Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Ken Durling]

At 08:44 PM 7/27/2005, you wrote:

Here's what I had designed for their website:

  http://www.dfenton.com/CMF/

I was going to do it all for free, but the significant other of one
of the Festival board members is a "web designer," so he did it (it
was complete nepotism). I was never even told that they were
replacing the website.



Well now that's a vast improvement.  What a shame they didn't use 
it.  Nicely done.


Ken

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[David W. Fenton]

On 27 Jul 2005 at 23:14, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:

> At 08:00 PM 7/27/05 -0700, Ken  Durling wrote:
> >>
> >Wow, that really is an awful site!.
> 
> Maybe, but I can't even get it because on Firefox I have Flashblock
> installed, and IBM Homepage Reader is a speech reader. With no regular
> alternative, it's officially inaccessible. Hope they don't get public
> funds, because ADA Section 508 requires accessibility.

Oops! I never meant to send that post to the list -- it was intended 
for Ken, alone.

Yes, the website really, really sucks.

I have flashblock, too, and have to click on each one to navigate 
around it.

Here's what I had designed for their website:

  http://www.dfenton.com/CMF/

I was going to do it all for free, but the significant other of one 
of the Festival board members is a "web designer," so he did it (it 
was complete nepotism). I was never even told that they were 
replacing the website.

I haven't even bothered to tell my friend, the artistic director, 
that the sight sucks a big green one.

I still support the Festival, though. I think it's a really fine 
program.

-- 
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] notation program comparison

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 08:00 PM 7/27/05 -0700, Ken  Durling wrote:
>>
>Wow, that really is an awful site!.

Maybe, but I can't even get it because on Firefox I have Flashblock
installed, and IBM Homepage Reader is a speech reader. With no regular
alternative, it's officially inaccessible. Hope they don't get public
funds, because ADA Section 508 requires accessibility.

Dennis





___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Ken Durling]

At 12:28 PM 7/25/2005, you wrote:

I never realized Sibelius was in Walnut Creek, a town I've spent
quite a bit of time i


Interesting.  Did you live there at one time?



If you're near there, I suggest you might want to try out some of the
concerts of the California Music Festival. The concerts this year are
all at the Performing Arts Center in Walnut Creek. One of my best
friends, James Greening-Valenzuela (a native of Concord and a SF
Conservatory grad) is the artistic director. This year their chamber
music composer is Brahms and the opera is Mozart's Idomeneo.

The list of events is at
, though it's a
dreadful website, and concerts begin a week from Wednesday (8/3). If
you attend a concert, tell James I sent you!



Wow, that really is an awful site!.  Slow and awkward, but worst of all it 
doesn't list any performer's names except the director and his 
accompanist!  And the staff (I distantly know the violist listed 
there).  Who's playing is the main reason I go to concerts - I'm afraid I 
don't risk performances of the likes of Brahms any more without having some 
sense that it's going to be someone I want to hear  Not to impugn your 
friend and his choice of performers, I'm sure they're good, but really, not 
to give them billing on the site...  do you know if the personnel is listed 
anywhere else?  I'd like to know who's playing the Clarinet Quintet.  Not a 
piece you get to hear live that often.  I'd like to know the singer(s) too 
- Brahms Lieder well done are wonderful.


Ken




___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Mark D Lew]

On Jul 25, 2005, at 11:53 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:


I don't have time this afternoon to look at the decision but it
strikes me as wrong to call a font definition file a "program." It's
actually *data* to be used by some other program.

And so far as I am aware, you can't copyright data.

So, that would suggest to me that the case was wrongly decided
because of an invalid distinction between computer program and data.


You're quite right that one can't copyright data.  The courts have 
consistently ruled that a font definition file is a program, not data.


When a program like, say, Quark, is called upon to draw text, it 
calculates the position for the desired character -- say an "a" -- and 
then it calls on what is essentially a subroutine to draw that "a".  
The subroutine is in the font definition file.  It says something like: 
 Start at offset x,y; then draw horizontally for a distance of d, then 
draw a curve as defined by the equation f(n), then draw a diagonal line 
of slope l for a distance of d2 ... and so on and so forth until the 
character is drawn.  It is a small program that tells how to draw an 
"a", and that small program is used by all the other large programs 
that make use of fonts.


Ultimately, the borderline between "program" and "data" is fuzzy, I 
think.  At the other extreme, I might argue that any program written in 
an interpreter language (eg, BASIC) can't be copyrighted, since it's 
really just data to be used by the interpreter program, and you can't 
copyright data.  For that matter, why isn't C++ source code "data", 
too?  After all, it's just data to be used by the compiler.


Somewhere in the middle, the distinction between "program" and "data" 
becomes blurred.  I can see how reasonable people might differ on 
exactly where to draw the line.  In this case, the court's decision 
doesn't seem off-base to me.  (As oppoosed to some patents that have 
been given to some basic algorithms, but that's another thread)


mdl

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Mark D Lew]

On Jul 25, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:

and indeed, I am familiar with Adobe v. SSI; I would assert that the 
U.S. Supreme Court decision is illogical and complicated for this 
reason.  The court held that SSI infringed software copyrights because 
the files manipulated by SSI were "small bit[s] of specialized 
software".  But as I understand the court's opinion, if instead of 
applying mathematical algorithms in manipulating the digital files in 
the way that SSI did, I made a large (3600 point) hardcopy printout of 
the font character, and used that image to create a high density 
bitmap image, which I imported to a graphics editor, and manipulated 
the image according to the same general procedures employed by SSI, 
subsequently import the modified image into a font editor, the 
insertion of an analog step into the process removes any possibility 
of infringement, since there was point at which the "specialized bit 
of software" was inconsequential.   So, comparing the result of the 
process with the added analog step, with the result obtained by SSI, 
it is doubtful that an expert in typography could identify the 
differences between fonts created with the two methods, yet applying 
the court's opinion, while the SSI fonts infringed, the identical ones 
created with an analog step in the process do not.  To have two 
identical results, in which one is infringing, and the other not, is 
illogical and complicated.


Well, illogic is in the eye of the beholder, but to me this makes 
perfect sense.


The way a font is described in a font file is by a series of geometric 
equations that tell how to draw all the relevant curves and lines.  
THAT is what the "small bit of specialized software" is.  There is 
value in those equations, because they are what make it possible to 
have a font on your computer which is reasonably compact and is not a 
gigantic bitmap file that becomes grainy if exploded to a large enough 
size.


The scheme you describe, in which you take pictures of the results of 
the software and then repackage them all as bitmaps does not copy the 
copyrighted equations.  Why should it be an infringement?  SSI copied 
the protected material.  Your idea does not copy the protected 
material.  That's the difference.


It sounds to me like you're being misled by the common misconception 
that "font" and "typeface" are synonymous (they aren't), and so if you 
hear that a "font" is copyrighted, you naturally assume that the 
protected material is the typeface.  It is not.  The protected material 
is the instructions for how to draw the typeface.


A better analogy would be a recipe.  If I write up a fancy recipe, I 
can copyright the text of that recipe.  If you then get someone to cook 
the meal for you, and then you proceed to reverse engineer the food in 
order to determine what's in it, you can do whatever you want with that 
information.  All that my copyright protects is the written recipe 
itself.


This is entirely consistent with copyright law, which only protects 
written material.  If you want protection for intellectual property 
that isn't written material, you have to try for something else, like a 
patent.


mdl

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Brad Beyenhof]

On 25/07/05, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2005 at 7:02, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
> > Mark D Lew wrote:
> >
> > > Regarding copyrights on fonts, the current guiding case is Adobe vs
> > > SSI  (1998), which you can read online at
> > >  > > judgement.php4>.
> > >
> > > The law is pretty straightforward, neither illogical nor
> > > complicated.   When you load a "font" on your system, what you are
> > > loading is not the  typeface per se, but a small bit of specialized
> > > software that tells the  computer how to draw all the characters
> > > within that typeface.
> >
> > and indeed, I am familiar with Adobe v. SSI; I would assert that the
> > U.S. Supreme Court decision is illogical and complicated for this
> > reason.  The court held that SSI infringed software copyrights because
> > the files manipulated by SSI were "small bit[s] of specialized
> > software". . . .
> 
> I don't have time this afternoon to look at the decision but it
> strikes me as wrong to call a font definition file a "program." It's
> actually *data* to be used by some other program.
> 
> And so far as I am aware, you can't copyright data.
> 
> So, that would suggest to me that the case was wrongly decided
> because of an invalid distinction between computer program and data.

Well, even though it isn't an executable program (which is the
definition that, of course, first springs to mind when the word
"program" is used), a font is still "programmed" in terms of
determining the font characters' relationships to the baseline,
determining the exact curves used in the typeface, etc. It may bear
resemblance to "data" in that it just sits there in storage, but I can
see the court's point in labeling it a "program" in that it is a
manipulable and interactive presentation of information.

-- 
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] notation program comparison

[David W. Fenton]

On 25 Jul 2005 at 7:20, Ken  Durling wrote:

> Daniel is unique, but I've had a few occasions to call the "official" 
> tech support line (listed in the documentation that comes with Sib) in
> Walnut Creek, which is near me.

I never realized Sibelius was in Walnut Creek, a town I've spent 
quite a bit of time in.

If you're near there, I suggest you might want to try out some of the 
concerts of the California Music Festival. The concerts this year are 
all at the Performing Arts Center in Walnut Creek. One of my best 
friends, James Greening-Valenzuela (a native of Concord and a SF 
Conservatory grad) is the artistic director. This year their chamber 
music composer is Brahms and the opera is Mozart's Idomeneo.

The list of events is at 
, though it's a 
dreadful website, and concerts begin a week from Wednesday (8/3). If 
you attend a concert, tell James I sent you!

-- 
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] notation program comparison

[David W. Fenton]

On 25 Jul 2005 at 7:02, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:

> Mark D Lew wrote:
> 
> > Regarding copyrights on fonts, the current guiding case is Adobe vs
> > SSI  (1998), which you can read online at 
> >  > judgement.php4>.
> >
> > The law is pretty straightforward, neither illogical nor 
> > complicated.   When you load a "font" on your system, what you are
> > loading is not the  typeface per se, but a small bit of specialized
> > software that tells the  computer how to draw all the characters
> > within that typeface.
> 
> and indeed, I am familiar with Adobe v. SSI; I would assert that the
> U.S. Supreme Court decision is illogical and complicated for this
> reason.  The court held that SSI infringed software copyrights because
> the files manipulated by SSI were "small bit[s] of specialized
> software". . . .

I don't have time this afternoon to look at the decision but it 
strikes me as wrong to call a font definition file a "program." It's 
actually *data* to be used by some other program. 

And so far as I am aware, you can't copyright data.

So, that would suggest to me that the case was wrongly decided 
because of an invalid distinction between computer program and data.

-- 
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] notation program comparison

[David W. Fenton]

On 25 Jul 2005 at 9:33, Colin Broom wrote:

> Richard Yates wrote:
> 
> >I experienced the same from Daniel Spreadbury when I was trying out
> >the Sibelius demo. What was most impressive, in addition to the time
> >he spent, was his acknowledgment that Finale's adjustable and
> >programmed placement of articulations was superior to Sibelius'.
> 
> This is all fine and well, and it sounds like Sibelius have a real gem
> of a guy working for them, who really likes his job - which is great. 
> But all this praise of Sibelius tech support has in fact been of
> Daniel Spreadbury as far as I can see, and not necessarily in praise
> of Sibelius' technical support approach directly, and thus about
> individuals rather than companies.

These companies are small enough that individuals really *do* make a 
difference.

That's why Randy Stokes was always such a good representative of Coda 
(from my point of view), and made me feel confident in Finale's 
future.

> It sounds like Daniel Spreadbury (who's Google rating must be
> rocketing by now!) is someone who seems to go above and beyond his
> normal job description to help out users of the program, which is
> great for Sibelius, and great for users.   Obviously it's entirely
> feasible that the whole Sibelius technical support team is like that,
> and if so, I would be the first to take my hat off to them, but is it
> not also possible that this is just one really nice guy?  Would the
> kind of unofficial involvements in forums and private emails continue
> were DS to decide to move on?  Would someone take his place as "the
> support voice of Sibelius"?  Does anyone have similar stories about
> other members of the Sib support team?

For companies as small as the ones that produce Finale and Sibelius, 
a single person makes a huge difference.

And the absence of an individual would be as strongly felt as well 
(e.g., my comments wrongly alleging that Randy Stokes had left 
MakeMusic, based in part on his lack of presence on this list).

-- 
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] notation program comparison

[Ken Durling]

At 01:33 AM 7/25/2005, you wrote:
Obviously it's entirely feasible that the whole Sibelius technical support 
team is like that, and if so, I would be the first to take my hat off to 
them, but is it not also possible that this is just one really nice 
guy?  Would the kind of unofficial involvements in forums and private 
emails continue were DS to decide to move on?  Would someone take his 
place as "the support voice of Sibelius"?  Does anyone have similar 
stories about other members of the Sib support team?



Daniel is unique, but I've had a few occasions to call the "official"  tech 
support line (listed in the documentation that comes with Sib) in Walnut 
Creek, which is near me.  They've always been friendly and prompt, and as 
helpful as possible, referring me to others when they didn't have a/the 
solution.  I've actually had very few technical problems with Sib, mostly 
I've had to call to sort out multiple computer registration.   I think the 
one time they couldn't help it turned out to be a Windows problem.  I've 
had some contact with others at the "office," too, and they've always been 
exemplary.  I really do think it's an excellent and well-run 
company.  (The  only other company I've run into with comparable tech 
support is Symantec -  really great support for Norton software.)



Ken

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Noel Stoutenburg]

In rebuttal to Dave's comment that

Daniel [Speadbury]'s involvement [in a Sibelius list], by the way, 
isn't "unofficial" -- he's very upfront about being an employee and is 
constantly providing links to personnel inside the company if he can't 
provide the answer.  He's very much an official presence.  Whether he 
is paid to be that or not is a different matter that we can't know at 
this time.


I would suggest that unless we know for sure that his monitoring of 
email messages and forums is part of his job description, and that he is 
paid to do so, is very much the determinant of whether his involvment in 
the lists is in an "unofficial" of "official" capacity.  Whatever else, 
or however much his involvement may be helpful or beneficial, if his 
involvement is part of his employment responsibilities, it is 
"official", if not, it is "unofficial."  Without knowing details of his  
employment terms, there is just no way to compare his involvement in 
that list, with Alan Fischer's involvement in this one.


ns

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Noel Stoutenburg]

In partial reply to Tyler, David Bailey wrote, in part:


I know that for a book to become a best-seller it has to be sold


to which I would note the following anecdote.  Part of my income is 
derived from small package delivery, and earlier this year, one of the 
small packages I was called upon to deliver was a "screening print" a 
copy of of a motion picture to be released some weeks later, of which an 
advance showing is arranged for members of the press, so that they will 
presumably write or way good things about it, and encourage people to 
purchase tickets to see it.  On this particular occasion, I was engaged 
on Monday, to deliver the screening print on Wednesday, for a film that 
was to be released for public viewing a couple of weeks beyond that. 

Now, as it happened, on the Tuesday intervenient between the day I was 
engaged, and the day the delivery was to be made, I was in a 
supermarket, and saw, on display a novelization of the screenplay, on 
the cover of which was boldly emblazoned a banner proclaiming that the 
story was of "The Hit Movie".  This before any critic had even seen any 
version of the film (media screenings are typically arranged on the same 
day all over the country), and probably before a single ticket had been 
sold.  Keeping in mind the production cycles involved, the decision to 
label the film a "hit" had to have been made weeks, if not months before 
that! 

My point is, for a book to _be_ a best seller, it must be sold; for a 
book--or notation software package--to be marketed as a best seller it 
need not be. 

When I walk into a supermarket, clothing store, bookstore, computer 
store, I know that anything I see when I walk in the door is placed 
there because the manufacturer PAID to get it placed there. Quality of 
product has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Quality of the product may or may not have anything to do with it, and 
the manufacturer, or marketer may, or may not have paid for product 
placement.  The fact is, that in retail merchandising, the placement of 
items depends first and foremost upon what the merchant wishes to sell.  
There are certainly premium locations within the retail environment, and 
merchants do exploit the fact that these are premium locations, 
soliciting, or accepting payments from vendors to guarantee placement in 
premium locations, but I would submit that payments from the 
manufacturer are not the most important consideration in product placement.


My only point in bringing up the product placement at jwpepper, a 
place more music educators I know of would go looking for music 
products rather than a computer store, has nothing to do with 
quality.  I know Finale is the superior product in many areas, it's my 
program of choice when I get an engraving project.  I want it to 
succeed and to gain back market share it has lost to Sibelius.


Purchase of either Sibelius or Finale is a sufficiently important, and 
costly proposition, that I doubt very seriously that the placement of 
the product on any website has much overall impact on the sales.  I 
suspect for most people the decision to purchase, and the decision of 
where, to purchase are separate.  Those contemplating purchase of a 
package gather information about the competing packages from a variety 
of sources, including the booths at such trade shows as the various 
music educator's associations, and reviews in trade journals, and are 
least influenced on the decision of which to buy by whether one package 
of the other is on any particular website.  Only when the decision has 
been made to purchase one of the other, will palcement on a website may 
be a factor in whether to purchase the product selected from one vendor, 
from another.


ns

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Tyler Turner]

--- dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> I'm not saying the product is superior, just saying
> that MakeMusic 
> hasn't done what it needs to do to get its product
> listed!  How can a 
> prospective buyer, going to JWPepper, even know that
> PrintMusic exists?

I don't know the current situation, but MakeMusic at
least in the past has been in the better situation.
True, you may not have known that PrintMusic existed
if  you shopped at JWPepper. But if we shopped
anywhere else in the US, we might not have known
Sibelius existed! 
 
> I know that for a book to become a best-seller it
> has to be sold.  I 
> know that publishers BUY product placement in
> bookstores.  I assume 
> Sibelius has done this with jwpepper, to ensure that
> it's product is 
> seen first and is seen to be superior to the
> competition.

That's possible. I've never heard of either company
having to do this, but I've never specifically asked.
I've been under the impression that stores make most
of their money off the mark-up, and the popularity of
the product determines the placement in
advertisements.


> My only point in bringing up the product placement
> at jwpepper, a place 
> more music educators I know of would go looking for
> music products 
> rather than a computer store, has nothing to do with
> quality. 

No, it doesn't. My statement wasn't really on topic. 

 
> I know product placement is important for that. 
> Jwpepper may have been 
> the original distributor of Sibelius in the US, but
> Finale could have 
> given it deeper discounts, more spiffs, whatever
> Sibelius offered, 
> Finale could have bettered, so that jwpepper may
> have pushed Sibelius 
> but it would have pushed Finale MORE.

It may have been like this. But my understanding was
that because JWPepper scored an exclusive deal on
Sibelius, they'd be able to naturally make more money
off of it through sales than through sales of Finale.
There were already more popular music store chains
selling Finale, right? So getting 1/15th (a guess) of
the Finale sales might not be as lucrative as 3/4ths
of the Sibelius sales. It seems like profit from
mark-up alone could account for their interest in
promoting Sibelius more than Finale.


> 
> I don't use SmartMusic, however, and I can foresee
> several potential 
> outcomes from its growth:

I believe SmartMusic and Finale will begin to promote
each other more and more, increasing the sales of
each. I think the combination of Finale and SmartMusic
makes a very useful educational package. The plan for
the future of Finale that I've heard from management
has always been to continue developing it for all the
current critical audiences. Finale is a profitable
business that's been getting more profitable, despite
the successes of the competition. And I'm quite sure
that management believes as I do that Finale has a
large audience remaining to sell itself to. And they
believe that if they put a greater amount of money
into Finale, they can more than make it up in return.
As such, they will use money generated by SmartMusic
to improve Finale. Both are profitable, and neither
has reached its potential. 

I think it could be easy for professionals to look at
the company's SmartMusic efforts and worry that
MakeMusic plans to switch Finale's focus exclusively
to the educational market. All I can say to that is
that I've had the pleasure of working with John
Paulson and the rest of the management, and they've
always seen the publishing industry as a major part of
their future.

If I'm wrong, I'll buy you a copy of Sibelius when
Finale's no longer a contender. :-)

Regards,
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] notation program comparison

[Noel Stoutenburg]

Mark D Lew wrote:

Regarding copyrights on fonts, the current guiding case is Adobe vs 
SSI  (1998), which you can read online at  
.


The law is pretty straightforward, neither illogical nor 
complicated.   When you load a "font" on your system, what you are 
loading is not the  typeface per se, but a small bit of specialized 
software that tells the  computer how to draw all the characters 
within that typeface.


and indeed, I am familiar with Adobe v. SSI; I would assert that the 
U.S. Supreme Court decision is illogical and complicated for this 
reason.  The court held that SSI infringed software copyrights because 
the files manipulated by SSI were "small bit[s] of specialized 
software".  But as I understand the court's opinion, if instead of 
applying mathematical algorithms in manipulating the digital files in 
the way that SSI did, I made a large (3600 point) hardcopy printout of 
the font character, and used that image to create a high density bitmap 
image, which I imported to a graphics editor, and manipulated the image 
according to the same general procedures employed by SSI, subsequently 
import the modified image into a font editor, the insertion of an analog 
step into the process removes any possibility of infringement, since 
there was point at which the "specialized bit of software" was 
inconsequential.   So, comparing the result of the process with the 
added analog step, with the result obtained by SSI, it is doubtful that 
an expert in typography could identify the differences between fonts 
created with the two methods, yet applying the court's opinion, while 
the SSI fonts infringed, the identical ones created with an analog step 
in the process do not.  To have two identical results, in which one is 
infringing, and the other not, is illogical and complicated.


ns


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[dhbailey]

Colin Broom wrote:


Richard Yates wrote:


I experienced the same from Daniel Spreadbury when I was trying out the
Sibelius demo. What was most impressive, in addition to the time he 
spent,
was his acknowledgment that Finale's adjustable and programmed 
placement of

articulations was superior to Sibelius'.



This is all fine and well, and it sounds like Sibelius have a real gem 
of a guy working for them, who really likes his job - which is great.  
But all this praise of Sibelius tech support has in fact been of Daniel 
Spreadbury as far as I can see, and not necessarily in praise of 
Sibelius' technical support approach directly, and thus about 
individuals rather than companies.


It sounds like Daniel Spreadbury (who's Google rating must be rocketing 
by now!) is someone who seems to go above and beyond his normal job 
description to help out users of the program, which is great for 
Sibelius, and great for users.   Obviously it's entirely feasible that 
the whole Sibelius technical support team is like that, and if so, I 
would be the first to take my hat off to them, but is it not also 
possible that this is just one really nice guy?  Would the kind of 
unofficial involvements in forums and private emails continue were DS to 
decide to move on?  Would someone take his place as "the support voice 
of Sibelius"?  Does anyone have similar stories about other members of 
the Sib support team?


But since Sibelius DOES have Daniel Spreadbury still working for them, 
we don't know if there will be a replacement individual, should he 
retire or for some other reason quit.


So we can't know for sure if it part of Sibelius' plan or merely the 
very helpful energy of a single employee.  When Daniel retires, we'll 
know for sure.


Daniel's involvement, by the way, isn't "unofficial" -- he's very 
upfront about being an employee and is constantly providing links to 
personnel inside the company if he can't provide the answer.  He's very 
much an official presence.  Whether he is paid to be that or not is a 
different matter that we can't know at this time.



--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[dhbailey]

Tyler Turner wrote:

[snip]
Where 
are Finale products at the www.jwpepper.com site? 
Not on the home page, 
where the visitor first looks around -- on that page
is a link to 
download Sibelius' Scorch plug-in.  Not either of
the first two products 
on the Music Technology page, either.  Finale is the

third product down.



This keeps being brought up. JW Pepper promotes
Sibelius greatly because they were for at least a long
time the only dealer in the United States that carried
Sibelius. When I went to purchase Sibelius in 2002, I
couldn't even find it in any of the music stores I
searched in Minneapolis (including Guitar Center and
Mars Music). If you have an exclusive deal on a
product, you do well to promote it.

I don't know who distributes Sibelius now, but that's
the deal with JW Pepper.
 


The first product, Sibelius Student Edition has a
yellow, 
capture-the-audience's attention banner proclaiming:
The Notation 
Solution for Students!



Yeah, great. And for $60-$70 you can purchase a
program with a lot more capability - PrintMusic -
which you can find even at Comp USA. Sorry, Sibelius
does not have the edge here.


I'm not saying the product is superior, just saying that MakeMusic 
hasn't done what it needs to do to get its product listed!  How can a 
prospective buyer, going to JWPepper, even know that PrintMusic exists?








Read the 
descriptions -- why is Sibelius made to seem much
better? Is it really 
the world's best-selling notation software?



What does it take for a book to become a
"best-seller?" Sibelius has been making this claim
since version 1.x when it wasn't even known in the
United States. They obviously have never felt the term
can only apply to the product that has sold the best.
I don't claim that they are lying because I don't
claim to really understand the term "best-selling."


I know that for a book to become a best-seller it has to be sold.  I 
know that publishers BUY product placement in bookstores.  I assume 
Sibelius has done this with jwpepper, to ensure that it's product is 
seen first and is seen to be superior to the competition.  The truth of 
the matter is never the issue with best-sellers, plain and simple 
marketing.  When I walk into a supermarket, clothing store, bookstore, 
computer store, I know that anything I see when I walk in the door is 
placed there because the manufacturer PAID to get it placed there. 
Quality of product has absolutely nothing to do with it.


My only point in bringing up the product placement at jwpepper, a place 
more music educators I know of would go looking for music products 
rather than a computer store, has nothing to do with quality.  I know 
Finale is the superior product in many areas, it's my program of choice 
when I get an engraving project.  I want it to succeed and to gain back 
market share it has lost to Sibelius.


I know product placement is important for that.  Jwpepper may have been 
the original distributor of Sibelius in the US, but Finale could have 
given it deeper discounts, more spiffs, whatever Sibelius offered, 
Finale could have bettered, so that jwpepper may have pushed Sibelius 
but it would have pushed Finale MORE.








If Sibelius' claim is true, MakeMusic have already
lost the battle and 
the war. If the claim isn't true, MakeMusic should
be fighting back in 
public!



MakeMusic could come back from being behind and win
this. They're not behind, and I don't see them falling
behind, but saying that anything would be over is just
guess work. I don't know what the future has in store,
but I know that there are major innovations left to be
seen that can impact everything. SmartMusic
subscriptions from March 2004 to March 2005 jumped
from 22,100 to 37,500. They are growing at a faster
rate every year. This isn't a business I'd care to bet
against right now.



SmartMusic is indeed growing, that's an area where MakeMusic is doing a 
great job of marketing, and it's a niche area which nobody has a 
competing product in.  A local band director just told me on Friday that 
he had signed up and would be pushing subscriptions for his students. 
That's wonderful.


I don't use SmartMusic, however, and I can foresee several potential 
outcomes from its growth:


1) MakeMusic continues to improve Finale so that it can be marketed as 
an adjunct for SmartMusic, so that music educators can create their own 
SmartMusic accompaniments from scratch using Finale.  So as long as 
SmartMusic grows, Finale will continue to exist, although how much 
further improvement is necessary to maintain Finale's SmartMusic link 
remains to be seen;


2) MakeMusic realizes that nobody (outside of a few publishers) is using 
Finale to create their own SmartMusic accompaniments, and so abandons 
Finale to move all its development to the SmartMusic team, where it owns 
the market, and also realizes that it can make even more money from 
SmartMusic if there isn't a publicly available tool for creating 
SmartMusic accompanim

[Finale] notation program comparison

[Colin Broom]

Richard Yates wrote:


I experienced the same from Daniel Spreadbury when I was trying out the
Sibelius demo. What was most impressive, in addition to the time he spent,
was his acknowledgment that Finale's adjustable and programmed placement of
articulations was superior to Sibelius'.


This is all fine and well, and it sounds like Sibelius have a real gem of a 
guy working for them, who really likes his job - which is great.  But all 
this praise of Sibelius tech support has in fact been of Daniel Spreadbury 
as far as I can see, and not necessarily in praise of Sibelius' technical 
support approach directly, and thus about individuals rather than companies.


It sounds like Daniel Spreadbury (who's Google rating must be rocketing by 
now!) is someone who seems to go above and beyond his normal job description 
to help out users of the program, which is great for Sibelius, and great for 
users.   Obviously it's entirely feasible that the whole Sibelius technical 
support team is like that, and if so, I would be the first to take my hat 
off to them, but is it not also possible that this is just one really nice 
guy?  Would the kind of unofficial involvements in forums and private emails 
continue were DS to decide to move on?  Would someone take his place as "the 
support voice of Sibelius"?  Does anyone have similar stories about other 
members of the Sib support team?


C.

_
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Mark D Lew]

On Jul 23, 2005, at 8:40 PM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:

Case law, or speculation?  All that you describe is several direct  
copies of a computer output.


causing me to note that a better way to have said this is "my  
informed, lay (that is to say, I am not an attourney) interpretation  
of case law suggests".

U.S. law is not necessarily logical on this issue, and may never be.


Regarding copyrights on fonts, the current guiding case is Adobe vs SSI  
(1998), which you can read online at  
.


The law is pretty straightforward, neither illogical nor complicated.   
When you load a "font" on your system, what you are loading is not the  
typeface per se, but a small bit of specialized software that tells the  
computer how to draw all the characters within that typeface.  Under  
U.S. law, copyrights are routinely granted to software, and  
font-drawing software is no different.  That's why the copyright  
applies to the coded font and not the typeface itself.  If you copy the  
font file on your computer, you're copying the software, which is  
protected; if you get out a piece of paper and trace the shapes of the  
letters, you're copying the typeface, which is not protected.


A font designer who wants protection for the actual typeface can  
register for a design patent instead, which might protect the shapes.   
In that case, it would have to meet the tests for patentability -- ie,  
novelty, non-obviousness, and sufficient disclosure -- which is a much  
harder standard.


Most designs are not protected, and so anyone can independently write  
software to draw them.  That's why you can see several different  
digital versions of what ends up looking like the same typeface (eg,  
Arial vs Helvetica, Palatino vs Book Antiqua, etc.).


I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm an amateur type geek, and I have a  
brother and two friends who are professional type geeks (just back from  
the big type conference in NY, in fact).


mdl

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[David W. Fenton]

On 24 Jul 2005 at 14:40, Richard Yates wrote:

> > Someone forwarded my posts to this forum about trying out the
> > Sibelius demo to Daniel Spreadbury and he answered me in great
> > detail and at great length, and then engaged in a lengthy and quite
> > interesting discussion of the points I'd raised. He spent *hours*
> > responding to my emails.
> >
> > And all of it in private.
> >
> > No one from MakeMusic or Coda has ever gone the extra mile in that
> > fashion.
> >
> > And he's not even a subscriber to this mailing list!
> 
> I experienced the same from Daniel Spreadbury when I was trying out
> the Sibelius demo. What was most impressive, in addition to the time
> he spent, was his acknowledgment that Finale's adjustable and
> programmed placement of articulations was superior to Sibelius'.

Indeed. He also acknowledged several areas in which Finale had the 
goods on Sibelius, as well as several areas where there were definite 
problems with Sibelius.

He took my criticisms quite seriously (most of them were on the 
subject of Sibelius's undeserved (in my opinion) reputation for ease 
of learning -- the Sibelius UI seems to me to have many problems with 
discoverability that block ease of learning), and was very 
reasonable.

The last person involved with Finale who gave me that impression of 
dedication and reasonableness was Randy Stokes, and we unfortunately 
see and hear little of him these days.

Randy served for me as an ambassador for Finale who assured me that 
Finale was in good hands, and whatever its current problems, the 
people working behind the scenes were as aware (or more aware) of 
what was wrong than those of using Finale. Perhaps that is still the 
case, but now we lack a voice/face from MakeMusic to re-assure us 
that this is still the case.

-- 
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] notation program comparison

[Richard Yates]

> Someone forwarded my posts to this forum about trying out the
> Sibelius demo to Daniel Spreadbury and he answered me in great detail
> and at great length, and then engaged in a lengthy and quite
> interesting discussion of the points I'd raised. He spent *hours*
> responding to my emails.
>
> And all of it in private.
>
> No one from MakeMusic or Coda has ever gone the extra mile in that
> fashion.
>
> And he's not even a subscriber to this mailing list!

I experienced the same from Daniel Spreadbury when I was trying out the
Sibelius demo. What was most impressive, in addition to the time he spent,
was his acknowledgment that Finale's adjustable and programmed placement of
articulations was superior to Sibelius'.

Richard Yates


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[David W. Fenton]

On 24 Jul 2005 at 12:46, Tyler Turner wrote:

> And even though I'm not a
> MakeMusic employee any longer, for the past 4 years I
> have been out on the net correcting misinformation and
> participating on various forums, always in my spare
> time. I haven't seen anyone from Sibelius logging as
> much time in non-Sibelius/Finale territory.

Maybe that's because you don't see all the work that Sibelius 
employees are doing that *isn't* in public.

Someone forwarded my posts to this forum about trying out the 
Sibelius demo to Daniel Spreadbury and he answered me in great detail 
and at great length, and then engaged in a lengthy and quite 
interesting discussion of the points I'd raised. He spent *hours* 
responding to my emails.

And all of it in private.

No one from MakeMusic or Coda has ever gone the extra mile in that 
fashion.

And he's not even a subscriber to this mailing list!

So, I'm sorry, but your claim just doesn't hold up.

-- 
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] notation program comparison

[Tyler Turner]

--- dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


> Sibelius also maintains an in-house forum populated
> by their 
> tech-support personnel, same as MakeMusic does.
> 
> They go the extra-mile and also officially
> participate in the 
> out-of-house group.  MakeMusic does not.

If you address my statements on this issue, I'll be
happy to address yours.
 
> The old "prove that you're worthy of our notice by
> being the one to go 
> out of your way to contact us" approach to customer
> support?  Many 
> companies use this approach.  Many customers stay
> away from such 
> companies.  It's a toss-up -- the company never
> knows what it has missed 
> from people who haven't gone out of their way.  The
> customer who doesn't 
> follow that official path for feature requests or
> bug fixes never knows 
> what might have been accomplished.

"Go out of your way," meaning send an e-mail? If you
don't care enough about your idea to want to take the
time to e-mail it, then I think that says something
about how much you care about your idea compared to
how much someone who does take the time cares about
theirs. 

"the company never knows what it has missed..."
Feature requests generally aren't missed when they are
posted on the forum (and a good number aren't missed
here). MakeMusic does record feature requests from the
unofficial places WHEN THEY CATCH THEM. But retaining
a public policy that all feature requests should be
submitted to the company directly helps them ensure
that they miss fewer requests. Giving people the idea
that their random feature requests made on the forum
or on this list will definitely be seen by MakeMusic
is just bad policy. And one way you make that mistake
is by acknowledging you've logged a person's request
in public. On the forum MakeMusic's stance has always
been that users should submit requests, and because of
this, long-time forum users have taken to telling
people to do this. It's an efficient system.

> 
> I would, however, think that a company would go out
> of its way to use 
> any and all means at its disposal to track down bug
> reports, rather than 
> the "we'll think about it only if you report it
> through official 
> channels" approach to bug-reporting.

They do. Do you think bugs reported here and on the
forum don't get logged? Again, it's BEST if they are
reported so that it can be guaranteed they won't be
completely missed. And as such, the official policy
should be as it is.
> 
> And if they aren't really bugs, but rather customer
> mis-information 
> about how some feature works, I would think that a
> company would go out 
> of its way to squash such misinformation and correct
> perceived errors 
> wherever they occur (much of Finale's undeserved
> reputation for being 
> hard to learn and hard to work with is based on this
> widespread 
> rumor-mongering, which if it maintained a presence
> outside its own 
> in-house channels, it could work to squash and build
> its reputation for 
> ease-of-use, something which it has certainly
> improved upon.)

Very little of Finale's reputation comes from the
internet. As much as I'd like to think that getting
out there and chatting on the various forums and
correcting misinformation can make a big difference,
it just doesn't seem to be true. MakeMusic does keep
an official eye on this. And even though I'm not a
MakeMusic employee any longer, for the past 4 years I
have been out on the net correcting misinformation and
participating on various forums, always in my spare
time. I haven't seen anyone from Sibelius logging as
much time in non-Sibelius/Finale territory.


> I don't know that Sibelius was even TOLD of this
> event, either!  Somehow 
> an official representative found out about it
> (probably because he was 
> maintaining an official presence outside in-house
> channels).

So for all you know, someone could have contacted all
of these participants directly, including Daniel,
without ever sending anything to anyone at MakeMusic?
Or perhaps it might be an idea that started on the
Sibelius mailing list - should MakeMusic spend a great
deal of time participating on that?? If you don't know
the circumstances, don't slander people without
getting the facts first.
 
> I bow to your empirical data on resolution rates. 
> It just seems that we 
> hear about a lot of the "I can't recreate the
> problem" responses.  I 
> know I've had a few of those, even when I had
> outlined the steps.

Please send me a few of these correspondences.

> 
> Geico's satisfaction rate, as MakeMusic's
> satisfaction rate, are based 
> on the responses to a questionnaire, I would assume,
> although I've never 
> received one. 

Yes, it's a questionnaire, and it's linked to at the
bottom of each e-mail a tech support employee sends.
The other customer support employees, along with
myself, requested that we start including this system
back in 2002 or 2003, and one of us designed the web
form so that we could make it happen. We wanted a
system that would pro

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[dhbailey]

Mark D Lew wrote:


On Jul 23, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:


This is wrong. When I worked in customer support, I
computed the number of customer e-mails finished in
one response vs. those that took multiple e-mails to
resolve. I personally was resolving over 90% of the
issues to the satisfaction of the customer in the
first response. None of the staff was much under 80%.



We probably have a distorted view of this here. Anyone who is a regular 
participant here isn't likely to contact customer support unless it's a 
really tough one.


We tend to forget that the vast bulk of Finale users out there are 
asking about simple things that we know very well.


mdl


And MakeMusic tends to forget that in calculating satisfactory customer 
requests, there should be some weighting of the responses, so that even 
though a tech answers 97 responses out of 100 easily and accurately 
because they are responses such as "display in concert pitch is in the 
Option menu, not the View menu," those other 3 questions may be from a 
poweruser who doesn't ask for things until he/she has exhausted all 
their own knowledge plus the knowledge from a list heavily populated by 
power users.  That 100th response, which may well not result in a 
satisfactory reply, should carry more weight than the "it's in the 
options menu" sort of reply.


I'm not a statistician so I can't suggest a weighting procedure, but I 
do know that the sample base would be skewed in favor of the 
easy-to-answer response.  So a more accurate reading of the results 
might be "among those asking basic questions, satisfaction is 97%, but 
among those asking more complex questions, satisfaction is 50%."  But of 
course no corporation is going to release those results.



--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 07:31 AM 7/24/05 -0400, dhbailey wrote:
>My point about Sibelius as a company working hard to create a presence 
>for itself while MakeMusic is just trudging along in the same old rut 
>still stands, regardless of the low-brow quality of the comparison in 
>question.

David is right. Sibelius came from relatively nowhere in the U.S. to start
whupping Finale. They struck agreements for sponsorship. Look at ASCAP's
programs in new nonpop, all with Sibelius sponsorship -- how'd they do
that? Where was MakeMusic? And Sibelius took the out-of-the-box features
right to the educational market, gaining for what was an essentially
inferior product both visibility and income -- enough to get it up to
version 4, which to many musicians and engravers, is the program of choice.

The marketing of Sibelius was impressive. By highlighting one area -- ease
of use -- and providing discounts and lots of giveaways, presentations, and
active involvement in the community, they took away a market that was
flat-out owned by Finale. And while the Sibelius team was doing competent
and aggressive marketing, they also improved the program so that it
actually starting meeting the expectations they had raised for it.

Finale, meanwhile, continues to send out its uninteresting brochures,
depends on its past for market leadership, and is playing catch-up with
features -- all the while leaving a trail of bugs and confusing features
unremedied.

Other moves might have helped them along the way. They could probably have
bought Graphire last year for pennies on the dollar, securing and
incorporating its incredibly fast display code, lovely fonts, and clear
toolbar/pallette system that worked consistently and without a freight
train of dialog boxes.

To me, MakeMusic looks like a passel of marketing putzes. Numerous times
I've approached the company for some sponsorship of our highly visible
nonpop show. For practically nothing they could have sponsored our radio
show and website (which won the ASCAP Deems Taylor Award in 2000) --
getting a positive image in front of 300-plus composers (many of whom have
since gone to Sibelius). The only response from MakeMusic was after several
requests for sponsorship of our 2001 Ought-One Festival -- which they
negotiated down to a half dozen copies of Finale ... and then failed to
send them, ignoring all my followup messages. If I didn't already have
experience with Finale, you can bet I'd have bought Sibelius first.

Dennis


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[dhbailey]

Tyler Turner wrote:



--- dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:



Compare this to MakeMusic, which has several
employees who monitor this 
list on their own time (we do appreciate that), but
since there is no 
official monitoring of this list we have to follow
"official procedures" 
to submit feature requests or bugs.  And on the
Sibelius list, if Daniel 
doesn't know the answer to the problem, he will give
specific e-mail 
addresses of Sibelius employees who can provide

those answers.





If you want to talk on a forum where MakeMusic
officially participates, you should go to the forum
they set up. If people specifically create a
communications group AWAY from the Finale people, why
should they feel they are invited to officially
monitor those conversations? The Finale forum is much
more active with actual Finale topics. A lot of the
discussions here would be a waste of company time
since many don't relate to Finale at all. Daniel
doesn't usually hand out specific company employee
e-mails - I wouldn't say any more often than Carla
does on their own forum. It's generally bad policy for
a number of reasons, the most important being that
when e-mails are sent to customer support they are
picked up by the people who get to them first. If that
employee can't answer it, he/she goes and gets help
from someone at MakeMusic who can.


Sibelius also maintains an in-house forum populated by their 
tech-support personnel, same as MakeMusic does.


They go the extra-mile and also officially participate in the 
out-of-house group.  MakeMusic does not.




Submitting a request to support SHOULD be the way it's
done. The forum can get messy, and if people believe
that by mentioning something there they can be sure
their request will be seen, even when buried in long
threads, then there's a good chance their request will
go unnoticed. It's responsible behavior for MakeMusic
to ask users to make official requests rather than
give them the impression the forum works for that.
Daniel's method on the Sibelius forum seems very
personable, but the guy does go on vacations from time
to time, and I'm willing to bet a few requests have
been missed.


I'm not saying that submitting a request shouldn't be a part of a 
company's feeling the pulse of their user-base.  It is an important part 
of the procedure.


I'm willing to agree that some requests have been missed also.



And may I be so bold as to say that if a person can't
be bothered to write an e-mail for something they want
the company to spend time developing, they perhaps
shouldn't be given as much priority as those who are
kind enough to do this? It's certainly easier on the
employees if they can go through and log multiple
feature requests at one time.



The old "prove that you're worthy of our notice by being the one to go 
out of your way to contact us" approach to customer support?  Many 
companies use this approach.  Many customers stay away from such 
companies.  It's a toss-up -- the company never knows what it has missed 
from people who haven't gone out of their way.  The customer who doesn't 
follow that official path for feature requests or bug fixes never knows 
what might have been accomplished.


I would, however, think that a company would go out of its way to use 
any and all means at its disposal to track down bug reports, rather than 
the "we'll think about it only if you report it through official 
channels" approach to bug-reporting.


And if they aren't really bugs, but rather customer mis-information 
about how some feature works, I would think that a company would go out 
of its way to squash such misinformation and correct perceived errors 
wherever they occur (much of Finale's undeserved reputation for being 
hard to learn and hard to work with is based on this widespread 
rumor-mongering, which if it maintained a presence outside its own 
in-house channels, it could work to squash and build its reputation for 
ease-of-use, something which it has certainly improved upon.)


Obviously my corporate publicity model isn't MakeMusic's -- they're 
still here after all these year, so they obviously feel they're doing 
something right and my opinion is only worth what they're paying me for it.







Engraving competition to show the comparative
strengths of engraving 
programs?

Sibelius -- eager participation
MakeMusic -- yawn!  why bother?



Would you mind telling me where it is that you have
seen any mention of the fact that MakeMusic was even
TOLD this was going on? You're insulting people
who I KNOW care a ton more about Finale than you do -
and as far as I can tell you're doing it without
having solid facts.


I don't know that Sibelius was even TOLD of this event, either!  Somehow 
an official representative found out about it (probably because he was 
maintaining an official presence outside in-house channels).








Sibelius -- instant, courteous response with helpful
information, even 
on a non-company-sponsored e-mail list

MakeMusi

[Finale] Notation program Comparison

[Colin Broom]

David W. Fenton wrote:

I've only had one correspondence with MakeMusic (I've sent in feature 
requests, etc., which didn't require a response beyond an acknowledgment), 
and it took several messages before the support person even got to the 
point of comprehending what I was talking about, despite a very clearly 
worded set of instructions for reproducing the problem -- the rep really 
didn't read what I'd written, and gave answers to the wrong question. It 
took several back-

and-forth messages to get him back on the right topic. 


Obviously I can't comment on any other user's experience of Makemusic 
customer support, but just to balance the books somewhat, I have to say all 
my experiences of Winsupport have been markedly different.


I've had to correspond with winsupport around 16-17 times, on issues ranging 
from drum mapping, MIDI importing, feature requests, bugs relating to the 
main tool pallette (which admittedly, though not serious, I don't think has 
been fixed.), and on all occasions the response has been fairly prompt, 
always courteous, and on the whole helpful.  On the occasions that they 
haven't been able to replicate the problem, there has been a slightly more 
extended correspondence while the problem is pinpointed, and I've even been 
asked to email them files on ocassion so that they can figure out what's 
going on.


In fact, as much as I have needed it, I really can't complain about 
Makemusic customer support.


C.

_
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[dhbailey]

Richard Yates wrote:


The quality of the engraving isn't in question here - the fact that the
company participated is.  Look at the MakeMusic submission -- it's far
inferior to the Sibelius submission.  I can't even see the notes or the
staves for the MakeMusic submission!



You are all reading far more into this informal, voluntary comparison than
is remotely valid. The whole thing was obviously not much planned or
organized. There is no 'MakeMusic' submission; there is only a Finale
version made by a casual user with an ancient version.



That's my point -- informal or not, Sibelius is out there beating the 
bushes, working hard to display itself, make itself known wherever it 
can.  MakeMusic couldn't care less.


As for being a "voluntary comparison" I can't really imagine these days 
there being a "mandatory comparison" so I'm not sure why you're making 
this competition seem even less than it was.  It wasn't an organized 
comparison, fine.


My point about Sibelius as a company working hard to create a presence 
for itself while MakeMusic is just trudging along in the same old rut 
still stands, regardless of the low-brow quality of the comparison in 
question.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Noel Stoutenburg]

To my comments

Adobe succeeded in persuading the court that a digital font is output 
of a computer program


and

Case law suggests, that in the U.S., if you printed out all of the 
characters of the revere font enlarged them with an analog pantagraph, 
and scanned and digitized the enlarged images, that this would not be 
infringement on the font in the U.S.


Owain responded

Case law, or speculation?  All that you describe is several direct 
copies of a computer output.


causing me to note that a better way to have said this is "my informed, 
lay (that is to say, I am not an attourney) interpretation of case law 
suggests". 

U.S. law is not necessarily logical on this issue, and may never be.  
For example, one of the limitations on the rights of a copyright holder 
under U.S. law, is that the owner of an object subject to copyright, 
such as a book, or piece of music, or a letter, may "display" the object 
he rightfully owns.  However, unless the owner has permission, it is 
illegal to copy the object.   So if I own a first copy of say, the 
user's manual of Finale version 1, I can display it, but not photocopy it. 

Now, consider the user's manual to Finale 2006; this will be an adobe 
file, and to display it, the technical process involved is to "copy" the 
file into memory, and from a computer standpoint, copying the file into 
memory, and copying the file to a blank item of media is substantially 
the same process, but one is legal, and one is not.


ns

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Mark D Lew]

On Jul 23, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:


This is wrong. When I worked in customer support, I
computed the number of customer e-mails finished in
one response vs. those that took multiple e-mails to
resolve. I personally was resolving over 90% of the
issues to the satisfaction of the customer in the
first response. None of the staff was much under 80%.


We probably have a distorted view of this here. Anyone who is a regular 
participant here isn't likely to contact customer support unless it's a 
really tough one.


We tend to forget that the vast bulk of Finale users out there are 
asking about simple things that we know very well.


mdl

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[David W. Fenton]

On 23 Jul 2005 at 16:06, Tyler Turner wrote:

> When I worked in customer support, I
> computed the number of customer e-mails finished in
> one response vs. those that took multiple e-mails to
> resolve. I personally was resolving over 90% of the
> issues to the satisfaction of the customer in the
> first response. None of the staff was much under 80%.
> That's pretty solid when you consider that there are
> many times that you HAVE to be able to see the file to
> know what's going on, and other times that the
> customer leaves out extremely critical information
> (like the fact that they are using NotePad).

Here's a free clue:

Most of the users in this forum are not novices. They understand 
Finale extremely well, and because of that, their correspondence with 
customer support is likely to be at a substantially more complex 
level than the run-of-the-mill customer support request.

I've only had one correspondence with MakeMusic (I've sent in feature 
requests, etc., which didn't require a response beyond an 
acknowledgment), and it took several messages before the support 
person even got to the point of comprehending what I was talking 
about, despite a very clearly worded set of instructions for 
reproducing the problem -- the rep really didn't read what I'd 
written, and gave answers to the wrong question. It took several back-
and-forth messages to get him back on the right topic.

I remember now -- the topic was music spacing problems with blank 
notation. And the end of the discussion was that the rep concluded 
that what I said was a bug (and clearly was -- invisible notes should 
not affect spacing when you've got your layer options set to have 
invisible notes *not* affect spacing) was by-design behavior.

The result was that I had to change the way I had been doing things 
in all previous versions of Finale.

And it left a really bad taste in my mouth about Finale support.

As to the point that MakeMusic provides their own forum for 
discussion of Finale, it's a web-based forum (i.e., hard to use), and 
it post-dates this mailing list by many years.

-- 
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] notation program comparison

[Tyler Turner]

--- dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> 
> Compare this to MakeMusic, which has several
> employees who monitor this 
> list on their own time (we do appreciate that), but
> since there is no 
> official monitoring of this list we have to follow
> "official procedures" 
> to submit feature requests or bugs.  And on the
> Sibelius list, if Daniel 
> doesn't know the answer to the problem, he will give
> specific e-mail 
> addresses of Sibelius employees who can provide
> those answers.
> 


If you want to talk on a forum where MakeMusic
officially participates, you should go to the forum
they set up. If people specifically create a
communications group AWAY from the Finale people, why
should they feel they are invited to officially
monitor those conversations? The Finale forum is much
more active with actual Finale topics. A lot of the
discussions here would be a waste of company time
since many don't relate to Finale at all. Daniel
doesn't usually hand out specific company employee
e-mails - I wouldn't say any more often than Carla
does on their own forum. It's generally bad policy for
a number of reasons, the most important being that
when e-mails are sent to customer support they are
picked up by the people who get to them first. If that
employee can't answer it, he/she goes and gets help
from someone at MakeMusic who can.

Submitting a request to support SHOULD be the way it's
done. The forum can get messy, and if people believe
that by mentioning something there they can be sure
their request will be seen, even when buried in long
threads, then there's a good chance their request will
go unnoticed. It's responsible behavior for MakeMusic
to ask users to make official requests rather than
give them the impression the forum works for that.
Daniel's method on the Sibelius forum seems very
personable, but the guy does go on vacations from time
to time, and I'm willing to bet a few requests have
been missed.

And may I be so bold as to say that if a person can't
be bothered to write an e-mail for something they want
the company to spend time developing, they perhaps
shouldn't be given as much priority as those who are
kind enough to do this? It's certainly easier on the
employees if they can go through and log multiple
feature requests at one time.


> Engraving competition to show the comparative
> strengths of engraving 
> programs?
> Sibelius -- eager participation
> MakeMusic -- yawn!  why bother?

Would you mind telling me where it is that you have
seen any mention of the fact that MakeMusic was even
TOLD this was going on? You're insulting people
who I KNOW care a ton more about Finale than you do -
and as far as I can tell you're doing it without
having solid facts.

> Sibelius -- instant, courteous response with helpful
> information, even 
> on a non-company-sponsored e-mail list
> MakeMusic -- another round of tech-support ping-pong

Geico's satisfaction rate stands at 97%. MakeMusic's
customer support is similar. You can talk about your
personal experiences, but most people have been
extremely happy.

> Compare this to MakeMusic, even with the unofficial
> participation on 
> this list, we have to go through the interface of
> their tech-support 
> personnel, whose first response is
> frequently/usually "I can't recreate 
> the problem" 

This is wrong. When I worked in customer support, I
computed the number of customer e-mails finished in
one response vs. those that took multiple e-mails to
resolve. I personally was resolving over 90% of the
issues to the satisfaction of the customer in the
first response. None of the staff was much under 80%.
That's pretty solid when you consider that there are
many times that you HAVE to be able to see the file to
know what's going on, and other times that the
customer leaves out extremely critical information
(like the fact that they are using NotePad).


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] notation program comparison

[Mark D Lew]

On Jul 23, 2005, at 5:47 AM, Richard Yates wrote:

This is all pure fantasy. Do you actually read the posts in these 
threads?


Well, I try, but it seems like there's about 70 posts a day lately, so 
it's hard for me to keep up as well as I'd like.


Evidently, I didn't study hard enough and got a false impression.  I 
apologize for the pain I caused you with my erroneous post.


mdl

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Lora Crighton]

On 7/23/05, Richard Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The quality of the engraving isn't in question here - the fact that the
> > company participated is.  Look at the MakeMusic submission -- it's far
> > inferior to the Sibelius submission.  I can't even see the notes or the
> > staves for the MakeMusic submission!
> 
> You are all reading far more into this informal, voluntary comparison than
> is remotely valid. The whole thing was obviously not much planned or
> organized. There is no 'MakeMusic' submission; there is only a Finale
> version made by a casual user with an ancient version.
> 

It was *very* informal.  After reading more of the replies in the
newsgroup, I found out that some of the submissions were done last
year & some recently, and the two groups were not given the same
instructions.  The original question was could people emulate
somebody's engraving & use their programs to produce an exact copy.
(The first group were done in Score, Music Press and Encore.)  I was
given the copy & told to use a certain font.  I'm not sure what
instructions the others were given.  The comment from one of the
composers on the newsgroup was  "Unsuprisingly, they look remarkably
alike. The main differences are minute differences in font size and
margins."  I see more differences than that, especially between the
Sibelius & the others, but they are similar, and the piece chosen
doesn't really require anything very complicated.

Also, the people in the newsgroup are quite a different audience than
people here - some may be professional engravers, but many (most?) are
performers, students &/or composers.  I have a non-music job to pay
the bills and study music part time at York University (my main
interest is musicology).  I know I use a small fraction of what Finale
can do, but it's great for what I want.  I bought it because I have an
on-going project to transcribe a pile of early music into modern
notation, and it was just too much to think about doing by hand.  I've
also ended up doing scores for choirs I've been a part of & doing a
couple of scores for a friend who is starting out as a composer.

I think the idea of some kind of comparison is a good one, and hope it
happens, but that one was not organized or presented in a way that
gives much useful information.  At a minumum, I would want to know
what versions of the programs people were using, and how much of what
I was looking at reflected defaults & how much was the result of the
user's own templates and tweaking.  Perhaps there needs to be two
different comparisons - what can experts like some of you on this list
make the programs do, and how easy is it for people like me, with a
main interest that is something other than engraving, make the program
produce the results we need?  Given more hours in a day (or a large
enough lottery win so that I could leave the job) I could have great
fun learning how to use all the bells & whistles (for example I've
never done anything with sounds except listen with whatever the
default is to help in proofreading), but realistically, if I every
needed a really complicated score or a good soundfile, I would
probably just hire somebody to do it for me.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Johannes Gebauer]

Ken Durling schrieb:

Something I'd like to see is at least a partial list of what editions by 
what publishers are done in which program, especially major publishers.  


Here is one of one company which uses Sibelius.

http://www.notation.de/german/referenzen.html

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] notation program comparison

[Ken Durling]

At 06:37 AM 7/23/2005, you wrote:

It's not a MakeMusic submission. Presonally I think they should stay out 
of things as badly organised as this. There are far better way of 
promoting their product than getting involved in badly thought out 
competitions. This nothing but a mildly interesting sideline.


What is far more interesting is the talk of a well organised comparison, 
this thing though, it's utterly throw away.




Something I'd like to see is at least a partial list of what editions by 
what publishers are done in which program, especially major 
publishers.  I'm not to the point where I can recognize a program's output 
at a glance, although sometimes I can.   I know many publishers use more 
than one program, and subcontract work to a variety of engravers.  I'd also 
be curious as to how they maintain a consistent look using that approach, 
although I'm sure many of them allow for a certain amount of deviation.



Ken

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Simon Troup]

> >>The fact that Mr Spreadbury submitted the Sibelius entry, whereas
> >>the Finale entry fell by default to the only person who
> >>volunteered, tells me something about the difference between
> >>MakeMusic and Sibelius.  The latter saw an opportunity to show off
> >>their product and made sure that they got one of their most
> >>knowledgeable employees to do a first-rate job.
> > 
> > 
> > Cough! Are we looking at the same piece of music.
> > 
> 
> The quality of the engraving isn't in question here - the fact that
> the company participated is.  Look at the MakeMusic submission --
> it's far inferior to the Sibelius submission.  I can't even see the
> notes or the staves for the MakeMusic submission!

It's not a MakeMusic submission. Presonally I think they should stay out of 
things as badly organised as this. There are far better way of promoting their 
product than getting involved in badly thought out competitions. This nothing 
but a mildly interesting sideline.

What is far more interesting is the talk of a well organised comparison, this 
thing though, it's utterly throw away.

Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Richard Yates]

> The quality of the engraving isn't in question here - the fact that the
> company participated is.  Look at the MakeMusic submission -- it's far
> inferior to the Sibelius submission.  I can't even see the notes or the
> staves for the MakeMusic submission!

You are all reading far more into this informal, voluntary comparison than
is remotely valid. The whole thing was obviously not much planned or
organized. There is no 'MakeMusic' submission; there is only a Finale
version made by a casual user with an ancient version.

Richard Yates


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Richard Yates]

> > The fact that Mr Spreadbury submitted the Sibelius entry, whereas the
> > Finale entry fell by default to the only person who volunteered, tells
> > me something about the difference between MakeMusic and Sibelius.  The
> > latter saw an opportunity to show off their product and made sure that
> > they got one of their most knowledgeable employees to do a first-rate
> > job.

This is all pure fantasy. Do you actually read the posts in these threads?
The 'contest' was put together by someone on a newsgroup asking for
volunteers. It was clearly informal and impromptu. The exemplar was a
trivial challenge. The 'results' are crude.

Richard Yates


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Mark D Lew]

On Jul 23, 2005, at 4:04 AM, dhbailey wrote:

As I recall reading (no I can't remember nor cite where I read these 
things) what Adobe did was to convince the courts that the electronic 
files which describe the fonts is copyrightable, not the fonts that 
were generated by the electronic files.


Perfectly reasonable.  Writing the font definitions is a creative 
effort, even if you do it with the help of software.  You have every 
right to make your own font whose characters look just like the ones in 
whatever font it is you want to copy, but you've got to work out all 
the curves and dimensions yourself.  You can't just grab take the 
entire font file.


That's why all the font foundries can have look-alike fonts of all the 
most popular typefaces.  Yes, there are models that they're all copying 
(some of which are hundreds of years old).  But they each develop their 
definitions on their own.


mdl

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[dhbailey]

Simon Troup wrote:

The fact that Mr Spreadbury submitted the Sibelius entry, whereas the  
Finale entry fell by default to the only person who volunteered, tells  
me something about the difference between MakeMusic and Sibelius.  The  
latter saw an opportunity to show off their product and made sure that  
they got one of their most knowledgeable employees to do a first-rate  
job.



Cough! Are we looking at the same piece of music.



The quality of the engraving isn't in question here - the fact that the 
company participated is.  Look at the MakeMusic submission -- it's far 
inferior to the Sibelius submission.  I can't even see the notes or the 
staves for the MakeMusic submission!


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[dhbailey]

Mark D Lew wrote:



On Jul 21, 2005, at 4:54 AM, Richard Yates wrote:

This may be of interest, although the score that as chosen as the  
exemplar

is not complicated.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jfalbano/ 
Six%20Music%20Notation%20Programs.pdf



I'm coming into this discussion late.  (This list is too busy, and I  
can only keep up with one mega-topic at a time -- and this time I chose  
the "countertenor barred..." discussion instead.)


I found it interesting how each software has a distinctively look.   
Even with the low-resolution PDFs as they first appeared on my screen,  
I recognized the Finale and Score versions at a glance.  Sibelius, on  
the other hand, fooled me, because the Encore one is so similar to  
Sibelius's standard style.  Is it just a coincidence that they resemble  
each other?


The fact that Mr Spreadbury submitted the Sibelius entry, whereas the  
Finale entry fell by default to the only person who volunteered, tells  
me something about the difference between MakeMusic and Sibelius.  The  
latter saw an opportunity to show off their product and made sure that  
they got one of their most knowledgeable employees to do a first-rate  
job.  MakeMusic either didn't know or didn't care enough to put out a  
similar effort.  They wouldn't have even needed to provide an engraver.  
 They could have easily enlisted Johannes or any of several others on  
this list to volunteer.




This difference between MakeMusic and Sibelius is clear in so many 
aspects of the two companies -- Sibelius is out in the trenches, having 
an official monitoring and participation in the yahoogroup, which is 
sponsored by a music store, NOT by Sibelius itself.  I have made 
suggestions to Daniel on the Sibelius list and he has said he would add 
that to the list of possible future additions to be considered in a 
future version.


Compare this to MakeMusic, which has several employees who monitor this 
list on their own time (we do appreciate that), but since there is no 
official monitoring of this list we have to follow "official procedures" 
to submit feature requests or bugs.  And on the Sibelius list, if Daniel 
doesn't know the answer to the problem, he will give specific e-mail 
addresses of Sibelius employees who can provide those answers.


Compare this to MakeMusic, even with the unofficial participation on 
this list, we have to go through the interface of their tech-support 
personnel, whose first response is frequently/usually "I can't recreate 
the problem" and whose second response (if we don't quit in frustration 
after the first reply) is (after we've submitted painstakingly the 
outline of steps necessary for us and often for many others on this list 
to reproduce the problem each and every time) "I still can't recreate 
the problem, please send a problem file that exhibits this problem."


And if the problem has to do simply with things like note-entry being 
off by an octave sometimes in bass-clef entry, or note-entry being way 
off in percussion staves, they are file-independant, and even when we go 
back to edit the file where we have the problem occured initially, it 
doesn't recur unless we recreate the exact series of steps as outlined, 
they STILL say they can't reproduce it.


Sibelius -- instant, courteous response with helpful information, even 
on a non-company-sponsored e-mail list

MakeMusic -- another round of tech-support ping-pong

Engraving competition to show the comparative strengths of engraving 
programs?

Sibelius -- eager participation
MakeMusic -- yawn!  why bother?

Now I'm sure that in the bowels of MakeMusic, coders like Randy Stokes 
and his crew, and many other employees, care passionately about Finale. 
 I wonder why it appears that the front office doesn't?


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Simon Troup]

> The fact that Mr Spreadbury submitted the Sibelius entry, whereas the  
> Finale entry fell by default to the only person who volunteered, tells  
> me something about the difference between MakeMusic and Sibelius.  The  
> latter saw an opportunity to show off their product and made sure that  
> they got one of their most knowledgeable employees to do a first-rate  
> job.

Cough! Are we looking at the same piece of music.

Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[dhbailey]

Owain Sutton wrote:




Noel Stoutenburg wrote:

Adobe succeeded in persuading the court that a digital font is output 
of a computer program




Case law suggests, that in the U.S., if you printed out all of the 
characters of the revere font enlarged them with an analog pantagraph, 
and scanned and digitized the enlarged images, that this would not be 
infringement on the font in the U.S.



Case law, or speculation?  All that you describe is several direct 
copies of a computer output.


As I recall reading (no I can't remember nor cite where I read these 
things) what Adobe did was to convince the courts that the electronic 
files which describe the fonts is copyrightable, not the fonts that were 
generated by the electronic files.


This is because under U.S. copyright law, fonts which you can see and 
read are not copyrightable (as my mother-in-law, a professional 
calligrapher says, "who would own the alphabet?").  But electronic files 
ARE copyrightable.


So you could, as I understand things (with my not being a lawyer, this 
is worth what you are paying for it), make copies of the Revere font 
simply by printing it out very large, then scanning the image back into 
the computer into your own font design program.


What you can't do is to share copies of the electronic file (possible 
called revere.ps or revere.ttf) with others who aren't licensed by the 
people who own the copyright on the font file.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Mark D Lew]

On Jul 21, 2005, at 4:54 AM, Richard Yates wrote:

This may be of interest, although the score that as chosen as the  
exemplar

is not complicated.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jfalbano/ 
Six%20Music%20Notation%20Programs.pdf


I'm coming into this discussion late.  (This list is too busy, and I  
can only keep up with one mega-topic at a time -- and this time I chose  
the "countertenor barred..." discussion instead.)


I found it interesting how each software has a distinctively look.   
Even with the low-resolution PDFs as they first appeared on my screen,  
I recognized the Finale and Score versions at a glance.  Sibelius, on  
the other hand, fooled me, because the Encore one is so similar to  
Sibelius's standard style.  Is it just a coincidence that they resemble  
each other?


The fact that Mr Spreadbury submitted the Sibelius entry, whereas the  
Finale entry fell by default to the only person who volunteered, tells  
me something about the difference between MakeMusic and Sibelius.  The  
latter saw an opportunity to show off their product and made sure that  
they got one of their most knowledgeable employees to do a first-rate  
job.  MakeMusic either didn't know or didn't care enough to put out a  
similar effort.  They wouldn't have even needed to provide an engraver.  
 They could have easily enlisted Johannes or any of several others on  
this list to volunteer.


mdl

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Owain Sutton]

Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Adobe succeeded in 
persuading the court that a digital font is output of a computer 
program



Case law suggests, that in 
the U.S., if you printed out all of the characters of the revere font 
enlarged them with an analog pantagraph, and scanned and digitized the 
enlarged images, that this would not be infringement on the font in the 
U.S.


Case law, or speculation?  All that you describe is several direct 
copies of a computer output.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Noel Stoutenburg]

Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote:

With respect to reverse engineering the "Revere" font of Graphier as 
Matthew suggested, and about which he further wrote, in part:


It would of course be illegal to do this most likely - what is the 
status of 'abandonware' these days?


It would probably depend upon in which jurisdiction(s) the copyrights 
are registered involved.  For example,  there are works composed by Wood 
between 1923 and his death in 1926, in which the copyrights were owned 
by Oxford University Press.  I understand that, under UK copyright law, 
these works are in the public domain, because the copyright expired at 
the end of the 70th year after his death, however, OUP-USA claims that, 
despite the fact that these items are public domain in the country of 
original registration, that under U.S. law, those works of Wood composed 
between 1923, and 1926, which are still subject to copyright. 

Further, "Fonts" in the U.S. are explicitly excluded from copyright by 
statute, (though digital fonts are in a somewhat less clear area because 
of a confusing ruling of the U.S. supreme court; Adobe succeeded in 
persuading the court that a digital font is output of a computer 
program, and while the exact same shapes generated by handset type are 
not copyrightable, the digital version is.)  Case law suggests, that in 
the U.S., if you printed out all of the characters of the revere font 
enlarged them with an analog pantagraph, and scanned and digitized the 
enlarged images, that this would not be infringement on the font in the 
U.S.; I'm guessing, however, that it would violate graphical copyright 
in the E.U.


ns


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Johannes Gebauer]

Actually, I think two versions have had much better templates than 
before. Not ideal in every respect, but still much better.


However, what really needs to be improved is Finale's template handling. 
There is absolutely no reason that the wizard can only have two 
templates. If MM shipped Finale with, say, 5 different templates, 
representing European, American, Jazz etc standards People would 
probably find it much easier to find an ideal template for the task. 
Currently the Maestro Default file tries to accomodate a variety of 
styles, and none of them very well.


Johannes

Dennis Bathory-Kitsz schrieb:

At 03:54 PM 7/22/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:

But if you're trying to test ease of use and good results with very 
little work, then I think the defaults ought to be used.
And I think Finale falls down on the defaults, and that's what the 
vast majority of users will end up with.



You're absolutely right. I think I've forgotten how bad the Finale defaults
were, because I've been moving templates forward for a long time (haven't
broken anything yet). But yes, a nicely set up Finale template would be a
Good Thing.

Has that been done in the latest version? I once again moved my template
forward, so I don't know.

Dennis


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale



--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 03:54 PM 7/22/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
>But if you're trying to test ease of use and good results with very 
>little work, then I think the defaults ought to be used.
>And I think Finale falls down on the defaults, and that's what the 
>vast majority of users will end up with.

You're absolutely right. I think I've forgotten how bad the Finale defaults
were, because I've been moving templates forward for a long time (haven't
broken anything yet). But yes, a nicely set up Finale template would be a
Good Thing.

Has that been done in the latest version? I once again moved my template
forward, so I don't know.

Dennis


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[David W. Fenton]

On 22 Jul 2005 at 12:37, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:

> It seems to me that the power of a program resides not in its defaults, but
> in its flexibility in solving frequent notational challenges

Well, I think that if what you're trying to test is flexibility, 
that's correct.

But if you're trying to test ease of use and good results with very 
little work, then I think the defaults ought to be used.

Both classes of issues are important.

And I think Finale falls down on the defaults, and that's what the 
vast majority of users will end up with.

-- 
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] notation program comparison

[Johannes Gebauer]

Oh, I don't mind complex, just not pages and pages of it to try out
every possible situation. Not practical, won't happen.

However, the list you give I am not going to do in full, it's just too 
time consuming. But perhaps one doesn't have to do it all, and various 
people can try their luck on the different tasks.


Johannes

Dennis Bathory-Kitsz schrieb:

At 05:59 PM 7/22/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

There is no possible way any such comparison is ever going to be totally 
objective. Noone is going to enter if it involves doing endless pages of 
complex notation. If I am going to enter the comparison I want it 
limited, and I am not going to time it (that's not the way I work, I am 
too perfectionist for that). But I would write a report on how I did 
what and which things took time/were complicated/had me consult the manual.


3 pages at most. And no limitations like using MakeMusics default files 
(I never use them), or not allowing any tweaking (that's silly) or not 
using any third party additions.



I agree with you, except the complex notation and time issues.

It seems to me that the power of a program resides not in its defaults, but
in its flexibility in solving frequent notational challenges -- whether
it's an ossia or feathered beaming, tablature or chords, plainchant or
graphical inserts -- and solving those challenges both time-effectively and
in a legible, elegant, and stylistically appropriate way.

No program can do it all (in any presentational genre!), so that a program
that offers add-ons, plug-ins, scripts, etc., contributes significantly to
a strong result. (And, of course, there's the question of the effective
demo to accompany the score.)

A proper comparison, it seems to me, would include (as do performance
auditions) music from numerous genres. For me that might include a
comparison of settings of...
...a page of plainchant in appropriate fonts
...a page of Couperin complete with ornaments
...a page of a Bach cantata including figured bass
...the opening page of a tuplet-heavy Chopin prelude such as Op. 28 No. 8
(complete with ossia)
...a snippet of gigunda pages from Gotterdammerung or Gurre Lieder or Sacre
...a page of big band arrangement of Lush Life or a section from Mingus's
Epitaph or Bley's Escalator
...a middle page of Stravinsky's Anthem: A Dove Descending
...part of Berio's Gesti or Cage's Music of Changes
...and the killer, Stockhausen's Nr. 11 Refrain (back cover of the original
edition of Gardner Read)

What program could do them all, and do them well, time-effectively, and
produce a demo? (And I agree with Simon that a showcase might be more
effective than a competition.)

Dennis




___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale



--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Phil Daley]

At 7/22/2005 12:37 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:

>A proper comparison, it seems to me, would include (as do performance
>auditions) music from numerous genres. For me that might include a
>comparison of settings of...
>...a page of plainchant in appropriate fonts
>...a page of Couperin complete with ornaments
>...a page of a Bach cantata including figured bass
>...the opening page of a tuplet-heavy Chopin prelude such as Op. 28 No. 8
>(complete with ossia)
>...a snippet of gigunda pages from Gotterdammerung or Gurre Lieder or Sacre
>...a page of big band arrangement of Lush Life or a section from Mingus's
>Epitaph or Bley's Escalator
>...a middle page of Stravinsky's Anthem: A Dove Descending
>...part of Berio's Gesti or Cage's Music of Changes
>...and the killer, Stockhausen's Nr. 11 Refrain (back cover of the original
>edition of Gardner Read)
>
>What program could do them all, and do them well, time-effectively, and
>produce a demo? (And I agree with Simon that a showcase might be more
>effective than a competition.)

I agree  that one person would not be familiar with all of these styles.

Have people submit entries to whatever and how many categories they want to.

I think it would be really interesting to see the results.

Phil Daley  < AutoDesk >
http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 05:59 PM 7/22/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>There is no possible way any such comparison is ever going to be totally 
>objective. Noone is going to enter if it involves doing endless pages of 
>complex notation. If I am going to enter the comparison I want it 
>limited, and I am not going to time it (that's not the way I work, I am 
>too perfectionist for that). But I would write a report on how I did 
>what and which things took time/were complicated/had me consult the manual.
>
>3 pages at most. And no limitations like using MakeMusics default files 
>(I never use them), or not allowing any tweaking (that's silly) or not 
>using any third party additions.

I agree with you, except the complex notation and time issues.

It seems to me that the power of a program resides not in its defaults, but
in its flexibility in solving frequent notational challenges -- whether
it's an ossia or feathered beaming, tablature or chords, plainchant or
graphical inserts -- and solving those challenges both time-effectively and
in a legible, elegant, and stylistically appropriate way.

No program can do it all (in any presentational genre!), so that a program
that offers add-ons, plug-ins, scripts, etc., contributes significantly to
a strong result. (And, of course, there's the question of the effective
demo to accompany the score.)

A proper comparison, it seems to me, would include (as do performance
auditions) music from numerous genres. For me that might include a
comparison of settings of...
...a page of plainchant in appropriate fonts
...a page of Couperin complete with ornaments
...a page of a Bach cantata including figured bass
...the opening page of a tuplet-heavy Chopin prelude such as Op. 28 No. 8
(complete with ossia)
...a snippet of gigunda pages from Gotterdammerung or Gurre Lieder or Sacre
...a page of big band arrangement of Lush Life or a section from Mingus's
Epitaph or Bley's Escalator
...a middle page of Stravinsky's Anthem: A Dove Descending
...part of Berio's Gesti or Cage's Music of Changes
...and the killer, Stockhausen's Nr. 11 Refrain (back cover of the original
edition of Gardner Read)

What program could do them all, and do them well, time-effectively, and
produce a demo? (And I agree with Simon that a showcase might be more
effective than a competition.)

Dennis




___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Robert Patterson]

this is a crucial element of any useful comparison

Johannes Gebauer wrote:

 But I would write a report on how I did 
what and which things took time/were complicated/had me consult the manual.




--
Robert Patterson

http://RobertGPatterson.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Simon Troup]

> There is no possible way any such comparison is ever going to be
> totally objective. Noone is going to enter if it involves doing
> endless pages of complex notation.

I think Jari's idea of a more selective gallery of well engraved Finale work 
deserves more attention. I never liked the "Hall Of Fame" title, but there 
should be a repository for engraving work that really shows off what Finale can 
do.

I'm not a "loony" Finale advocate (in the same way as all those guys who buy 
"think different" socks), and the whole "competition" idea doesn't really 
appeal - but a really good showcase that doesn't have all the crap that the 
official showcase has would be a great thing.

Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Johannes Gebauer]

There is no possible way any such comparison is ever going to be totally 
objective. Noone is going to enter if it involves doing endless pages of 
complex notation. If I am going to enter the comparison I want it 
limited, and I am not going to time it (that's not the way I work, I am 
too perfectionist for that). But I would write a report on how I did 
what and which things took time/were complicated/had me consult the manual.


3 pages at most. And no limitations like using MakeMusics default files 
(I never use them), or not allowing any tweaking (that's silly) or not 
using any third party additions.


Johannes

Michael Cook schrieb:
If anyone is interested in organising this sort of competition, it's 
important to work out what the purpose is. Do we want to test:


- the capacity of the software for producing complex notation?
- the capacity of the software for producing clear, readable notation?
- the capacity of the software for producing notation that complies to 
certain editors' parameters?
- the capacity of the software for reproducing a given printed piece in 
all details?

- the time it takes to create a given score?
- the difficulty of producing the desired effects?
- the amount of tweaking necessary to produce the desired effects?

In all cases, it's difficult to find a way of objectively testing the 
software itself. With any one of the major engraving programs a person 
who is a real expert of that particular program should be able to 
produce just about any desired effect. Of course there will be different 
amounts of tweaking going on in each case, ranging from simple 
adjustments to full-blown workarounds, but there's no way to have really 
accurate information about that, and in matters of ease of use its hard 
to make meaningful comparisons between programs that work in such 
different ways.


The quality of the finished piece will be more dependent on the 
engraver's care and skills than on the actual tools he or she is using. 
At the end we will always be judging the engraver more than the software.


Michael Cook

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale



--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[dhbailey]

ronan wrote:


I don't know about "staging", but didn't Daniel Spreadbury work for Sibelius
at one time? To add insult to injury, Lora Creighton is using an ancient
version of Finale--which leads me to wonder what kind of engraving
experience she has. Or any of them, for that matter. The whole thing is just
too amateurish--both in the people selected to use the programs and in the
organization of it--to take seriously.



Daniel Spreadbury still works for Sibelius.

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Rick Neal]

I believe Daniel Spreadbury is the Sibelius programmer/employee who is 
very active on the Sibelius list.


Rick


ronan wrote:


I don't know about "staging", but didn't Daniel Spreadbury work for Sibelius
at one time? To add insult to injury, Lora Creighton is using an ancient
version of Finale--which leads me to wonder what kind of engraving
experience she has. Or any of them, for that matter. The whole thing is just
too amateurish--both in the people selected to use the programs and in the
organization of it--to take seriously.

Best,

Ron

Ronald J Brown
PO Box 138
Newboro ON K0G 1P0
(613) 272-3181
http://www.RonaldJBrown.com

-Original Message-
From: Johannes Gebauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: July 21, 2005 5:00 PM

To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

The comparison does make me wonder though: Wouldn't a real comparison 
where experts with each software work by strictly copying one or more 
sources of real published music be long overdue?


Some time ago (years I guess) we had this kind of thread as well, where 
I believe Sibelius staged a kind of competition, but ended up with a 
rather poor result for their own software and quickly withdrew the results.


I don't think cautionary accidentals have anything to do with this, by 
the way.


I'd volunteer to do this kind of competition, if it is limited to no 
more than two or three pages.


Johannes

 



--
Rick Neal
Teacher, Composer, Bassist, Guitarist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] notation program comparison

[ronan]

I don't know about "staging", but didn't Daniel Spreadbury work for Sibelius
at one time? To add insult to injury, Lora Creighton is using an ancient
version of Finale--which leads me to wonder what kind of engraving
experience she has. Or any of them, for that matter. The whole thing is just
too amateurish--both in the people selected to use the programs and in the
organization of it--to take seriously.

Best,

Ron

Ronald J Brown
PO Box 138
Newboro ON K0G 1P0
(613) 272-3181
http://www.RonaldJBrown.com

-Original Message-
From: Johannes Gebauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: July 21, 2005 5:00 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

The comparison does make me wonder though: Wouldn't a real comparison 
where experts with each software work by strictly copying one or more 
sources of real published music be long overdue?

Some time ago (years I guess) we had this kind of thread as well, where 
I believe Sibelius staged a kind of competition, but ended up with a 
rather poor result for their own software and quickly withdrew the results.

I don't think cautionary accidentals have anything to do with this, by 
the way.

I'd volunteer to do this kind of competition, if it is limited to no 
more than two or three pages.

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] notation program comparison

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 04:10 PM 7/22/05 +1000, Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote:
>Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
>> 
>> The Graphire font (Revere) is not even the same character order, and it has
>> some sort of zero-width parameter, so it can't be used as text in other
>> documents -- characters appear one on top of the other. I'd experimented
>> unsuccessfully with using it in Finale ...
>
>What you'd do in this case (using Fontographer or whatever) is to clear 
>the characters in the Maestro font, but not the widths.  Then paste in 
>the characters from Revere into what's left of Maestro (using the 
>Maestro character slots), also carefully preserving the Maestro widths. 
>Tedious for an hour to be sure.
>
>It would of course be illegal to do this most likely - what is the 
>status of 'abandonware' these days?

Revere and Music Press aren't abandoned -- they're just no longer being
developed. It's my understanding that the Graphire product was being
transferred to another company. But since Graphire is a privately held
company, I'm not privy to the behind-the-scenes. There is a user support
group and listserv that continues to work on it, and is even now trying to
develop a patch to make Midi work on the newer Mac operating system.

The Revere font has never been released separately and in fact was fiercely
protected by the original programmer. Now that I've been successful
modifying other fonts, I would Fontographer-ize it for my own use in Finale
-- except that I have handed over my copy of Graphire to another engraver
and no longer have the right to use it.

Indeed, I think Graphire's high price, wacky licensing terms (you could buy
it by number of hours) and dongle-based protection scheme (which as the
documentation author I fought and got nowhere in having changed) were
responsible for its demise. It was never competitive in price, and the
investment required to re-learn music entry (if you were coming from
Finale, the only real alternative at the time) meant it really had to
shine. And it did. In terms of printed results -- badly revealed by the
comparison pages that started this thread -- it was unparalleled, requiring
almost no fussy adjustments once a house style had been set up. House
styles really had meaning in Graphire, too, with master pages and several
levels of layered control in the manner of Pagemaker. I can't praise enough
how logically it worked design-wise ... no matter how I disliked its
engraver-style approach to music entry and difficulty in post-entry editing.

Dennis



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[dhbailey]

Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote:


Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:



The Graphire font (Revere) is not even the same character order, and 
it has

some sort of zero-width parameter, so it can't be used as text in other
documents -- characters appear one on top of the other. I'd experimented
unsuccessfully with using it in Finale ...



What you'd do in this case (using Fontographer or whatever) is to clear 
the characters in the Maestro font, but not the widths.  Then paste in 
the characters from Revere into what's left of Maestro (using the 
Maestro character slots), also carefully preserving the Maestro widths. 
Tedious for an hour to be sure.


It would of course be illegal to do this most likely - what is the 
status of 'abandonware' these days?


Matthew




"Abandonware" is still protected by copyright -- there is a series of 
hearings and testimony is being taken by the copyright office concerning 
such things as how to handle the copyright issues, how much of a search 
is sufficient to protect an individual should he/she use copyrighted 
materials without permission.  The copyright office is aware of the 
problem and is trying to sort it out, but under the law, the full 
copyright still is in effect even for what is apparently abandonware.


Of course, it may not be abandonware at all, it may just be dormantware, 
which is something that may rise out of the ashes of its former existence.


Witness the Notion program being developped these days -- it is clearly 
trying to be a Phoenix rising from the ashes of MusicPrinterPlus, even 
though there has been a 10-year (at least) dormancy, during which time 
MusicPrinterPlus could easily have been viewed as abandonware.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Michael Cook]

If anyone is interested in organising this sort of competition, it's 
important to work out what the purpose is. Do we want to test:


- the capacity of the software for producing complex notation?
- the capacity of the software for producing clear, readable notation?
- the capacity of the software for producing notation that complies to 
certain editors' parameters?
- the capacity of the software for reproducing a given printed piece in 
all details?

- the time it takes to create a given score?
- the difficulty of producing the desired effects?
- the amount of tweaking necessary to produce the desired effects?

In all cases, it's difficult to find a way of objectively testing the 
software itself. With any one of the major engraving programs a person 
who is a real expert of that particular program should be able to 
produce just about any desired effect. Of course there will be 
different amounts of tweaking going on in each case, ranging from 
simple adjustments to full-blown workarounds, but there's no way to 
have really accurate information about that, and in matters of ease of 
use its hard to make meaningful comparisons between programs that work 
in such different ways.


The quality of the finished piece will be more dependent on the 
engraver's care and skills than on the actual tools he or she is using. 
At the end we will always be judging the engraver more than the 
software.


Michael Cook

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Darcy James Argue]

On 22 Jul 2005, at 3:00 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

All fine with me, but count me out of it. I doubt there are many 
engravers who have extensive experience in both genres, I certainly 
haven't.


I think a _much_ better idea would be to do this separately.


I agree.  I'd certainly volunteer to do a jazz page.  I'd even 
volunteer to get permission from the people I mentioned to use a page 
from one of their works for the competition.


What I am after is things like beam placement, and as I understand it 
that doesn't matter much with handwritten jazz style.


No, that's not true at all.  (In fact, I was corresponding with Jef 
Chippewa about this very topic earlier tonight.)


What's certainly true is that there is a lot of unbelievably bad jazz 
engraving out there.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Johannes Gebauer]

All fine with me, but count me out of it. I doubt there are many 
engravers who have extensive experience in both genres, I certainly haven't.


I think a _much_ better idea would be to do this separately. What I am 
after is things like beam placement, and as I understand it that doesn't 
matter much with handwritten jazz style.


I also don't actually want to test the engraver, I want to see the best 
output of real engraving that the software can possibly produce.


Johannes

Darcy James Argue schrieb:

On 21 Jul 2005, at 5:46 PM, Carl Dershem wrote:

I'd think one page of that, one page of a relatively complex jazz 
piece (perhaps something from Mantooth or Levy or Fedchock) and one 
other piece in a third style.  After all, you want to show the 
flexibility of the program, rather than just one thing it can do well.



Nothing against Mantooth, Levy or Fedchock, but their work isn't 
anything I'd call "relatively complex."  If this is meant to be a 
challenge for the engraver, I'd recommend recent works by people like 
Maria Schneider, Jim McNeely, John Hollenbeck, Django Bates, etc.


[Of course, there are copyright issues to deal with... ]

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale



--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Johannes Gebauer]

Owain Sutton schrieb:
I'd love for a third further requirement, of a critical edition of 
(perhaps) one small segment.  This would entail all of the above, plus 
the important questions of target audience, multiple function, etc.


I don't see in which way a critical edition shows anything about the 
software. It doesn't even tell much about the engraver, but everything 
about the editor. That was not my aim in this.


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] notation program comparison

[Darcy James Argue]

On 21 Jul 2005, at 5:46 PM, Carl Dershem wrote:

I'd think one page of that, one page of a relatively complex jazz 
piece (perhaps something from Mantooth or Levy or Fedchock) and one 
other piece in a third style.  After all, you want to show the 
flexibility of the program, rather than just one thing it can do well.


Nothing against Mantooth, Levy or Fedchock, but their work isn't 
anything I'd call "relatively complex."  If this is meant to be a 
challenge for the engraver, I'd recommend recent works by people like 
Maria Schneider, Jim McNeely, John Hollenbeck, Django Bates, etc.


[Of course, there are copyright issues to deal with... ]

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account]

Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:



The Graphire font (Revere) is not even the same character order, and it has
some sort of zero-width parameter, so it can't be used as text in other
documents -- characters appear one on top of the other. I'd experimented
unsuccessfully with using it in Finale ...


What you'd do in this case (using Fontographer or whatever) is to clear 
the characters in the Maestro font, but not the widths.  Then paste in 
the characters from Revere into what's left of Maestro (using the 
Maestro character slots), also carefully preserving the Maestro widths. 
Tedious for an hour to be sure.


It would of course be illegal to do this most likely - what is the 
status of 'abandonware' these days?


Matthew


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/55 - Release Date: 21/07/2005

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Richard Yates]

> The comparison does make me wonder though: Wouldn't a real comparison
> where experts with each software work by strictly copying one or more
> sources of real published music be long overdue?
>
> Some time ago (years I guess) we had this kind of thread as well, where
> I believe Sibelius staged a kind of competition, but ended up with a
> rather poor result for their own software and quickly withdrew the
results.
>
> I'd volunteer to do this kind of competition, if it is limited to no
> more than two or three pages.

The study was organized by Matanya Ophee of Orphee Editions (
www.orphee.com ) a historian, legendary curmudgeon and publisher of often
gorgeous classical guitar music editions. It was well organized and included
double-blind judges. The samples chosen were from the 'Golden Age' of
European engraving and the task was to precisely emulate the originals.

As I recall there were entries from all the major notation programs. Stanley
Yates placed first with Finale, I was second with Finale (although mine was
more accurate!), Graphire Music Press did well, Encore poorly and Score was
about the worst. This last was Matanya's preferred and stoutly defended
program and he withdrew the results of the study quickly.

Although the study was generally well-designed, a glaring weakness was
inability to control for both operator experience and time spent. I
contended that it was possible to equal any output with the most elementary
drawing program, if you wanted to do it one pixel at a time.

It was actually quite fun to try to produce a counterfeit - all the way down
to the flyspecks! - but it said little about comparative efficiency of
different programs that all could do the basics.

Richard Yates


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[David W. Fenton]

On 21 Jul 2005 at 17:16, Lora Crighton wrote:

> On 7/21/05, Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > what I'd like to know: why is the Finale example a scanned image, and
> > not a direct PDF from the source file?
> 
> I don't have the Adobe program that I would need to create a PDF file.
>  I'm using Finale 2002 on a laptop running Windows 98 - it didn't seem
> worth it to get the Adobe, because the only person I was ever trading
> files with had the same version I do.  Usually I just give people
> printed copies.
> 
> I sent both the source file & the scan, and he said the scan was going to be 
> OK.

There are free programs to create PDFs on PCs. I use PDF995. Finale 
doesn't produce very good results for staff lines, though. It prints 
just fine, but looks terrible onscreen. An example:

  http://www.dfenton.com/Rose/Rose.PDF

-- 
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] notation program comparison

[Owain Sutton]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Next time it may be worth noting, that Finale can export a TIFF file of 
a page. If you save at 1200dpi the quality is very good.


It does show, however, that this is not a valid comparison, after all 
you were using a 4 year old version of the software, with currently 3, 
in a few days four newer versions.


I wonder whether Nick Carter could be pursuaded to stage a real 
comparison, it would certainly get his site some publicity.


My suggestion for a good piece of music would be a page from a Sonata or 
Partita for violin solo by Bach. This usually really tests notation 
software. First movement of the A minor Sonata comes to mind. There 
should be loads of out of copyright editions of this, perhaps the best 
one the old Complete Edition. I would suggest to do this page twice, 
once as a strict copy, and once as the best the engraver can do, with 
any means available to him in fonts etc. The musical text should be 
strictly copied both times (no reason to worry about cautionary 
accidentals, this is not a comparison in editing). Is Nick listening?


Johannes


I'd love for a third further requirement, of a critical edition of 
(perhaps) one small segment.  This would entail all of the above, plus 
the important questions of target audience, multiple function, etc.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Johannes Gebauer]

Yes, you are right, I take this back. I didn't intend to damage
Sibelius, in case anyone wondered.

In the current comparison I actually found the Score example quite 
appealing in some respects.


Johannes

Simon Troup schrieb:

Some time ago (years I guess) we had this kind of thread as well,
where I believe Sibelius staged a kind of competition, but ended up
with a rather poor result for their own software and quickly
withdrew the results.



Hi Johannes

I think I remember the event, but ti wasn't Sibelius, it was
organised by a guy who was a big advocate of score, when the result
from the panel went against him (Finale was judged best) he left the
results up for a couple of days and then removed all reference of it
from his site.

Simon Troup Digital Music Art

___ Finale mailing list 
Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale




--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Johannes Gebauer]

Yeah, but...
Is there any way to measure this accurately? Every Engraver who will 
enter this as a competion will try to make himself look really quick. To 
be honest I don't think we'd get any real life times. Since it also 
depends on the skill, but also on the accuratesse of the person I 
personally would rather not ask for times, as I don't think it adds any 
useful information.


On the other hand I would like to add an engraver's comment on where the 
problems with the particular software lie in the particular engraving 
job, and where one wishes for improvements.


Johannes

Robert Patterson schrieb:

Another factor in this is how quickly it is done. I would propose
that any comparison include the length of time it took to produce the
results.



___ Finale mailing list 
Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale




--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Simon Troup]

> Some time ago (years I guess) we had this kind of thread as well, where 
> I believe Sibelius staged a kind of competition, but ended up with a 
> rather poor result for their own software and quickly withdrew the 
> results.

Hi Johannes

I think I remember the event, but ti wasn't Sibelius, it was organised by a guy 
who was a big advocate of score, when the result from the panel went against 
him (Finale was judged best) he left the results up for a couple of days and 
then removed all reference of it from his site.

Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Robert Patterson]

Another factor in this is how quickly it is done. I would propose that any 
comparison include the length of time it took to produce the results.



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Carl Dershem]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:

My suggestion for a good piece of music would be a page from a Sonata or 
Partita for violin solo by Bach. This usually really tests notation 
software. First movement of the A minor Sonata comes to mind. There 
should be loads of out of copyright editions of this, perhaps the best 
one the old Complete Edition. I would suggest to do this page twice, 
once as a strict copy, and once as the best the engraver can do, with 
any means available to him in fonts etc. The musical text should be 
strictly copied both times (no reason to worry about cautionary 
accidentals, this is not a comparison in editing). Is Nick listening?


I'd think one page of that, one page of a relatively complex jazz piece 
(perhaps something from Mantooth or Levy or Fedchock) and one other 
piece in a third style.  After all, you want to show the flexibility of 
the program, rather than just one thing it can do well.


cd

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Johannes Gebauer]

Next time it may be worth noting, that Finale can export a TIFF file of 
a page. If you save at 1200dpi the quality is very good.


It does show, however, that this is not a valid comparison, after all 
you were using a 4 year old version of the software, with currently 3, 
in a few days four newer versions.


I wonder whether Nick Carter could be pursuaded to stage a real 
comparison, it would certainly get his site some publicity.


My suggestion for a good piece of music would be a page from a Sonata or 
Partita for violin solo by Bach. This usually really tests notation 
software. First movement of the A minor Sonata comes to mind. There 
should be loads of out of copyright editions of this, perhaps the best 
one the old Complete Edition. I would suggest to do this page twice, 
once as a strict copy, and once as the best the engraver can do, with 
any means available to him in fonts etc. The musical text should be 
strictly copied both times (no reason to worry about cautionary 
accidentals, this is not a comparison in editing). Is Nick listening?


Johannes

Lora Crighton schrieb:

On 7/21/05, Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Lora,

what I'd like to know: why is the Finale example a scanned image,
and not a direct PDF from the source file?

Johannes




I don't have the Adobe program that I would need to create a PDF
file. I'm using Finale 2002 on a laptop running Windows 98 - it
didn't seem worth it to get the Adobe, because the only person I was
ever trading files with had the same version I do.  Usually I just
give people printed copies.

I sent both the source file & the scan, and he said the scan was
going to be OK.

___ Finale mailing list 
Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale




--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Lora Crighton]

On 7/21/05, Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The comparison does make me wonder though: Wouldn't a real comparison
> where experts with each software work by strictly copying one or more
> sources of real published music be long overdue?
> 

I would love to see that, maybe doing a page each of several different
types of scores.

> Some time ago (years I guess) we had this kind of thread as well, where
> I believe Sibelius staged a kind of competition, but ended up with a
> rather poor result for their own software and quickly withdrew the results.
> 
> I don't think cautionary accidentals have anything to do with this, by
> the way.
> 

Right - that's a user choice to include or not.

> I'd volunteer to do this kind of competition, if it is limited to no
> more than two or three pages.
> 

All we need is somebody to organize it.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Lora Crighton]

On 7/21/05, Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lora,
> 
> what I'd like to know: why is the Finale example a scanned image, and
> not a direct PDF from the source file?
> 
> Johannes
> 

I don't have the Adobe program that I would need to create a PDF file.
 I'm using Finale 2002 on a laptop running Windows 98 - it didn't seem
worth it to get the Adobe, because the only person I was ever trading
files with had the same version I do.  Usually I just give people
printed copies.

I sent both the source file & the scan, and he said the scan was going to be OK.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Johannes Gebauer]

Lora,

what I'd like to know: why is the Finale example a scanned image, and 
not a direct PDF from the source file?


Johannes

Lora Crighton schrieb:

On 7/21/05, Rick Neal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Does anyone know the ground rules set for this comparison? Was the
amount of tweaking limited or restricted? The number and type of
collisions in these examples are inexcusable.




This was not anything very formal, and as far as I know none of us
are pros at this type of thing - I was given a copy of the piece, and
 requested to use a specific font.  The person who did it asked for 
volunteers in a newsgroup.  There was apparently a discussion of it 
about a year ago, which I missed, and a more recent notice, including

 a specific request for somebody to do a Finale file.  I'm not any
kind of expert, and, as I mentioned in the newsgroup, I usually do
choral scores (which people who have used like), but nobody else was 
volunteering. Guitar music is new to me (when I played years ago, I 
read from tablature).


Somebody mentioned cautionary accidentals - the score I was given to 
copy was not consistant on including them, and I decided that I would

 not put any rather than copy that.

One thing I asked on the newsgroup - no replies yet - is if people 
were taking the default settings or doing a lot of fixing up.  I did 
some tweaking, mostly on the rests.  I'm not sure if how I did it is 
best - since I don't know much about guitar music, I was pretty much 
copying the score I was given.


___ Finale mailing list 
Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale




--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Johannes Gebauer]

The comparison does make me wonder though: Wouldn't a real comparison 
where experts with each software work by strictly copying one or more 
sources of real published music be long overdue?


Some time ago (years I guess) we had this kind of thread as well, where 
I believe Sibelius staged a kind of competition, but ended up with a 
rather poor result for their own software and quickly withdrew the results.


I don't think cautionary accidentals have anything to do with this, by 
the way.


I'd volunteer to do this kind of competition, if it is limited to no 
more than two or three pages.


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] notation program comparison

[Brad Beyenhof]

http://home.earthlink.net/~jfalbano/Six%20Music%20Notation%20Programs.pdf

On 21/07/05, Ken Durling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The first post in this thread never showed up for me.  Could someone repost
> the link?   Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
> At 08:56 AM 7/21/2005, you wrote:
> > > This may be of interest, although the score that as chosen as the
> > > exemplar is not complicated.
> >
> >It might help if the person who did the Finale version made an effort.
> >
> >Simon Troup
> >igital Music Art
> >
> >___
> >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
> 


-- 
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] notation program comparison

[Ken Durling]

The first post in this thread never showed up for me.  Could someone repost 
the link?   Thanks




Ken


At 08:56 AM 7/21/2005, you wrote:

> This may be of interest, although the score that as chosen as the
> exemplar is not complicated.

It might help if the person who did the Finale version made an effort.

Simon Troup
igital Music Art

___
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] notation program comparison

[Lora Crighton]

On 7/21/05, Rick Neal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know the ground rules set for this comparison? Was the amount of 
> tweaking limited or restricted? The number and type of collisions in these 
> examples are inexcusable.
> 

This was not anything very formal, and as far as I know none of us are
pros at this type of thing - I was given a copy of the piece, and
requested to use a specific font.  The person who did it asked for
volunteers in a newsgroup.  There was apparently a discussion of it
about a year ago, which I missed, and a more recent notice, including
a specific request for somebody to do a Finale file.  I'm not any kind
of expert, and, as I mentioned in the newsgroup, I usually do choral
scores (which people who have used like), but nobody else was
volunteering. Guitar music is new to me (when I played years ago, I
read from tablature).

Somebody mentioned cautionary accidentals - the score I was given to
copy was not consistant on including them, and I decided that I would
not put any rather than copy that.

One thing I asked on the newsgroup - no replies yet - is if people
were taking the default settings or doing a lot of fixing up.  I did
some tweaking, mostly on the rests.  I'm not sure if how I did it is
best - since I don't know much about guitar music, I was pretty much
copying the score I was given.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[John Howell]

At 6:28 PM +0100 7/21/05, Simon Troup wrote:

 > >It might help if the person who did the Finale version made an effort.


 Ain't that the truth. Same with the Graphire example. These are like
 first-day user examples.


It is interesting to see but taken with a pinch of salt. Half the 
time all the programs you see demonstrated are capable or much more 
and it's only a comparison of default settings and user ability.


Which is a rather valuable comparison for the majority of users who 
will probably never move beyond the default settings.


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] notation program comparison

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 07:29 PM 7/21/05 +0200, Michael Cook wrote:
>The 
>Graphire Music Press font does look good, though - shame it's not 
>available for Finale.

The Graphire font (Revere) is not even the same character order, and it has
some sort of zero-width parameter, so it can't be used as text in other
documents -- characters appear one on top of the other. I'd experimented
unsuccessfully with using it in Finale ... but I didn't experiment too
much. It would be nice if this font were able to be sold separately, but
the status of Graphire is presently somewhat unclear.

Dennis



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Rick Neal]

Does anyone know the ground rules set for this comparison? Was the amount of 
tweaking limited or restricted? The number and type of collisions in these 
examples are inexcusable. 

Rick Neal



On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:55 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:

> At 04:56 PM 7/21/05 +0100, Simon Troup wrote:
> > >> This may be of interest, although the score that as chosen as the
> > >> exemplar is not complicated.
> > >
> > >It might help if the person who did the Finale version made an effort.
> > 
> > Ain't that the truth. Same with the Graphire example. These are like
> > first-day user examples.
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Finale mailing list
> > Finale@shsu.edu
> > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
> 

Rick Neal

Teacher, Composer, Bassist, Guitarist

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://home.earthlink.net/~rickmidi
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Michael Cook]

Just a cursory glance:

- I see that the Finale and Sibelius people both forgot the cautionary 
A natural in measure 3. The Finale person also forgot the cautionary C 
natural just after it in the middle voice and nobody thought of putting 
a cautionary A natural in measure 26.


- The Finale person messed up the da capo text, putting D.S. instead of 
D.C al segno (the others all wrote "et poi" instead of "e poi", but at 
least you can understand the meaning).


- The Sibelius person was the only one to bother separating the coda 
system. The Overture person didn't even put a double barline before the 
coda.


I'll bet there's a lot more, but I'm not going to spend ages checking! 
I'll leave others to comment on ties, spacing, rest placement... The 
Graphire Music Press font does look good, though - shame it's not 
available for Finale.


Michael Cook


On 21 Jul 2005, at 18:55, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:


At 04:56 PM 7/21/05 +0100, Simon Troup wrote:

This may be of interest, although the score that as chosen as the
exemplar is not complicated.


It might help if the person who did the Finale version made an effort.


Ain't that the truth. Same with the Graphire example. These are like
first-day user examples.


___
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] notation program comparison

[Simon Troup]

> >It might help if the person who did the Finale version made an effort.
> 
> Ain't that the truth. Same with the Graphire example. These are like
> first-day user examples.

It is interesting to see but taken with a pinch of salt. Half the time all the 
programs you see demonstrated are capable or much more and it's only a 
comparison of default settings and user ability.

Simon Troup
Digital Music Art

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 04:56 PM 7/21/05 +0100, Simon Troup wrote:
>> This may be of interest, although the score that as chosen as the
>> exemplar is not complicated.
>
>It might help if the person who did the Finale version made an effort.

Ain't that the truth. Same with the Graphire example. These are like
first-day user examples.


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] notation program comparison

[Simon Troup]

> This may be of interest, although the score that as chosen as the
> exemplar is not complicated.

It might help if the person who did the Finale version made an effort.

Simon Troup
igital Music Art

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] notation program comparison

[Richard Yates]

This may be of interest, although the score that as chosen as the exemplar
is not complicated.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jfalbano/Six%20Music%20Notation%20Programs.pdf

Richard Yates



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale