked parts > are going to be of > little use to me. I like my parts to have cues and > to be separated by > instrument even when combined in the score. Heck, I > even break divisi string > parts out onto separate staves in the parts. Without > ever having seen what > Sib. offers, I am willing to bet they dynamic part > linking cannot navigate > those waters." > > > Actually, with dynamic parts, you can put cues in > the score, then set them > to be hidden in the score and seen in the parts. You > can also divide parts > as well as combine them (as in a percussion mini > score) as long as the > transposition remains the same for both parts. You > cannot yet add, say, a > treble clef euphonium in Bb to a concert pitch bass > clef part but that's on > the way. > > Richard Smith > www.rgsmithmusic.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > My understanding of what Robert is talking about with regard to separating parts is the idea of having for example a single flute staff on the score that has the notes for 1st and 2nd flute, but then having two separate parts made from this - a 1st flute part and a 2nd flute part. Sibelius' Dynamic Parts does not cover this. You will either need to extract the part the old-fashioned way and split it, or create both flute staves on the score. They also don't have the option of a TGTools plug-in for helping with this. One thing I haven't figured out yet - when you actually do a manual part extraction, creating a separate part file, does that file maintain the changes you've made to the dynamic version of that part? We can't tell from the demo version. Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
On 7/24/05, Robert Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm as quick as anyone to acknowledge Finale's shortcomings, but sometimes > the Finale bashing can be over the top. We should be clear that Finale gives > up *absolutely nothing* to Sib or any other competitor in quality of printed > output. What we have endless quibbled about is ease-of-use features, which > includes dynamically linked parts. > When I was chosing what program to get, I was in two choirs with people who often did their own scores for us - one was using Sibelius & the other Finale. How much nicer the Finale scores were more than made up for the fact that it was a bit harder to start out on. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
Robert Patterson schrieb: None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking is an ease-of-use feature and 2) Finale's output is still essentially equal to if not superior to Sib's. (Specifically, it is superior when the user wants a notation that Sib doesn't approve of.) No disagreement on that. Actually, I don't really have much of an opinion, since I don't know Sibelius 4 well enough. I remember trying V3 and deciding it's not there yet. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
- Original Message - From: "Robert Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> " Personally, I still think dynamically linked parts are going to be of little use to me. I like my parts to have cues and to be separated by instrument even when combined in the score. Heck, I even break divisi string parts out onto separate staves in the parts. Without ever having seen what Sib. offers, I am willing to bet they dynamic part linking cannot navigate those waters." Actually, with dynamic parts, you can put cues in the score, then set them to be hidden in the score and seen in the parts. You can also divide parts as well as combine them (as in a percussion mini score) as long as the transposition remains the same for both parts. You cannot yet add, say, a treble clef euphonium in Bb to a concert pitch bass clef part but that's on the way. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
On 24 Jul 2005, at 18:42, Robert Patterson wrote: None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking is an ease-of-use feature Certainly. But it is evident that Finale needs more ease of use to continue to exist next to Sibelius. and 2) Finale's output is still essentially equal to if not superior to Sib's. (Specifically, it is superior when the user wants a notation that Sib doesn't approve of.) Finale's output _can_ be superior to Sibelius's. It depends on who is doing the engraving. I think that someone with - (1) an expert knowledge of musical engraving, - (2) an expert knowledge of the particular software he or she uses and - (3) enough computer know-how and inventiveness to find clever workarounds for things the software apparently can't do will be able to produce a first class score with the engraving program they use, be it Finale or Sibelius. The problem for me is that Finale's output is very often inferior to Sibelius's, simply because Sibelius has better defaults. If you tell me that I can split a part in the score into multiple staves in the score and still have the linking work, then I'll be impressed. I can't see a way to do this: I'll let you know if it's possible, but I rather think it isn't. Michael Cook ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking is an ease-of-use feature and 2) Finale's output is still essentially equal to if not superior to Sib's. (Specifically, it is superior when the user wants a notation that Sib doesn't approve of.) If you tell me that I can split a part in the score into multiple staves in the score and still have the linking work, then I'll be impressed. > -Original Message- > From: Michael Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 04:01 PM > To: finale@shsu.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality > > On 24 Jul 2005, at 17:10, Robert Patterson wrote: > > I remain skeptical that Sib's dynamic linking will be able to maintain > > your high standards when this amount of revision is required. > > (Specifically, an amount of revision that forces an entirely new page > > layout in the parts.) Nevertheless, I certainly can envision that it > > would have made life easier. > > I just had a look at the the Sibelius demo: it's no problem to change > all sorts of things in a part without affecting the score in any way. > You can change the paper size or page margins and redo the layout > (making new system breaks, page breaks...). You can apply a different > house style to each part, if you really want to. > > Michael Cook > > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
On 24 Jul 2005, at 17:10, Robert Patterson wrote: I remain skeptical that Sib's dynamic linking will be able to maintain your high standards when this amount of revision is required. (Specifically, an amount of revision that forces an entirely new page layout in the parts.) Nevertheless, I certainly can envision that it would have made life easier. I just had a look at the the Sibelius demo: it's no problem to change all sorts of things in a part without affecting the score in any way. You can change the paper size or page margins and redo the layout (making new system breaks, page breaks...). You can apply a different house style to each part, if you really want to. Michael Cook ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
Robert Patterson schrieb: Johannes Gebauer: but eventually the changes to the score after the performance were so huge that I simply had no choice but to prepare a new "Parts-Score" I remain skeptical that Sib's dynamic linking will be able to maintain your high standards when this amount of revision is required. (Specifically, an amount of revision that forces an entirely new page layout in the parts.) Nevertheless, I certainly can envision that it would have made life easier. That's not what I meant. The first set of parts required was only going to be quick and dirty anyway. But the way it worked out I could just trash them afterwards and start again. With Sibelius 4 I could have done the quick and dirty version as linked parts, and later reworked those parts directly. It would have saved me doing Cue notes again, worrying about text blocks (which Finale handles dreadfully when extracting parts), things like that, and doing that all twice. Isn't this a "fool me once, shame one you; fool me twice, shame on me"? If you knew there would be that much revision, why didn't accepting the job include a revision fee? Partly because publishers pay per page in this country. I didn't say I was going to do it, in fact I had already said I didn't want to produce pre-release parts this time, unless the musical text was completely finished. As I said it didn't come to it. This is not about me and my fees, I was just trying to describe a typical situation where linked parts are going to make things easier. Other situation: I was doing a string quartet recently, lots of work. After I'd done about half the expressions work we wanted to play through it, so I wanted a quick and dirty set of parts. But I didn't want to spend all that time doing a layout that would work, and then having to do it again when everything was entered. It would have been nice to be able to do some layout for the parts which would stay there but would still be updateable when everything was entered. The way Finale produces parts makes this impossible. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
d. collins schrieb: Johannes Gebauer écrit: Problem is, Sibelius is very much the No.1 for publishers these days in Germany. Do you mean that most German publishers now use Sibelius? I don't have any data available, but from the feeling I get, yes. It used to be Score, many publishers stuck with Score until Sibelius 3 came about and then went Sibelius. Have a look here: http://www.notation.de/german/referenzen.html just one Engraving service. They use Sibelius exclusively. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
Johannes Gebauer: > but eventually the changes to the score after > the performance were so huge that I simply had no choice but to prepare > a new "Parts-Score" > I remain skeptical that Sib's dynamic linking will be able to maintain your high standards when this amount of revision is required. (Specifically, an amount of revision that forces an entirely new page layout in the parts.) Nevertheless, I certainly can envision that it would have made life easier. > This is not the end of the story: A few weeks later I was asked by the > same editor (still working for the same publisher) to do a similar thing > again. This time it was clear from quite early stages that after the > initial performance the same would happen again: Major changes to the > score, new "Parts-Score", new extraction. Lots of Layout work that had > to be done again. > Isn't this a "fool me once, shame one you; fool me twice, shame on me"? If you knew there would be that much revision, why didn't accepting the job include a revision fee? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
Robert Patterson schrieb: Personally, I still think dynamically linked parts are going to be of little use to me. I like my parts to have cues and to be separated by instrument even when combined in the score. Heck, I even break divisi string parts out onto separate staves in the parts. Without ever having seen what Sib. offers, I am willing to bet they dynamic part linking cannot navigate those waters. Actually, I think that for that purpose dynamically linked parts can only ever be an intermediate step. (Although I am sure cue notes could be much better incorporated into linked parts than in to separated parts.) The reason I still find this feature fascinating is some recent experiences with my work. They may be kind of special, but I think similar situations are quite common. I recently was asked to do an engraving job, which was later to be printed by a German publisher. However, part of the job was to get a set of score and parts out for a performance. Originally I didn't see much of a problem with the job, but eventually the changes to the score after the performance were so huge that I simply had no choice but to prepare a new "Parts-Score" (my usual intermediate step before extraction) and extract the 20 parts again. This was a huge job, and unfortunately the nature of the job made it impossible to just increase the fee massively. This is not the end of the story: A few weeks later I was asked by the same editor (still working for the same publisher) to do a similar thing again. This time it was clear from quite early stages that after the initial performance the same would happen again: Major changes to the score, new "Parts-Score", new extraction. Lots of Layout work that had to be done again. Eventually it didn't come to the performance pre-release in this case for other reasons. However, the whole thing would have been made very easy by dynamic parts ala Sibelius. I downloaded Sibelius the other day just to check out this feature, and although I haven't spent much time on it, it does seem that they have done a pretty good job. I would probably still unlink the parts eventually, but in the intermediate steps I could deliver more without spending more time. Problem is, Sibelius is very much the No.1 for publishers these days in Germany. If Sibelius can do it, they expect you to be able to do the same. That's the way it works. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Finale's output quality
I'm as quick as anyone to acknowledge Finale's shortcomings, but sometimes the Finale bashing can be over the top. We should be clear that Finale gives up *absolutely nothing* to Sib or any other competitor in quality of printed output. What we have endless quibbled about is ease-of-use features, which includes dynamically linked parts. Finale's quality of output is capable of meeting the most rigorous engraving standards I know of, with only one exception. Finale cannot produce a proper long slur mark. (Neither can Sibelius, nor any other program except the now defunct SCORE.) David Bailey's post seemed to be offering a contrast of Finale as a high quality playback engine vs. Sib. as high-quality engraving tool. This is an utterly false contrast. Fin (to believe the Fin06 hype) will perhaps offer a step up in playback quality, but gives up not a single thing to Sib. on quality of output. Finaly was and remains a top-quality engraving tool. What it apparently give up to Sib. is ease-of-use, at least in some areas. Personally, I still think dynamically linked parts are going to be of little use to me. I like my parts to have cues and to be separated by instrument even when combined in the score. Heck, I even break divisi string parts out onto separate staves in the parts. Without ever having seen what Sib. offers, I am willing to bet they dynamic part linking cannot navigate those waters. Meanwhile, I suspect that Finale's flexibility still makes it the serious engraver's first choice. David Bailey: > Or we can get the score to a wonderful appearance in Sibelius4, complete > with dynamic parts to make part-extraction life easier, but we can't get > the superior playback that Finale2006 offers. > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
