subject:"Re\: \[Finale\] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score\/parts linking\!"

On 8 Jul 2005 at 1:13, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

> David W. Fenton schrieb:
> > Well, what about a non-USB MIDI interface? Did they also take away
> > the printer port (isn't that what used to be used for MIDI, given
> > how I remember all the complaints about contention for the port?)?
> 
> Without wanting to fuel a completely unnecessary platform war here:
> Since OS X Macs don't have old fashioned serial or printer ports.
> There is no point getting add on cards since the System does not
> support them.
> 
> Macs have USB and Firewire. You can add SCSI if you must.

I had forgotten about Firewire and didn't know that there were 
Firewire MIDI interfaces. I think Chris ought to test a Firewire MIDI 
interface to see if it solves his problem. If it doesn't, then, yes, 
it's surely a problem in Finale, either internally, or in relation to 
the OS.

But I still think contention on the USB bus is probably the source of 
the problem.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 7 Jul 2005 at 19:14, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > High-end machines that are used for music ought to have options.
> 
> All Macs -- high-end or not -- now have USB 2 and FireWire, both of
> which have more than enough bandwidth to spare for MIDI.
> 
> I agree, USB 1.1 is inadequate for MIDI + everything else, but that's
> why the pros get a FireWire or USB 2 MIDI interface.

Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?

And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on 
cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-07 Thread Darcy James Argue


On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


High-end machines that are used for music ought to have options.


All Macs -- high-end or not -- now have USB 2 and FireWire, both of 
which have more than enough bandwidth to spare for MIDI.


I agree, USB 1.1 is inadequate for MIDI + everything else, but that's 
why the pros get a FireWire or USB 2 MIDI interface.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-07 Thread Johannes Gebauer




David W. Fenton schrieb:
Well, what about a non-USB MIDI interface? Did they also take away 
the printer port (isn't that what used to be used for MIDI, given how 
I remember all the complaints about contention for the port?)?




Without wanting to fuel a completely unnecessary platform war here: 
Since OS X Macs don't have old fashioned serial or printer ports. There 
is no point getting add on cards since the System does not support them.


Macs have USB and Firewire. You can add SCSI if you must.

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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 7 Jul 2005 at 23:18, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

> Andrew Stiller schrieb:
> > 
> > On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
> > 
> >> In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
> >> view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are
> >> reflected immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the
> >> notes are only stored in one place. On the other hand, the file
> >> keeps track of different positioning information for things like
> >> expressions -- one position in the score and a different one in the
> >> part -- so that you can make small tweaks as needed.
> >>
> >> Aaron.
> > 
> > I can dig it, but:
> > 
> > Tacet movements and other omitted or added measures for one part
> > (e.g., optional cadenza not written out in score)?
> > 
> > Cue notes--not in score, and different in different parts?
> > 
> > Divisi on 2 staves vs. 1?
> > 
> > Above all, as I've just remarked elsewhere: different Page Setup
> > settings?
> 
> And much more basic: as Robert remarked it is absolutely essential to
> have separate spacing for each part. The way that Finale's spacing
> works I fear that this might indeed make the "one file, different
> views" approach incredibly complicated, as the data will have to be
> separated into "global" and "part" data, and in fact every element has
> to be effectively both, with individual decision on what is global and
> what isn't.

Well, it all depends on where the spacing data is stored. If it's 
stored as part of the entry record, then it's a problem. If it's 
stored as a separate record attached to the entry record, then it's 
not a problem at all.

What I mean by that is, if you have a note, that's an entry record (a 
row in a table in the Finale database). If the spacing data is stored 
in fields that are part of the entry record, then it won't work.

If, instead, spacing data is stored in a different table, with a link 
to the ID of the entry record it applies to, there's no problem. 
You'd simply have one table for the score spacing data, and a second 
table for the part spacing data.

Or a single table that indicates which view the spacing applies to.

>From a database point of view, it's not even an insurmountable task 
to move data out of one table into a separate table that is linked to 
it. I've done that kind of thing millions of times.

It could also be done by keeping the old data structure and storing 
the spacing data in the main entry table, then having an additional 
table that includes records attached to the entry data that would 
override the score spacing when the other views were used. This would 
mean that the existing score/scroll views could remain unchanged, and 
the only new code required would be to handle the new views and 
incorporating the additional spacing data that's stored in the other 
data structure.

So, in other words, I've argued myself into seeing this as 
technically not even close to being insurmountable. That doesn't mean 
it's easy, but it's not significantly different from storing 
independent spacing data about entry-attached items (like note 
expressions). There would just be more of it, and hardly any of it 
would be inherited from the score file.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-07 Thread Noel Stoutenburg


David W. Fenton wrote:

Well, it can't be done by event count, since you can have a different 
number of events. If you get 16 from the MIDI interface and 15 from 
the keyboard, you want the extra from the MIDI interface ignored, 
because it didn't have a corresponding rhythmic value.


Likewise, if you have 16 from the keyboard and 15 from the MIDI 
device, you want the 16th used, since it indicates the rhythmic value 
for a rest.
 



Well, it might be a rest, and it might be a repeated note:  one could 
enter the opening motif of the Fifth Symphony of Beethoven with two sets 
of MIDI signals, and four numeric keypad entries, the first three of 
which match the first set of MIDI events.


The main thrust of my point was that what Christopher described is an 
artifact of the design of the operating system, and may or may not be 
within control of the developers of the application, unless they violate 
the rules set by the OS.


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 7 Jul 2005 at 17:13, Christopher Smith wrote:

> On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> > Do you have a non-USB keyboard port? If so, I'd try getting the
> > keyboard off the USB bus so that MIDI is on USB and the rhythmic
> > values you're typing is *not* on USB.
> 
> Umm, AFAIK USB is the only option for Mac keyboard plugging in.

Sounds like bad design, in my opinion.

High-end machines that are used for music ought to have options.

Of course, that option might be an add-on serial port card?

> > That actually could be the source of the problem. I'm not sure how
> > USB prioritizes the order of data sent over the bus. In your case,
> > the order is crucial, and if USB can't maintain that timing-wise, it
> > may be entirely the source of your problem.
> >
> 
> You may be right. But I don't see much I can do about it, aside from
> slowing down. Speed(y) Kills!

Well, what about a non-USB MIDI interface? Did they also take away 
the printer port (isn't that what used to be used for MIDI, given how 
I remember all the complaints about contention for the port?)?

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 7 Jul 2005 at 16:43, Andrew Stiller wrote:

> > "Link/Unlink to score" would be great.
> >
> > - Darcy
> 
> Indeed it would--provided that turning on this feature did not 
> immediately change anything in either linked file.

I don't think that's a very good idea. It seems to me that creating 
an unlinked part would be as easy as just extracting to a new file.

My problem with Darcy's suggestion is the question of what it should 
apply to -- everything? Or should you be given the option of 
unlinking particular types of data?

Doing the former would really be no different than extracting a part, 
and just not worth implementing, in my opinion.

Doing the latter would, in my opinion, be quite difficult to 
implement, as well as bringing with it user interface challenges 
(especially an onscreen indication of what's linked and what's not).

So, basically, I'm voting against any such feature, since I think 
extracting to an independent part file gives you what you'd be 
getting by unlinking.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 7 Jul 2005 at 16:36, Andrew Stiller wrote:

> On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
> 
> >
> > In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
> > view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are
> > reflected immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the
> > notes are only stored in one place. On the other hand, the file
> > keeps track of different positioning information for things like
> > expressions -- one position in the score and a different one in the
> > part -- so that you can make small tweaks as needed.
> 
> I can dig it, but:
> 
> Tacet movements and other omitted or added measures for one part
> (e.g., optional cadenza not written out in score)?
> 
> Cue notes--not in score, and different in different parts?

Cadenza and cue notes sounds like the same thing to me, and I think 
any implementation must handle it.

I'm not sure I see any issues with Tacet movements, assuming you add 
text blocks in the part view that aren't in the score. If you want 
nothing but the word TACET for the movement, you'd optimize out the 
system in the part that would have only the multi-measure rest and 
insert the text block. If you want the multi-measure rest to display, 
you'd not optimize it out, of course.

What other methods for notating a Tacet movement would there be?

So, to me, the only thing that's being asked for here is the ability 
to insert text blocks into a part that won't display in the score.

> Divisi on 2 staves vs. 1?

I think that's probably not going to be doable very easily. But, if 
dynamic parts are not implemented as all-or-nothing, such that you'd 
choose which parts you wanted to be dynamic, then you could still 
extract a part for the ones that need to be exploded from a single 
staff in the part to two separate parts. That would mean that you'd 
do that kind of thing exactly the same way in the new Finale as it's 
done today.

All parts that don't need that, you could then use the dynamic parts.

At least, that's the way *I'd* implement it!

> Above all, as I've just remarked elsewhere: different Page Setup
> settings?

That's a no-brainer -- it would be completely useless without it.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-07 Thread Burt Fenner


And you can add to these: music examples for books.

BF

Noel Stoutenburg wrote:

David W. Fenton opined:

part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't 
preparing any performance materials at all.
 

Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of 
part extraction:  1)  hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and 
printed in close score, and 2) songs, including pop vocal music, and 3)  
choral music, where the voice parts are printed in full score, or in the 
case of larger works, where accompaniment is a larger ensemble, full 
choral score with keyboard reduction of the accompaniment, and 4)  
keyboard (piano, organ) music..


___
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-07 Thread Darcy James Argue


Hi Chris,

You have two possible solutions:

1) Get a FireWire MIDI interface.

2) Get a USB 2.0 card and a Belkin Tetrahub:

http://tinyurl.com/6s9mf

I have a FW MIDI interface and I never have a problem with Speedy not 
keeping up with MIDI input.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-07 Thread Darcy James Argue


On 07 Jul 2005, at 4:36 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:



On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:



In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special 
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are 
reflected immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the 
notes are only stored in one place. On the other hand, the file keeps 
track of different positioning information for things like 
expressions -- one position in the score and a different one in the 
part -- so that you can make small tweaks as needed.


Aaron.



I can dig it, but:

Tacet movements and other omitted or added measures for one part 
(e.g., optional cadenza not written out in score)?


Cue notes--not in score, and different in different parts?

Divisi on 2 staves vs. 1?

Above all, as I've just remarked elsewhere: different Page Setup 
settings?


Andrew,

I addressed all of those issues (except the cadenza) in my initial post 
proposing how this feature might work in Finale, which for some reason 
you completely dismissed.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-07 Thread Johannes Gebauer


Andrew Stiller schrieb:


On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:



In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special 
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are reflected 
immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the notes are only 
stored in one place. On the other hand, the file keeps track of 
different positioning information for things like expressions -- one 
position in the score and a different one in the part -- so that you 
can make small tweaks as needed.


Aaron.



I can dig it, but:

Tacet movements and other omitted or added measures for one part (e.g., 
optional cadenza not written out in score)?


Cue notes--not in score, and different in different parts?

Divisi on 2 staves vs. 1?

Above all, as I've just remarked elsewhere: different Page Setup settings?


And much more basic: as Robert remarked it is absolutely essential to 
have separate spacing for each part. The way that Finale's spacing works 
I fear that this might indeed make the "one file, different views" 
approach incredibly complicated, as the data will have to be separated 
into "global" and "part" data, and in fact every element has to be 
effectively both, with individual decision on what is global and what isn't.


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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-07 Thread Christopher Smith



On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


Do you have a non-USB keyboard port? If so, I'd try getting the
keyboard off the USB bus so that MIDI is on USB and the rhythmic
values you're typing is *not* on USB.



Umm, AFAIK USB is the only option for Mac keyboard plugging in.



That actually could be the source of the problem. I'm not sure how
USB prioritizes the order of data sent over the bus. In your case,
the order is crucial, and if USB can't maintain that timing-wise, it
may be entirely the source of your problem.



You may be right. But I don't see much I can do about it, aside from 
slowing down. Speed(y) Kills!


Christopher

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 7 Jul 2005 at 10:15, Technoid wrote:

> On 7/6/05, Aaron Sherber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
> > view of the score. 
> 
> >From a software engineering standpoint, this is the way it should be.
> Word processors and many other applications have been doing this for
> years: Store the data (document) only once. Provide multiple views of
> that single document. (There is no "linking" taking place.)

While a wholeheartedly support the basic thrust of your argument, I'd 
say your choice of example is poor -- word processor data is nowhere 
near as complex as Finale data.

A more correct example would be a database program, where the data is 
stored in related tables and you can create report layouts 
independent of the data that display whatever subsets of data you 
want, with each report layout having its own independent layout 
characteristics.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-07 Thread Andrew Stiller



"Link/Unlink to score" would be great.

- Darcy



Indeed it would--provided that turning on this feature did not 
immediately change anything in either linked file.


Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 7 Jul 2005 at 1:00, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:

> Christopher Smith wrote:
> 
> > Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam 
> > algorithm. Even now, I often find myself "getting ahead" of Speedy
> > Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale "remembers" the
> > numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order
> > (as you would expect) but DOES NOT remember what MIDI note I was
> > holding down at the time I hit the number key!
> 
> Well, I do not not expect Finale to remember the MIDI note I was
> holding when I hit the number key.  If Finale is "well behaved" that
> is, if it follows the rules and conventions established for the
> Operating System, what seems to be Finale "remembering" entries in the
> numeric keypad, is actually an artifact of Finale getting the next
> keystroke in the Keyboard buffer of the O.S.  I can't say whether it
> is possible, or rather how difficult it would be, for Finale to
> implement a shadow MIDI key buffer that could be somehow linked to the
> OS keyboard buffer, so that when Finale gets the sixteenth item from
> the keyboard buffer, it also gets the sixteenth item from the MIDI
> buffer.

Well, it can't be done by event count, since you can have a different 
number of events. If you get 16 from the MIDI interface and 15 from 
the keyboard, you want the extra from the MIDI interface ignored, 
because it didn't have a corresponding rhythmic value.

Likewise, if you have 16 from the keyboard and 15 from the MIDI 
device, you want the 16th used, since it indicates the rhythmic value 
for a rest.

So, it's not about matching up sequential items between two buffers. 
It's about the "timecode" on each event -- they have to be received 
in the order they were sent in order for Finale to make sense of 
them.

That is, the keyboard data has to come between the NOTE ON/NOTE OFF 
from the MIDI keyboard in order for Finale to know the rhythmic value 
of the note.

It has to be real-time data, and that's why I suggested that the 
problems Chris were having were caused by some kind of timing 
problems in the USB bus, and the easiest suggestion to test this is 
to take one of the devices off the USB bus, so that there's no longer 
contention on the bus, or artifacts of any possible inaccuracies in 
the timing data used by the USB bus.

> > If Finale has a more complex beaming algorithm than it presently
> > does, no doubt this problem will get worse.
> 
> I doubt that, as the beaming algorithm is strictly computation and
> followed by redraw, and the problem you describe, of numeric keypad
> entries not matching the correct pitches is a hardware / OS problem.

And the redraw probably takes thousands more CPU cycles than the 
calculation.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-07 Thread Andrew Stiller



On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:



In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special 
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are reflected 
immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the notes are only 
stored in one place. On the other hand, the file keeps track of 
different positioning information for things like expressions -- one 
position in the score and a different one in the part -- so that you 
can make small tweaks as needed.


Aaron.



I can dig it, but:

Tacet movements and other omitted or added measures for one part (e.g., 
optional cadenza not written out in score)?


Cue notes--not in score, and different in different parts?

Divisi on 2 staves vs. 1?

Above all, as I've just remarked elsewhere: different Page Setup 
settings?


Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 7 Jul 2005 at 0:22, Christopher Smith wrote:

> On Jul 6, 2005, at 11:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:

[]

> > Is your MIDI interface USB? If so, you may have something else
> > contending for the bandwidth of the USB interface, and that could be
> > the reason you're having the problem.
> 
> I have a USB MIDI interface (4 ports) plugged into one of two
> available USB ports, also a Logitech wireless mouse, and of course my
> computer keyboard, both plugged into my screen's USB port, as
> designed. I occasionally plug a SanDisk memory card reader, or a Cue
> Cat barcode reader (don't ask!) into the other port, but the problem
> is there even when neither one is plugged in.

Do you have a non-USB keyboard port? If so, I'd try getting the 
keyboard off the USB bus so that MIDI is on USB and the rhythmic 
values you're typing is *not* on USB. 

That actually could be the source of the problem. I'm not sure how 
USB prioritizes the order of data sent over the bus. In your case, 
the order is crucial, and if USB can't maintain that timing-wise, it 
may be entirely the source of your problem.

I have always felt that USB is not a very good technology. I prefer 
to have only one of my input devices on USB at a time (keyboard or 
mouse -- the computer I'm typing this on has a USB mouse and a non-
USB keyboard), and I don't think it's at all an appropriate 
technology for any kind of regular data access. That is, I'd never 
put any storage devices on it that were for any purpose other than 
backup or portability (i.e., I would never edit data resident on a 
USB-attached drive).

That's not to say I don't use it. My scanner is plugged into USB as 
are my digital camera interface and my Handspring Visor interface. 
But all of those are things I use only occasionally, and mostly while 
not doing something else. That's my rule of thumb -- USB is fine for 
non-continuous use (mostely) one device at a time.

But I don't know anything about the ports provided on a Mac, nor 
about OS X's implementation of USB support. I don't even know that 
USB is *not* designed to support real-time data transfer in order 
from various devices attached to the bus. But it would certainly be 
the first place I'd start looking to solve the annoying problems 
you're experiencing.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-07 Thread Christopher Smith



On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:00 AM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:


Christopher Smith wrote:

Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam 
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself "getting ahead" of Speedy 
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale "remembers" the 
numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as 
you would expect) but DOES NOT remember what MIDI note I was holding 
down at the time I hit the number key!


Well, I do not not expect Finale to remember the MIDI note I was 
holding when I hit the number key.


Well I do! You appear to be well-informed about computers, and I am 
not, but the interface I learned (and still expect to have work) in 
Speedy Entry is: hold down MIDI key, hit number key for rhythm. Repeat 
as necessary. If the keyboard buffers and the MIDI buffers do not 
synchronise, that should not be my problem, but rather the programmers' 
problem. I don't want to have to work around how the computer thinks; 
it should work around how  think.


I'm not actually blaming you the messenger for this, even though it 
seems like it, but the guys I want to yell at aren't on the list.



If Finale is "well behaved" that is, if it follows the rules and 
conventions established for the Operating System, what seems to be 
Finale "remembering" entries in the numeric keypad, is actually an 
artifact of Finale getting the next keystroke in the Keyboard buffer 
of the O.S.  I can't say whether it is possible, or rather how 
difficult it would be, for Finale to implement a shadow MIDI key 
buffer that could be somehow linked to the OS keyboard buffer, so that 
when Finale gets the sixteenth item from the keyboard buffer, it also 
gets the sixteenth item from the MIDI buffer.


If Finale has a more complex beaming algorithm than it presently 
does, no doubt this problem will get worse.


I doubt that, as the beaming algorithm is strictly computation and 
followed by redraw, and the problem you describe, of numeric keypad 
entries not matching the correct pitches is a hardware / OS problem.




If the computer is spending more time on computation/redraw because it 
is more complicated, wouldn't the mismatching get worse? I confess I 
don't understand why not.


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-07 Thread Technoid

On 7/6/05, Aaron Sherber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
> view of the score. 

>From a software engineering standpoint, this is the way it should be.
Word processors and many other applications have been doing this for
years: Store the data (document) only once. Provide multiple views of
that single document. (There is no "linking" taking place.)

Just another two cents.

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-07 Thread dhbailey


Richard Yates wrote:


Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
part extraction:  1)  hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and
printed in close score, and 2) songs, including pop vocal music, and 3)
choral music, where the voice parts are printed in full score, or in the
case of larger works, where accompaniment is a larger ensemble, full
choral score with keyboard reduction of the accompaniment, and 4)
keyboard (piano, organ) music..


Add to that much academic work.i.e. a significant part of the
lucrative education-sector market.



And guitar


That would be solo guitar, wouldn't it?  Certainly guitar ensembles 
publish the parts separately, don't they?  So that a guitar quartet 
would include a score and 4 parts, at least I've seen some published 
that way.


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-07 Thread dhbailey


Owain Sutton wrote:




Noel Stoutenburg wrote:


David W. Fenton opined:

part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't 
preparing any performance materials at all.
 

Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of 
part extraction:  1)  hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared 
and printed in close score, and 2) songs, including pop vocal music, 
and 3)  choral music, where the voice parts are printed in full score, 
or in the case of larger works, where accompaniment is a larger 
ensemble, full choral score with keyboard reduction of the 
accompaniment, and 4)  keyboard (piano, organ) music..



Add to that much academic work.i.e. a significant part of the 
lucrative education-sector market.


Which Sibelius seems to be increasingly in control of.

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Noel Stoutenburg


Christopher Smith wrote:

Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam 
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself "getting ahead" of Speedy 
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale "remembers" the 
numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as 
you would expect) but DOES NOT remember what MIDI note I was holding 
down at the time I hit the number key!


Well, I do not not expect Finale to remember the MIDI note I was holding 
when I hit the number key.  If Finale is "well behaved" that is, if it 
follows the rules and conventions established for the Operating System, 
what seems to be Finale "remembering" entries in the numeric keypad, is 
actually an artifact of Finale getting the next keystroke in the 
Keyboard buffer of the O.S.  I can't say whether it is possible, or 
rather how difficult it would be, for Finale to implement a shadow MIDI 
key buffer that could be somehow linked to the OS keyboard buffer, so 
that when Finale gets the sixteenth item from the keyboard buffer, it 
also gets the sixteenth item from the MIDI buffer.


If Finale has a more complex beaming algorithm than it presently does, 
no doubt this problem will get worse.


I doubt that, as the beaming algorithm is strictly computation and 
followed by redraw, and the problem you describe, of numeric keypad 
entries not matching the correct pitches is a hardware / OS problem.


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!



On Jul 6, 2005, at 11:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


A plugin for repeats is certainly more appropriate, in my opinion,
than a plugin for beaming, but I still think the basic functionality
of repeats is obtuse and ridiculous. In my database application
programming I have a rule: never require a user to put in data that
my program can retrieve or calculate without user input. Repeat
targets are something that could easily be calculated (though,
obviously, with nested repeats, there'd need to be confirmation and
the ability to override Finale's guess) without user intervention in
the UI, without need to resort to a plugin.



Actually, the 2005 version of repeats is very close to being excellent. 
The only place I have to enter information that should be gleaned 
automatically is when I create a 2nd ending. The "2" is put in 
automatically (editable, though) as is the ending box, while it STILL 
assumes I want a backwards repeat at the end of the box which I have to 
uncheck. Still, that's only ONE extra mouse click, instead of MANY, for 
pretty much perfect repeats.





Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself "getting ahead" of Speedy
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale "remembers" the
numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as
you would expect) but DOES NOT remember what MIDI note I was holding
down at the time I hit the number key!


I have never had any such trouble in WinFin, and I put in data *very*
fast. Is it perhaps an OS X problem, a remaining artifact of the yet-
to-be-fully-optimized-for-OS-X Finale?



I dunno.



For instance, if I have a quick scale passage to enter in eighth
notes, I can quickly hit
note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4 to fill the
measure, but when I look up at the screen, Finale is laboriously
catching up with me, and furthermore, it has often entered an EIGHTH
REST in the middle of the bar and continued mismatching pitches with
eighth note values to the end, occasionally putting the interval of a
second on a stem, too, as if it "saw" two notes being held down
instead of the one. This occurs more frequently when I pass over a
barline, or if the screen scrolls just as I get to end of a measure.


Is your MIDI interface USB? If so, you may have something else
contending for the bandwidth of the USB interface, and that could be
the reason you're having the problem.



I have a USB MIDI interface (4 ports) plugged into one of two available 
USB ports, also a Logitech wireless mouse, and of course my computer 
keyboard, both plugged into my screen's USB port, as designed. I 
occasionally plug a SanDisk memory card reader, or a Cue Cat barcode 
reader (don't ask!) into the other port, but the problem is there even 
when neither one is plugged in.


I do have a wireless router plugged into my Ethernet port for an 
Appletalk 10baseT local network supporting my cable modem, my LaserJet 
4 printer, and my wife's laptop. I also have an external Firewire drive 
plugged into one of the two Firewire ports almost constantly. But those 
shouldn't affect things adversely, should they?





I think you shouldn't have the problem you're having with the current
beaming algorithm.



Heh, heh! I agree!




Sounds like an interface problem to me.

Or a severe problem with Finale's OS X implementation.

Even so, I doubt the algorithm would actually take any longer.
Computers are *very* fast. The lag in your system is, I'm absolutely
certain, not in the calculations, but in the transmission and display
of the data you're inputting.



Well, I have no way to verify that. I'm not much of a gearhead, 
admittedly.




Then again, I'm speculating about a program whose internal structure
I haven't a clue about running on an OS I've barely touched, so if
you think I'm full of hooey, I can see why you'd think that! :)



Hey, it ALL sounds reasonable enough to me!

Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 6 Jul 2005 at 23:10, Christopher Smith wrote:

> On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:47 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > On 6 Jul 2005 at 21:17, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >>>
>  On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >>>
> >>  It'll be
> >> interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeats business
> >> works and whether or not it will adjust the measure numbers
> >> appropriately.
> >
> > Isn't it just implemented as a plug-in?
> 
>  Is there a problem with that? Plugins seem to be a good way to
>  go, as they don't take up CPU cycles when you are using the
>  program "normally". This is what I like about the TG Tools lyric
>  plugins, for example, over Finale's auto-word extensions.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I would assume that code that implements the MassEdit tool's
> >>> functionality doesn't take up CPU cycles when I'm in Speedy, so I
> >>> don't see this defense of plugins as relevant.
> >>
> >> Well, you WOULD see it as relevant if you had Finale slow to a
> >> crawl when Auto-Word Extensions is on in your 300 measure choral
> >> work with orchestra and several vocal soloists. Having word
> >> extensions update ONLY when I ask them to from a plugin is a
> >> distinct advantage in speed.
> >
> > Well, that's actually a poorly-chosen example. Beaming is calculated
> > as you edit the notes. That is, when you enter an 8th note, then
> > enter a second one, the calculation of beam angle occurs right then,
> > before the 2nd 8th note is displayed. If you add a 3rd 8th note as
> > part of the beam, it then recalculates the beam angle, and if you
> > add a 4th, it recalculates again.
> >
> > It's using a very small amount of data, the data that describes the
> > notes within the current beamed group, and based on a certain
> > algorithm, displays that single group.
> >
> > After that, there is no further re-calculation.
> >
> > But when you edit the notes in the beamed grouping, such as dragging
> > a note to the right or left, or by changing one of the pitches or
> > adding additional pitches, the beaming is recalculated.
> >
> > The CPU cycles are used *as needed*, and only when there is an edit
> > to the data that forms the inputs to the algorithm to calculate beam
> > angle.
> >
> > That's the place where Robert's code should be.
> >
> > And given the contemplation of dynamic parts, where a transposed
> > part might end up with different wedges than the concert pitch
> > version in the score, it seems obvious to me that the adjustments
> > that Robert's plug-in makes belong in Finale's basic beaming
> > algorithm.
> >
> > And it wouldn't add any overhead or slowdown to the data entry
> > process at all.
> 
> Sorry again. I thought we talking about mid-measure repeats being
> implemented as a plugin (as quoted at the top), not Patterson beams.

Er, um, ack, yes, that's what we were talking about.

A plugin for repeats is certainly more appropriate, in my opinion, 
than a plugin for beaming, but I still think the basic functionality 
of repeats is obtuse and ridiculous. In my database application 
programming I have a rule: never require a user to put in data that 
my program can retrieve or calculate without user input. Repeat 
targets are something that could easily be calculated (though, 
obviously, with nested repeats, there'd need to be confirmation and 
the ability to override Finale's guess) without user intervention in 
the UI, without need to resort to a plugin.

> Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam 
> algorithm. Even now, I often find myself "getting ahead" of Speedy
> Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale "remembers" the
> numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as
> you would expect) but DOES NOT remember what MIDI note I was holding
> down at the time I hit the number key!

I have never had any such trouble in WinFin, and I put in data *very* 
fast. Is it perhaps an OS X problem, a remaining artifact of the yet-
to-be-fully-optimized-for-OS-X Finale?

> For instance, if I have a quick scale passage to enter in eighth
> notes, I can quickly hit
> note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4 to fill the
> measure, but when I look up at the screen, Finale is laboriously
> catching up with me, and furthermore, it has often entered an EIGHTH
> REST in the middle of the bar and continued mismatching pitches with
> eighth note values to the end, occasionally putting the interval of a
> second on a stem, too, as if it "saw" two notes being held down
> instead of the one. This occurs more frequently when I pass over a
> barline, or if the screen scrolls just as I get to end of a measure.

I've never encountered that. First off, I'd do CAPS LOCK 4, then play 
the notes, since I sometimes get my hands out of order, but I 
certainly never have that much lag t

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!



On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:47 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 6 Jul 2005 at 21:17, Christopher Smith wrote:



On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:


On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:



 It'll be
interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeats business works
and whether or not it will adjust the measure numbers
appropriately.


Isn't it just implemented as a plug-in?


Is there a problem with that? Plugins seem to be a good way to go,
as they don't take up CPU cycles when you are using the program
"normally". This is what I like about the TG Tools lyric plugins,
for example, over Finale's auto-word extensions.


Well, I would assume that code that implements the MassEdit tool's
functionality doesn't take up CPU cycles when I'm in Speedy, so I
don't see this defense of plugins as relevant.


Well, you WOULD see it as relevant if you had Finale slow to a crawl
when Auto-Word Extensions is on in your 300 measure choral work with
orchestra and several vocal soloists. Having word extensions update
ONLY when I ask them to from a plugin is a distinct advantage in
speed.


Well, that's actually a poorly-chosen example. Beaming is calculated
as you edit the notes. That is, when you enter an 8th note, then
enter a second one, the calculation of beam angle occurs right then,
before the 2nd 8th note is displayed. If you add a 3rd 8th note as
part of the beam, it then recalculates the beam angle, and if you add
a 4th, it recalculates again.

It's using a very small amount of data, the data that describes the
notes within the current beamed group, and based on a certain
algorithm, displays that single group.

After that, there is no further re-calculation.

But when you edit the notes in the beamed grouping, such as dragging
a note to the right or left, or by changing one of the pitches or
adding additional pitches, the beaming is recalculated.

The CPU cycles are used *as needed*, and only when there is an edit
to the data that forms the inputs to the algorithm to calculate beam
angle.

That's the place where Robert's code should be.

And given the contemplation of dynamic parts, where a transposed part
might end up with different wedges than the concert pitch version in
the score, it seems obvious to me that the adjustments that Robert's
plug-in makes belong in Finale's basic beaming algorithm.

And it wouldn't add any overhead or slowdown to the data entry
process at all.



Sorry again. I thought we talking about mid-measure repeats being 
implemented as a plugin (as quoted at the top), not Patterson beams.


Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam 
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself "getting ahead" of Speedy 
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale "remembers" the 
numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as 
you would expect) but DOES NOT remember what MIDI note I was holding 
down at the time I hit the number key!


For instance, if I have a quick scale passage to enter in eighth notes, 
I can quickly hit 
note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4-note-4 to fill the 
measure, but when I look up at the screen, Finale is laboriously 
catching up with me, and furthermore, it has often entered an EIGHTH 
REST in the middle of the bar and continued mismatching pitches with 
eighth note values to the end, occasionally putting the interval of a 
second on a stem, too, as if it "saw" two notes being held down instead 
of the one. This occurs more frequently when I pass over a barline, or 
if the screen scrolls just as I get to end of a measure.


If Finale has a more complex beaming algorithm than it presently does, 
no doubt this problem will get worse.


Admittedly, I am on a rather middle-to-slow system about two years old 
(!) a 733 mHz G4, but I would have expected Finale's buffers to stay 
synchronised in any case.


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 6 Jul 2005 at 21:17, Christopher Smith wrote:

> 
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
>   It'll be
>  interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeats business works
>  and whether or not it will adjust the measure numbers
>  appropriately.
> >>>
> >>> Isn't it just implemented as a plug-in?
> >>
> >> Is there a problem with that? Plugins seem to be a good way to go,
> >> as they don't take up CPU cycles when you are using the program
> >> "normally". This is what I like about the TG Tools lyric plugins,
> >> for example, over Finale's auto-word extensions.
> >
> > Well, I would assume that code that implements the MassEdit tool's
> > functionality doesn't take up CPU cycles when I'm in Speedy, so I
> > don't see this defense of plugins as relevant.
> 
> Well, you WOULD see it as relevant if you had Finale slow to a crawl
> when Auto-Word Extensions is on in your 300 measure choral work with
> orchestra and several vocal soloists. Having word extensions update
> ONLY when I ask them to from a plugin is a distinct advantage in
> speed.

Well, that's actually a poorly-chosen example. Beaming is calculated 
as you edit the notes. That is, when you enter an 8th note, then 
enter a second one, the calculation of beam angle occurs right then, 
before the 2nd 8th note is displayed. If you add a 3rd 8th note as 
part of the beam, it then recalculates the beam angle, and if you add 
a 4th, it recalculates again.

It's using a very small amount of data, the data that describes the 
notes within the current beamed group, and based on a certain 
algorithm, displays that single group.

After that, there is no further re-calculation.

But when you edit the notes in the beamed grouping, such as dragging 
a note to the right or left, or by changing one of the pitches or 
adding additional pitches, the beaming is recalculated.

The CPU cycles are used *as needed*, and only when there is an edit 
to the data that forms the inputs to the algorithm to calculate beam 
angle.

That's the place where Robert's code should be.

And given the contemplation of dynamic parts, where a transposed part 
might end up with different wedges than the concert pitch version in 
the score, it seems obvious to me that the adjustments that Robert's 
plug-in makes belong in Finale's basic beaming algorithm.

And it wouldn't add any overhead or slowdown to the data entry 
process at all.

> >>> If you add a new region, when you create it, it appears to inherit
> >>> all the settings of the previous region you were working on, but,
> >>> instead, it just doesn't update the display. When you close the
> >>> dialog, you find that it's actually inherited the default settings
> >>> for measure number formatting. Second, there are problems with the
> >>> measure-number display that I haven't quite traced down. It takes
> >>> two or three trips to the region editing dialog before the numbers
> >>> start actually displaying what you've told them to
> >>
> >> Command-D (control D on the PC) to redraw usually takes care of it
> >> for me.
> >
> > Ctrl-D in a *dialog* box? The dialog box shows the WRONG FONT.
> 
> Sorry, I missed what the problem was originally (I need to read
> better).
> 
> This doesn't seem to happen on my Mac version, though I DO have to hit
> redraw once I am back in the score for my measure number edits to show
> up properly.
> 
> Sounds like a bug.

Well, it can mostly be ameliorated by setting the defaults for 
measure regions, but it's nonetheless a bug.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!



On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:


On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:



 It'll be
interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeats business works
and whether or not it will adjust the measure numbers
appropriately.


Isn't it just implemented as a plug-in?


Is there a problem with that? Plugins seem to be a good way to go, as
they don't take up CPU cycles when you are using the program
"normally". This is what I like about the TG Tools lyric plugins, for
example, over Finale's auto-word extensions.


Well, I would assume that code that implements the MassEdit tool's
functionality doesn't take up CPU cycles when I'm in Speedy, so I
don't see this defense of plugins as relevant.



Well, you WOULD see it as relevant if you had Finale slow to a crawl 
when Auto-Word Extensions is on in your 300 measure choral work with 
orchestra and several vocal soloists. Having word extensions update 
ONLY when I ask them to from a plugin is a distinct advantage in speed.


Plus I get a lot more (and better, which is more to the point) control 
over things with TG Tools.


There are a lot of plugins I use which I realise might have been part 
of the code of Finale, but I am glad not to have them adding to the 
bloat. I can easily remove plugins that I don't need. Maybe this one 
(midmeasure repeats) would be fine and cause no problems at all as part 
of the Repeat Tool, maybe not; I don't know.







If you add a new region, when you create it, it appears to inherit
all the settings of the previous region you were working on, but,
instead, it just doesn't update the display. When you close the
dialog, you find that it's actually inherited the default settings
for measure number formatting. Second, there are problems with the
measure-number display that I haven't quite traced down. It takes
two or three trips to the region editing dialog before the numbers
start actually displaying what you've told them to


Command-D (control D on the PC) to redraw usually takes care of it for
me.


Ctrl-D in a *dialog* box? The dialog box shows the WRONG FONT.


Sorry, I missed what the problem was originally (I need to read better).

This doesn't seem to happen on my Mac version, though I DO have to hit 
redraw once I am back in the score for my measure number edits to show 
up properly.


Sounds like a bug.

Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Chuck Israels



On Jul 6, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:



That's a very good idea.  I was wondering myself how to solve that  
particular problem, but if Finale just integrates Patterson Beams  
into the Beam Options, well, there's your solution right there.


-


Agreed, so please write MM (as I have) and add your name to the  
request.  I have the feeling that this is a real possibility.


Chuck

Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Richard Yates


> > Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
> > part extraction:  1)  hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and
> > printed in close score, and 2) songs, including pop vocal music, and 3)
> > choral music, where the voice parts are printed in full score, or in the
> > case of larger works, where accompaniment is a larger ensemble, full
> > choral score with keyboard reduction of the accompaniment, and 4)
> > keyboard (piano, organ) music..
>
> Add to that much academic work.i.e. a significant part of the
> lucrative education-sector market.

And guitar


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 6 Jul 2005 at 14:58, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:21 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > And it would also be nice, if, for instance, you could format your
> > linked parts, then save a single part out to a separate file, which
> > would no longer be connected to the score, so you could then make
> > changes to that part (like Darcy's change to the flute part of
> > printing the part at pitch and the score with an 8va transposition).
> 
> Good idea, but doesn't what you write below cover the same thing?

Well, it all depends on what you want to unlink.

The implementation could be something like this:

  ITEMS TO LINK
display positioning
  Notes X X
  Expressions   X X
  Articulations X X
  Slurs X X
  Beams X X

and so forth. Then you could unlink particular things.

But that would be massively more complicated to implement than say:

  PART VIEWS IN THIS SCORE
  Linked
  Piano X
  Flute
  ViolinX
  Viola X
  Cello X

To me, it would seem that it would be easier to just extract the 
flute part to a separate file if it's not going to be linked.

Another option would be to extend the functionality of staff styles 
so they could be defined differently for score and part view. That 
would probably be the most flexible method for implementing your 8va 
flute part.

But that would also require some kind of extension to staff styles.

Another option for implementing it would be to allow staff styles to 
apply to only one view, and you'd then apply an 8ba transposition to 
the score.

Then if it were possible to hide an expression or smart shape in a 
part, then you could hide the 8va expression/smart shape in the part.

Having part views opens a whole host of different ways for adding 
useful functionality to Finale, precisely because there's such a rich 
set of tools there already.

> > Also, back when *I* was making suggestions for how to implement
> > this, I always said that it should be possible to *break* the link
> > between the part and score, if you wanted to. What if you could do
> > that with a staff style, selectively applied to the measures you
> > wanted to change in the part but not in the score? That would be
> > pretty cool.
> 
> "Link/Unlink to score" would be great.

But I question the virtue of having it be a property of different 
kinds of data. I don't see any utility in having an unlinked part 
stored in the main score file, except for housekeeping purposes.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Darcy James Argue


On 06 Jul 2005, at 7:06 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


Now, whether or not things like beam breakage and angle and other
elements that are at some level purely "cosmetic" should be linked, I
don't know. I can't think of a strong argument either way for
beaming, though I think that, in particular, avoidance of wedges is
going to be rather difficult if beam angle/position in transposing
parts is linked between parts and a concert-pitch score. That is
another of the arguments for why the functionality in Patterson Beams
belongs as part of the basic beaming algorithms, and not as a plug-in
that's applied to make adjustments to the data after entry.


That's a very good idea.  I was wondering myself how to solve that 
particular problem, but if Finale just integrates Patterson Beams into 
the Beam Options, well, there's your solution right there.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 6 Jul 2005 at 13:46, John Howell wrote:

> At 5:22 AM -0500 7/6/05, Jim wrote:
> >David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i
> >see here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you
> >enlighten me as to their benefit? I'm not sure I see the benefit of
> >having an ex-post change made to a PART be reflected in the SCORE.
> >Some changes in parts I would NOT want reflected in a score. Is this
> >feature intelligent enough to sort that out?
> 
> Composer's Mosaic from MOTU (no longer supported as far as I know) has
> had linked parts from day one, along with the ability (indeed, the
> requirement!) to customize the layout of each part (which can be done
> at least in part using templates).  It is NOT intelligent in any way,
> and a mistake entered in either score or parts is instantly reflected
> in the other.  That simply means that the engraver has to be
> intelligent!  I agree 100% that the ability to control what is linked
> and what is not in both directions is essential in any Finale
> implementation.

Defining that doesn't seem all that complex to me. What needs to be 
identical in both is that which is, of necessity, identical in both --
they must convey the same musical text (notes, rhythms, 
articulations, expressions, slurs).

Everything regarding appearance and layout should be independent, 
with a newly created part view inheriting the score's positioning by 
default, until an item is repositioned.

I don't see anything particular complex about that.

Now, whether or not things like beam breakage and angle and other 
elements that are at some level purely "cosmetic" should be linked, I 
don't know. I can't think of a strong argument either way for 
beaming, though I think that, in particular, avoidance of wedges is 
going to be rather difficult if beam angle/position in transposing 
parts is linked between parts and a concert-pitch score. That is 
another of the arguments for why the functionality in Patterson Beams 
belongs as part of the basic beaming algorithms, and not as a plug-in 
that's applied to make adjustments to the data after entry.

But that's the only notational detail that looks at all problematic 
to me.

It occurs to me that it would also be nice if it were possible to 
extend the conditional display characteristics of measure expressions 
to other kinds of data. I might want to have bowings appear only in 
the parts, and not in the score, for instance (it's perfectly doable 
today by check DISPLAY ONSCREEN ONLY, or whatever the choice is in 
the articulation definition).

I just don't see insoluble problems in making these determinations.

I also think that the linkage should not be something you can turn on 
or off for each kind of object, unless there's some kind of data 
where it is sometimes desirable to link and sometimes not.

And maybe some things could be implemented by making staff styles 
have the capability of being specific to a view, so that you could 
define a staff style that displays one way in score view and another 
in part view.

Just a thought, but it really seems to me to open up a whole host of 
useful possibilities to make Finale more usable.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 6 Jul 2005 at 10:36, Eric Dannewitz wrote:

> David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> >Other than Andrew, who has suggested anything else?
> >
> >Didn't we start from the Sibelius demo, which gives examples of
> >editing in both the score and the part, and how in each case, the
> >changes appear in the other? And how layout issues are independent
> >for the two views?
> >
> >I can only think that perhaps you and Andrew didn't view the Sibelius
> > demo?
>
> No, I viewed it. Looks good, if it works right. Just restating that
> I'd want it both ways.
> 
> I'm not clear if this new feature in Sibelius applies to things like
> slurs, or articulations.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, the ability to edit slurs in Finale is 
severely limited in comparison to Finale in the first place, so 
chances are good you don't get extra flexibility with it. However, 
I'd expect what editability you *do* have in Sibelius to be 
independent for score and parts.

Based on my meager knowledge of Sibelius, I think the situation with 
articulations is likely to be similar, as one of the complaints I've 
heard from Finale users is the severe limitations one has in Sibelius 
in regard to articulation positioning.

Since it's Finale we're talking about, I would agree that any 
implementation in Finale would have to store separate positioning 
data for parts and scores for those elements.

As I said early on in this discussion, I've always conceived of an 
implementation of this feature in Finale storing only the delta from 
the score for each part. That is, any positioning in the score is 
inherited in the part, until such time as you change it in the part. 
At that point, the offset from the score position (or the absolute 
position -- there are advantages to both approaches, but absolute is 
probably better) is stored with the part definition.

I just don't see that as being terribly difficult to implement, in 
proportion to the utility that comes from. Yes, it would be a 
programming challenge, both in terms of UI and in terms of data 
storage. But it really isn't that complicated, since (as someone has 
already pointed out) there are already score-only or part-only data 
structures (i.e., measure expressions with staff lists).

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Owain Sutton




Noel Stoutenburg wrote:

David W. Fenton opined:

part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't 
preparing any performance materials at all.
 

Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of 
part extraction:  1)  hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and 
printed in close score, and 2) songs, including pop vocal music, and 3)  
choral music, where the voice parts are printed in full score, or in the 
case of larger works, where accompaniment is a larger ensemble, full 
choral score with keyboard reduction of the accompaniment, and 4)  
keyboard (piano, organ) music..


Add to that much academic work.i.e. a significant part of the 
lucrative education-sector market.

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 6 Jul 2005 at 13:05, Andrew Stiller wrote:

> 
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:53 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > If part view is just a view of the underlying data, you
> > automatically get two-way linking. That is, changes to the score
> > appear in the parts, and changes to the parts appear in the score.
> > The exception to this is, of course, spacing, which is kept
> > independently for the parts and score, as it must be.
> 
> Part view is something you (not me, I never use it) use before the
> actual parts are extracted. . . .

Er, "part view" doesn't exist in Finale.

> . . . Any dynamic linkage feature that I can
> ever conceive using would be applicable to parts that have *already
> been extracted and edited* and are therefore in completely separate
> files from the main score.

Well, that's a very difficult thing to accomplish, and if I were 
MakeMusic, I'd never implement it that way.

What if you had the option to output the "part views" to separate 
files, once you had them tweaked sufficiently? At that point, the 
linkage would break, though, in both directions.

> >  Are you saying that you'd *never* want score-to-part
> > updates, but *only* part-to-score updates?
> 
> No of course not. I just was calling attention to the need for 
> considering the part-to-score option--as several other listers 
> understood immediately and have, gratifyingly, endorsed.

NO ONE was proposing only score-to-part linkage.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Noel Stoutenburg


David W. Fenton opined:


part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't preparing 
any performance materials at all.
 

Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of 
part extraction:  1)  hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and 
printed in close score, and 2) songs, including pop vocal music, and 3)  
choral music, where the voice parts are printed in full score, or in the 
case of larger works, where accompaniment is a larger ensemble, full 
choral score with keyboard reduction of the accompaniment, and 4)  
keyboard (piano, organ) music..


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Darcy James Argue


Andrew,

Two-way dynamic linking is implicit in the notion of Dynamic Parts.  
Everything we've been talking about assumes two-way dynamic linking as 
a starting point.


If the "Auto Page Turns" plugin can be fixed and integrated into the 
Extract Parts/Extract Dynamic Parts dialog, that seems like the logical 
place for it.  I don't know about it being smart enough to recognize 
"slow notes requiring just one hand," though.  You would probably still 
have to create those manually.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


On 06 Jul 2005, at 11:34 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:

Thinking about the  issue of linked parts, I realize that what I would 
like is considerably less than that. Dynamic linking is useful only if 
you make musically significant  changes  in the score that need to be 
reflected in the parts. I won't say I never do that, but it only 
happens once or twice a year, and almost never impacts more than one 
or two parts.


More useful to me  would be *reverse* linking, because part extraction 
provides the final proofreading check of the score, particularly for 
things like arco/pizz. and con/senza sord. It would indeed  be  very 
nice, therefore, to be able to make a change to a  part and  have it 
automatically appear in the score.


Auto page turns would be the most useful of  all--but I would want it 
to be intelligent enough to recognize that passages of slow notes 
requiring just one  hand are valid places for a turn.


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Darcy James Argue



On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:21 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


And it would also be nice, if, for instance, you could format your
linked parts, then save a single part out to a separate file, which
would no longer be connected to the score, so you could then make
changes to that part (like Darcy's change to the flute part of
printing the part at pitch and the score with an 8va transposition).


Good idea, but doesn't what you write below cover the same thing?


Also, back when *I* was making suggestions for how to implement this,
I always said that it should be possible to *break* the link between
the part and score, if you wanted to. What if you could do that with
a staff style, selectively applied to the measures you wanted to
change in the part but not in the score? That would be pretty cool.


"Link/Unlink to score" would be great.

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Ken Durling


At 08:34 AM 7/6/2005, you wrote:
More useful to me  would be *reverse* linking, because part extraction 
provides the final proofreading check of the score, particularly for 
things like arco/pizz. and con/senza sord. It would indeed  be  very nice, 
therefore, to be able to make a change to a  part and  have it 
automatically appear in the score.



The feature does work both ways.


ken

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Chuck Israels

On Jul 6, 2005, at 7:30 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:On the matter of whether features are "just" plugins, it would be relatively simple for MM (and Finale's users) to have cake and eat it too. Two extensions of the plugin interface would integrate them in ways that would erase much of the distinction.1. Plugins should be able to add themselves to context menus.2. The user should optionally be able to add plugins to an "automatic" list that runs at the same time "Automatic Note Spacing" runs.Plugin developers have been requesting these enhancements for years. The problem is, it is not the kind of enhancement that gets a tremendous number of user requests. That said, Sib's trumpeting of "automatic" "wedge-free" beaming could lend impetous to at least #2, because then Patterson Beams could disappear into the automatic run list.For the record, Robert,I have requested this and gotten an interested response, though I was told at the time that it was too late to implement that in the 2006 release.Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com  ___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread John Howell


At 5:22 AM -0500 7/6/05, Jim wrote:
David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i 
see here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you 
enlighten me as to their benefit?
I'm not sure I see the benefit of having an ex-post change made to a 
PART be reflected in the SCORE. Some changes in parts I would NOT 
want reflected in a score. Is this feature intelligent enough to 
sort that out?


Composer's Mosaic from MOTU (no longer supported as far as I know) 
has had linked parts from day one, along with the ability (indeed, 
the requirement!) to customize the layout of each part (which can be 
done at least in part using templates).  It is NOT intelligent in any 
way, and a mistake entered in either score or parts is instantly 
reflected in the other.  That simply means that the engraver has to 
be intelligent!  I agree 100% that the ability to control what is 
linked and what is not in both directions is essential in any Finale 
implementation.


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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Eric Dannewitz


David W. Fenton wrote:


Other than Andrew, who has suggested anything else?

Didn't we start from the Sibelius demo, which gives examples of 
editing in both the score and the part, and how in each case, the 
changes appear in the other? And how layout issues are independent 
for the two views?


I can only think that perhaps you and Andrew didn't view the Sibelius 
demo?


No, I viewed it. Looks good, if it works right. Just restating that I'd 
want it both ways.


I'm not clear if this new feature in Sibelius applies to things like 
slurs, or articulations.


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Aaron Sherber

At 01:05 PM 07/06/2005, Andrew Stiller wrote:
>Part view is something you (not me, I never use it) use before the
>actual parts are extracted. Any dynamic linkage feature that I can ever
>conceive using would be applicable to parts that have *already been
>extracted and edited* and are therefore in completely separate files
>from the main score.

Andrew, I think your assumption that there's linkage between a score 
and *extracted* parts is what's causing some of the confusion here. 
In fact, dynamic parts as implemented by Sibelius and as envisioned 
for Finale don't involve extraction at all -- except in the sense of 
Finale's special part extraction.

In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special 
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are 
reflected immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the 
notes are only stored in one place. On the other hand, the file keeps 
track of different positioning information for things like 
expressions -- one position in the score and a different one in the 
part -- so that you can make small tweaks as needed.

Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Andrew Stiller



On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:53 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


If part view is just a view of the underlying data, you automatically
get two-way linking. That is, changes to the score appear in the
parts, and changes to the parts appear in the score. The exception to
this is, of course, spacing, which is kept independently for the
parts and score, as it must be.


Part view is something you (not me, I never use it) use before the 
actual parts are extracted. Any dynamic linkage feature that I can ever 
conceive using would be applicable to parts that have *already been 
extracted and edited* and are therefore in completely separate files 
from the main score.



 Are you saying that you'd *never* want score-to-part
updates, but *only* part-to-score updates?


No of course not. I just was calling attention to the need for 
considering the part-to-score option--as several other listers 
understood immediately and have, gratifyingly, endorsed.



Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:24, Eric Dannewitz wrote:

> Indeed. I think Dynamic parts is something that needs to be added to
> Finale ASAP. But it needs to go BOTH WAYS, as other readers of pointed
> out. When I do changes, it's usually after someone PROOFED it on a
> part.

Other than Andrew, who has suggested anything else?

Didn't we start from the Sibelius demo, which gives examples of 
editing in both the score and the part, and how in each case, the 
changes appear in the other? And how layout issues are independent 
for the two views?

I can only think that perhaps you and Andrew didn't view the Sibelius 
demo?

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 6 Jul 2005 at 11:34, Andrew Stiller wrote:

> Thinking about the  issue of linked parts, I realize that what I would
> like is considerably less than that. Dynamic linking is useful only if
> you make musically significant  changes  in the score that need to be
> reflected in the parts. I won't say I never do that, but it only
> happens once or twice a year, and almost never impacts more than one
> or two parts.
> 
> More useful to me  would be *reverse* linking, because part extraction
> provides the final proofreading check of the score, particularly for
> things like arco/pizz. and con/senza sord. It would indeed  be  very
> nice, therefore, to be able to make a change to a  part and  have it
> automatically appear in the score.

If part view is just a view of the underlying data, you automatically 
get two-way linking. That is, changes to the score appear in the 
parts, and changes to the parts appear in the score. The exception to 
this is, of course, spacing, which is kept independently for the 
parts and score, as it must be.

This is exactly what the Sibelius demo shows, so I'm not sure why you 
make your post. Are you saying that you'd *never* want score-to-part 
updates, but *only* part-to-score updates? I can't see the utility of 
having only the one direction without the other. I can see doing it 
only one way by preference, but cannot see a justification for 
actually limiting the program to one-way updates.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 6 Jul 2005 at 14:14, Robert Patterson wrote:

> The last two annual releases reveal that MM is concerned with other
> matters than notation. Unfortunately for those of us who care about
> notation, MM's actions suggest that they believe there is more money
> in other aspects of the music business, and they are clearly headed
> there, using Finale as a springboard. The sad part is, if I were a
> stockholder, I'd probably agree with them.

I'm with David Bailey in a state of mystification as to how linked 
parts is a "mere" notation issue.

Except for people who use Finale as nothing but a sequencer (people 
who I'd say are either masochistic or just not very smart), who I'd 
think would be in a very small minority, part extraction is something 
*everyone* has to do, unless they aren't preparing any performance 
materials at all.

Dynamic parts as they appear to be implemented in Sibelius (based on 
the demo) seem to me to be something that would benefit the vast 
majority of Finale users, or, at least, all those who print out parts 
(which is surely more than 50% of users). And the way it seems to be 
implemented is intuitive and makes sense, and saves time and effort.

I just don't see how anyone could class this as a "mere" engraving 
feature, as something that's of real use only to the professional 
engravers.

On the contrary, my bet is that, properly implemented with good 
default settings, this feature would mean that the vast majority of 
Finale users would no longer have to do *any* tweaking of parts, as 
they'd come out "good enough" on the first try, whereas with the 
current setup, it's only the engravers who probably understand the 
process well enough to get some of it semi-automated, so they don't 
end up tweaking absolutely everything in each part manually.

This looks like exactly the kind of feature that brings benefit to 
all the constituencies Finale serves.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:

> On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> > I have always felt that the easiest way for Finale to get "linked
> > parts" (I hesitate to use that expression, since it seems tied into
> > the in my opinion erroneous idea that the parts should be in
> > separate files, linked back to a score file) was to fix special part
> > extraction so that the layout changes for each part were stored as
> > deltas from the score layout.
> 
> That was the argument that won me over.

Well, as a computer programmer, it would never occur to me to 
implement it in any other way. Finale screams out for an object-
oriented approach to both implementation under the hood and user 
interface. The inheritance/encapsulation/subclassing that comes with 
object-oriented programming works exactly in this fashion by taking a 
basic object, subclassing it and adding interfaces/methods to the new 
object that is based on the other object.

That's exactly what a different view is.

It's also very much in line with my background as a database 
application programmer, where you do report layouts to present data 
that's stored in a format completely independent from the 
presentation format (i.e., it's not at all like a spreadsheet, where 
the data is stored in the same format you print, and alterations to 
the spreadsheet affect its layout for printing, with no independence 
between the two).

So, the ideas seem self-evident to me.

> >>  It'll be
> >> interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeats business works
> >> and whether or not it will adjust the measure numbers
> >> appropriately.
> >
> > Isn't it just implemented as a plug-in?
> 
> Is there a problem with that? Plugins seem to be a good way to go, as
> they don't take up CPU cycles when you are using the program
> "normally". This is what I like about the TG Tools lyric plugins, for
> example, over Finale's auto-word extensions.

Well, I would assume that code that implements the MassEdit tool's 
functionality doesn't take up CPU cycles when I'm in Speedy, so I 
don't see this defense of plugins as relevant.

To me, the basic functionality of the repeat tool should be changed 
to use common sense. Such as, if you place a backward repeat, Finale 
should find the previous forward repeat and say "do you want to 
repeat to the forward repeat at m. N?" and have a button called "SHOW 
ME" that shows you the context, and then allows you to say YES / NO / 
EDIT MANUALLY.

> > If you add a new region, when you create it, it appears to inherit
> > all the settings of the previous region you were working on, but,
> > instead, it just doesn't update the display. When you close the
> > dialog, you find that it's actually inherited the default settings
> > for measure number formatting. Second, there are problems with the
> > measure-number display that I haven't quite traced down. It takes
> > two or three trips to the region editing dialog before the numbers
> > start actually displaying what you've told them to
> 
> Command-D (control D on the PC) to redraw usually takes care of it for
> me.

Ctrl-D in a *dialog* box? The dialog box shows the WRONG FONT.

And the display has already been updated, since when I return to the 
document, the measure-number font is different than it was before I 
opened the dialog (it's now set to the default).

Why in the world would a modal dialog box that makes changes to 
objects displayed onscreen not automatically update the display as 
soon as the dialog is closed? That sounds like sloppy programming to 
me.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Eric Dannewitz

Indeed. I think Dynamic parts is something that needs to be added to 
Finale ASAP. But it needs to go BOTH WAYS, as other readers of pointed 
out. When I do changes, it's usually after someone PROOFED it on a part.


Makemusic hasn't announced any major updates (yet) to Smartmusic. I'd 
think they would bundle GPO to Smart Music. I use Smart Music, but it 
drives me insane listening to the LAME sounds.


Back to Finale, I'm generally happy with it. It works well generally. 
I'd love to see it import MIDI files better. WHen I do something in 
Digital Performer, and import it into Finale, it doesn't always come out 
the way I want it.


So, Dynamic parts. Bug fixes. Speed. That would be want I'd want 
Makemusic to focus on. NO MORE FLUFF. We need some serious THOUGHT and 
EFFORT in new features. I think it is really sad when they put on their 
Promo that you can select a Textured Paper.

http://www.finalemusic.com/finale/features/new/texturedpaper.aspx


Andrew Stiller wrote:

Sigh. This argument is depressingly familiar. "Generally many of you 
haven't been happy with the mass-market programming features here at 
WQQQ-FM. Come up with some repertoire that we have the budget  to 
acquire and that can attract a wide audience." "Generally many of you 
haven't been happy with the size or variety of the classical 
department here at Megamonolith Records. Suggest some discs we can 
sell to a wide audience, and we'll be glad to include them."  "No we 
don't carry no-sugar-added apple butter at this supermarket; that 
wouldn't be a very big seller,  would it? But thank you for your 
suggestion and have a nice day."


Look, if they wanted  to make a million bucks, Coda should have 
marketed a game  or a spreadsheet. They didn't. They marketed a music 
engraving program, which is by nature aimed  at about the tiniest, 
most  specialized niche market you can imagine. You literally  cannot 
expand the audience for such a product beyond a certain narrow limit 
without losing the program's original constituency. Of course, there 
is always a strong temptation to do just that, because that's where 
the money is--but MakeMusic wouldn't do that. Would they?




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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 6 Jul 2005 at 5:22, Jim wrote:

> David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i see
> here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you enlighten
> me as to their benefit? I'm not sure I see the benefit of having an
> ex-post change made to a PART be reflected in the SCORE. Some changes
> in parts I would NOT want reflected in a score. Is this feature
> intelligent enough to sort that out?

Well, maybe *you* wouldn't benefit from it, but I *definitely* would. 
Part extraction is horridly complex and takes way too much time. It 
really ought to be something that takes a lot less time than it does. 
Linked parts would do that.

I doubt, though, that if MakeMusic implemented linked parts that they 
would then *eliminate* traditional part extraction. That means, then, 
that you could still use your preferred methods, while those of us 
who need the time-saving aspects of linked parts could use them.

And it would also be nice, if, for instance, you could format your 
linked parts, then save a single part out to a separate file, which 
would no longer be connected to the score, so you could then make 
changes to that part (like Darcy's change to the flute part of 
printing the part at pitch and the score with an 8va transposition).

Also, back when *I* was making suggestions for how to implement this, 
I always said that it should be possible to *break* the link between 
the part and score, if you wanted to. What if you could do that with 
a staff style, selectively applied to the measures you wanted to 
change in the part but not in the score? That would be pretty cool.

. . .

Now for a rant:

Where in the world do people get the idea that the addition of a new 
way of doing things into Finale necessitates the complete elimination 
of the old method of accomplishing the same task? I've many times 
made suggestions for changes to the way Finale does some task, and 
frequently encounter objections from members of this list that they 
like the *old* way of doing it. That's a complete non-sequitur.

Now, it might be that implementing linked parts via special part 
extraction (as seems to me to make the most sense) would break the 
old ways that people used special part extraction. And that may be 
so, but there's no necessity that it be implemented in a manner that 
breaks the old special part extraction, or traditional part 
extraction. Why assume the worst when the benefit from the change 
could be so great?

I, for one, can't see how anyone who has ever extracted parts for 
even one score could not see the benefit for linked parts!

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Andrew Stiller



Generally many of you haven't been happy with the
mass-market features introduced in Finale. Come up
with one or two of your own that MakeMusic has the
ability to implement and can be marketed to a wide
audience.


Tyler



Sigh. This argument is depressingly familiar. "Generally many of you 
haven't been happy with the mass-market programming features here at 
WQQQ-FM. Come up with some repertoire that we have the budget  to 
acquire and that can attract a wide audience." "Generally many of you 
haven't been happy with the size or variety of the classical department 
here at Megamonolith Records. Suggest some discs we can sell to a wide 
audience, and we'll be glad to include them."  "No we don't carry 
no-sugar-added apple butter at this supermarket; that wouldn't be a 
very big seller,  would it? But thank you for your suggestion and have 
a nice day."


Look, if they wanted  to make a million bucks, Coda should have 
marketed a game  or a spreadsheet. They didn't. They marketed a music 
engraving program, which is by nature aimed  at about the tiniest, most 
 specialized niche market you can imagine. You literally  cannot expand 
the audience for such a product beyond a certain narrow limit without 
losing the program's original constituency. Of course, there is always 
a strong temptation to do just that, because that's where the money 
is--but MakeMusic wouldn't do that. Would they?



Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Dennis Bathory-Kitsz

At 11:34 AM 7/6/05 -0400, Andrew Stiller wrote:
>Dynamic linking is useful only if 
>you make musically significant  changes  in the score that need to be 
>reflected in the parts. I won't say I never do that, but it only 
>happens once or twice a year, and almost never impacts more than one or 
>two parts.

This is the fun part of a diverse user base!

I use Finale for composition a good chunk of the time, so there can be
changes needed after the score & parts are sent to the musicians, and
frequently after each rehearsal, depending on the attitude of the players.
Dynamic linking would cut the work down dramatically.

Last year, for example, a commissioned orchestral piece was deemed too much
work for the performers, and the conductor provided me with a long list of
suggested simplifications. They were all reasonable, and modifications to
other parts would cover all the changes. But it required re-creating all
the parts, which was most of the time spent.

Dennis

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

On 5 Jul 2005 at 22:43, Tyler Turner wrote:

> --- Darcy James Argue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > We did.
> > 
> >   A while back, many of the people on this list came
> > up with a 
> > reasonably detailed plan for implementing a feature
> > that looks very 
> > much like Sibelius's Dynamic Parts.  Between us, we
> > decided exactly how 
> > it ought to work, and how it COULD work using an
> > existing Finale 
> > mechanism (Special Part Extraction).  I passed the
> > results of that 
> > discussion on to Coda -- I'm sure some of the other
> > people involved did 
> > the same.
> 
> That's a good example. And believe it or not, it
> nearly got implemented a few years ago because of
> engraver requests. I can't even remember for sure
> which release it was, but that feature was very nearly
> implemented at the expense of developing little else.
> I don't recall what exactly was involved with the
> decision to not do it. At this point, I think it would
> be good to make suggestions to MakeMusic for which
> parts of that feature you actually need most. What
> would be the minimum implementation for the feature
> that would give you most of the usefulness? Sibelius'
> method is pretty flashy, complete with instantaneous
> update. If something like that isn't necessary, it
> would be good to mention that. I'm pretty sure that
> MakeMusic will at least be looking at this feature
> again now that Sibelius has included it. They have a
> lot of other stuff on their plate though, so the less
> work they'd have to spend on it, the better chance
> they'd be able to do it.

Perhaps we should decide what we want to see in Finale and send those 
suggestions to Sibelious. No doubt, in a year or two, we'd see the 
same feature implemented in Finale, just to keep up with Sibelius.

I have no doubt that linked parts are on the way in Finale now, and 
that's the next time I'll upgrade, when they implement it in Finale.

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Andrew Stiller

Thinking about the  issue of linked parts, I realize that what I would 
like is considerably less than that. Dynamic linking is useful only if 
you make musically significant  changes  in the score that need to be 
reflected in the parts. I won't say I never do that, but it only 
happens once or twice a year, and almost never impacts more than one or 
two parts.


More useful to me  would be *reverse* linking, because part extraction 
provides the final proofreading check of the score, particularly for 
things like arco/pizz. and con/senza sord. It would indeed  be  very 
nice, therefore, to be able to make a change to a  part and  have it 
automatically appear in the score.


Auto page turns would be the most useful of  all--but I would want it 
to be intelligent enough to recognize that passages of slow notes 
requiring just one  hand are valid places for a turn.


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Noel Stoutenburg


dhbailey wrote:

And the new data format for Finale2K5 has been released publicly? 
Finale2K4?


I won't speak to "publicly", as I'm uncertain of this; I would submit, 
though, that it is instructive to compare the apparently outside the 
Coda / Net4Music / MakeMusic organization who have written plugins that 
appear to be impossible without upon knowing details of the Finale data 
file structure, (including [based upon inclusion on Jari's Finale tips 
site] Robert Patterson, Robert Piechaud, Tobias Giessen, Jari 
Williamson, Philip Aker, Dimitri Tymoczko, Zbigniew Zuchowicz, Michael 
Good, Enrico and Michele Bortolazzi, and Peter Castine) with the 
comparable list of outsiders who have written plug-ins which might 
depend upon knowledge of the Sibelisu file structure – Michael Good.


I would also note, that based upon this bit from the Sibelius Web site, 
:




  Developing your own plug-ins?

If you are interested in developing your own plug-ins and want to 
discuss ManuScript with other plug-in developers, you can join our 
plug-in developer mailing list 
.


that comparing Sibelius third party "plug-ins" with Finale third party 
"plug-ins" is not a direct comparsion; unless Sibelius has written their 
website with a peculiar inaccuracy, it appears to me that what Sibelius 
calls a "plug in", MakeMusic calls a "Finale script", and that, with the 
sole exception of Michael Good's Dolet for Sibelius, Sibelius has 
nothing from a third party directly equivalent to, say TG tools.


How will our Finale data be any better accessible than Sibelius data, 
should MakeMusic go out of business and nobody buy the Finale assets 
at auction?


If you peruse the Lilypond website, you will note that there is a filter 
to convert ~.etf files to lilypond format. I've not tried it, and have 
no first-hand knowledge about how well it works. You will also note that 
no filter to convert files from any Sibelius format to Lilypond.


Finally, back in March, when I was considering switching to Sibelius, I 
posted questions in a couple of places, one of which was the newsgroup, 
"rec.music.makers.choral". One of the questions I posted asked if


1) Sibelius provides registered users with detailed 
information on the format of data files, and makes it 
possible to save files in a form (similar to the ~.ETF files 
of Finale). 


which was forwarded to Sibelius technical support, and which was 
answered in an email directly to me from Tom Betts, with Sibelius who 
wrote, in part:


We do not supply anyone with details of our file format.  We do not have a format similar to ETF at this time. 

I am quite satisfied that in consideration of future accessibility of 
data contained in a data file, that Finale is far and away a better 
choice than Sibelius.


ns

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Robert Patterson

On the matter of whether features are "just" plugins, it would be relatively 
simple for MM (and Finale's users) to have cake and eat it too. Two extensions 
of the plugin interface would integrate them in ways that would erase much of 
the distinction.

1. Plugins should be able to add themselves to context menus.

2. The user should optionally be able to add plugins to an "automatic" list 
that runs at the same time "Automatic Note Spacing" runs.

Plugin developers have been requesting these enhancements for years. The 
problem is, it is not the kind of enhancement that gets a tremendous number of 
user requests. That said, Sib's trumpeting of "automatic" "wedge-free" beaming 
could lend impetous to at least #2, because then Patterson Beams could 
disappear into the automatic run list.




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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Robert Patterson

I haven't read much of this thread, but I would advise anyone to read marketing 
hype with liberal doses of salt. If Sib's new feature works as well as 
marketed, it will be a first for the computer industry.

That said, I know enough about Enigma data structures to speculate that MM 
could probably implement the same thing in a single annual cycle. (And they 
could sort out markings that appear only in parts (or score) with the existing 
staff list settings.) The problem is that that would probably be all they could 
do that year.

The last two annual releases reveal that MM is concerned with other matters 
than notation. Unfortunately for those of us who care about notation, MM's 
actions suggest that they believe there is more money in other aspects of the 
music business, and they are clearly headed there, using Finale as a 
springboard. The sad part is, if I were a stockholder, I'd probably agree with 
them.

Our one hope is that now Sib has this feature, MM will probably be forced to 
follow suit. Thinking a bit cynically, MM may have been smart to let Sib spend 
years doing all the research. Now they can copy it in a single annual cycle if 
they choose to.




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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!



On Jul 5, 2005, at 8:10 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:


Another observation - if Finale implemented a score-part link that was 
anything like part extraction, I'd simply not use it, because it 
wouldn't do what I needed.  I always end up making parts by deleting 
staves manually from the score. What extra work is created is negated 
not dealing with the crap that's created by part extraction.




Owain,

For heaven's sake, try Special Parts Extraction instead!

Brian Williams turned me onto it here on this list, and in many cases 
it is exactly what the doctor ordered!


I am putting together a step-by-step for my students, and I will post 
it here as soon as I am done.


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!



On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


I have always felt that the easiest way for Finale to get "linked
parts" (I hesitate to use that expression, since it seems tied into
the in my opinion erroneous idea that the parts should be in separate
files, linked back to a score file) was to fix special part
extraction so that the layout changes for each part were stored as
deltas from the score layout.




That was the argument that won me over.


 It'll be
interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeats business works and
whether or not it will adjust the measure numbers appropriately.


Isn't it just implemented as a plug-in?



Is there a problem with that? Plugins seem to be a good way to go, as 
they don't take up CPU cycles when you are using the program 
"normally". This is what I like about the TG Tools lyric plugins, for 
example, over Finale's auto-word extensions.





If you add a new region, when you create it, it appears to inherit
all the settings of the previous region you were working on, but,
instead, it just doesn't update the display. When you close the
dialog, you find that it's actually inherited the default settings
for measure number formatting. Second, there are problems with the
measure-number display that I haven't quite traced down. It takes two
or three trips to the region editing dialog before the numbers start
actually displaying what you've told them to



Command-D (control D on the PC) to redraw usually takes care of it for 
me.


Christopher

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!


Jim wrote:

David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i see 
here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you enlighten me 
as to their benefit?
I'm not sure I see the benefit of having an ex-post change made to a 
PART be reflected in the SCORE. Some changes in parts I would NOT want 
reflected in a score. Is this feature intelligent enough to sort that out?




According to the Sibelius web-site I gave the URL link for (or on a 
different page linked from that original page) it does state that you 
can make parts-only changes which won't be reflected in the score, and 
apparently (from others who have run the demo) those items get a 
specific color so you can see what they are.


Concerning your ex-post change made to a part being reflected in the 
score, I often spot wrong notes in an individual part that my eye 
glosses over in a full score.  Or in looking at a part I may decide that 
I want a specific articulation in that part that I hadn't thought of 
while working on the score.  Currently, with Finale, I have to make the 
change in the extracted part, and then remember to make the change to 
the score also.


Another feature of the Sibelius dynamic linking of score/parts is that 
the parts are NOT separate files -- they are a different view of the 
score itself, where you can save part-specific layout details.  Thus a 
score and parts are ONE file ONLY!  And the parts don't represent a huge 
increase in file size since they are only a different view of the score 
(with all the other staves hidden) with part-specific data saved as 
well. Thus a score with the dynamic parts would be only slightly larger 
than the original file without dynamic parts, while currently a Finale 
score and the extracted parts add up to a rather large file-size total 
compared to the score itself.


And then there's the sharing-the-file-with-others ease of sending a 
single Sibelius4 file to other Sibelius4 users, compared to the Finale 
situation of having to zip all the score and parts into a single zip 
file.  Send a Sib4 file to another Sib4 user and he/she can see all your 
part layouts, exactly what you have come up with for score layout and 
part layout, easily and quickly, make any edits and send the single file 
back to you.  Far easier than the current Finale situation.


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!


Noel Stoutenburg wrote:


David W. Fenton wrote:

That is, by contemplating switching to Sibelius, aren't you 
contemplating getting yourself into a much worse situation than you 
are with activated Finale?
 

I would say so.  The Sibelius data file structure is proprietary, and it 
is illegal in the U.S. under the DMCA, to reverse engineer the file to 
determine the structure.  If Sibelius goes out of business, or decides 
to impose a use license on users of existing Sibelius files, Users have 
two choices: Music XML, and reenter everything in another system.




And the new data format for Finale2K5 has been released publicly? 
Finale2K4?


All I ever recall that MakeMusic ever released concerning their data 
format was the format for the ETF file, and that was way back around 
Finale97 or so, if I recall correctly.


How will our Finale data be any better accessible than Sibelius data, 
should MakeMusic go out of business and nobody buy the Finale assets at 
auction?


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!


Tyler Turner wrote:
[snip]


It's great that MakeMusic can focus features on the
engravers because of their importance - but it's a lot
better when the features that help the engravers can
also help the majority of the users. 


Amen to that!  And linked scores/parts would help everybody because they 
could go from a score that plays back (wonderfully with the GPO sounds 
in the new version, mixed incredibly well with the new mixer) to printed 
parts ready for rehearsal almost instantaneously, instead of what is 
required these days, spending a lot of time on each extracted part to 
get the layout correct.  Then if any changes are needed to the score, 
they have to be hand-entered into the parts.  How would eliminating that 
not help the majority of users?


I find it difficult to believe that features which have been added 
"dedicated to engravers" are not helpful to ALL users of a notation 
program -- anything which has made a professional engraver's job easier 
has also made getting quality notation onto paper easier and better for 
anybody who uses Finale for notation, even the casual composer or 
arranger or school teacher or student.


And if somebody isn't using Finale for notation, what are they using it for?

So I find it disingenuous to claim that engravers have received a 
disproportionate share of features -- Finale does, after all, bill 
itself as "The Art of Music Notation" (on the manuals I have) and from 
MakeMusic's own web-site: "The world's best-selling and easiest-to-use 
software for composing, arranging, teaching and publishing..."


Then to tell those of us who are interested primarily in the notational 
features and features which make the turning of hand-written manuscript 
or music which is in our heads into printed music that represents the 
highest levels of music engraving that we have received a 
disproportional number of features aimed at us makes me wonder who else 
is using Finale and what they are doing with it, if not using the 
notational, get-the-music-to-paper, core functionality of Finale.


I can understand that some may be stopping before the paper stage, and 
only getting the notation into the computer, but it's still the notation 
that they are basing everything on.


Mixers and GPO and record-directly-to-audio-file don't matter one bit 
before the notation is entered.


So tell me again how engravers alone out of the varied number of Finale 
users have gotten disproportionate amounts of features -- which features 
are only aimed at engravers and don't help anybody else?


?

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-06 Thread Jim

David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i see here, 
however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you enlighten me as to 
their benefit?
I'm not sure I see the benefit of having an ex-post change made to a PART be 
reflected in the SCORE. Some changes in parts I would NOT want reflected in 
a score. Is this feature intelligent enough to sort that out?


Perhaps I left some wisdom behind when I left Manhattan for the great 
Midwest. ;-) ;-)

Jim
- Original Message - 
From: "dhbailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!



Jim wrote:
[snip]

*For me, it's all about doing the best job with the least amount of 
nuisance.

[snip]

So you're saying that having a mixer will reduce nuisance far more than 
linked score/parts?



--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!


Jim wrote:
[snip]

*For me, it's all about doing the best job with the least amount of 
nuisance.

[snip]

So you're saying that having a mixer will reduce nuisance far more than 
linked score/parts?



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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-05 Thread Noel Stoutenburg


David W. Fenton wrote:

That is, by contemplating switching to Sibelius, aren't you 
contemplating getting yourself into a much worse situation than you 
are with activated Finale?
 

I would say so.  The Sibelius data file structure is proprietary, and it 
is illegal in the U.S. under the DMCA, to reverse engineer the file to 
determine the structure.  If Sibelius goes out of business, or decides 
to impose a use license on users of existing Sibelius files, Users have 
two choices: Music XML, and reenter everything in another system.


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

--- Darcy James Argue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Tyler,
> 
> We did.
> 
>   A while back, many of the people on this list came
> up with a 
> reasonably detailed plan for implementing a feature
> that looks very 
> much like Sibelius's Dynamic Parts.  Between us, we
> decided exactly how 
> it ought to work, and how it COULD work using an
> existing Finale 
> mechanism (Special Part Extraction).  I passed the
> results of that 
> discussion on to Coda -- I'm sure some of the other
> people involved did 
> the same.

That's a good example. And believe it or not, it
nearly got implemented a few years ago because of
engraver requests. I can't even remember for sure
which release it was, but that feature was very nearly
implemented at the expense of developing little else.
I don't recall what exactly was involved with the
decision to not do it. At this point, I think it would
be good to make suggestions to MakeMusic for which
parts of that feature you actually need most. What
would be the minimum implementation for the feature
that would give you most of the usefulness? Sibelius'
method is pretty flashy, complete with instantaneous
update. If something like that isn't necessary, it
would be good to mention that. I'm pretty sure that
MakeMusic will at least be looking at this feature
again now that Sibelius has included it. They have a
lot of other stuff on their plate though, so the less
work they'd have to spend on it, the better chance
they'd be able to do it.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-05 Thread Darcy James Argue


On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:51 AM, Tyler Turner wrote:


Generally many of you haven't been happy with the
mass-market features introduced in Finale. Come up
with one or two of your own that MakeMusic has the
ability to implement and can be marketed to a wide
audience


Tyler,

We did.

 A while back, many of the people on this list came up with a 
reasonably detailed plan for implementing a feature that looks very 
much like Sibelius's Dynamic Parts.  Between us, we decided exactly how 
it ought to work, and how it COULD work using an existing Finale 
mechanism (Special Part Extraction).  I passed the results of that 
discussion on to Coda -- I'm sure some of the other people involved did 
the same.


Now, I know there were pressing, more immediate issues that needed to 
be solved -- OS X migration, performance, and playback chief among them 
-- and I'm not faulting Coda for being unable to do everything at once. 
 And I think a lot of people on this list are not giving Coda enough 
credit for the engraver-specific features that WERE introduced in 
Fin2k4 and Fin2k5 -- especially the new expression positioning options 
(which are unbelievably great) and the tuplets (which are a vast 
improvement, but still need a little work).


BUT... having said all that, it's still a little galling to see 
Sibelius stealing "our" thunder like that.  I think we came up with an 
excellent plan for dynamic score-part linking in Finale (one that, I 
should add, looks very very similar to the one Sibelius implemented), 
and it is disappointing that Sibelius got there first.  Maybe it wasn't 
realistic to cram that into Fin2k6 (which looks to be a very 
substantial update) but still, it's always frustrating to be left 
behind.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY






--- Richard Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Well,
whatever you are doing ain't working so well.


Please don't misunderstand - I'm a former employee of
MakeMusic. I'm not one now, and I don't speak
officially for them. I'm trying to help out by giving
you some ideas for how you can have a better chance to
make Finale better for yourselves.


FIX THE BUGS. Is that creative enough?

Richard Yates


Not unless you're talking specifically about bugs you
know that most users run into. Most users don't run
into bugs frequently. I'm not trying to insult anyone
here. I'm just saying that MakeMusic tends to get
requests from engravers that would specifically help
engravers and few other people. There are very notable
exceptions. But by in large, that's the way it is.
Most bug fixes fall under this (some don't). I just
want to encourage people to send in specific
suggestions for features that would benefit a lot of
people. And the more people on the bandwagon for a
particular feature, the better.

Generally many of you haven't been happy with the
mass-market features introduced in Finale. Come up
with one or two of your own that MakeMusic has the
ability to implement and can be marketed to a wide
audience.


Tyler





__
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
___
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

--- Richard Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well,
> whatever you are doing ain't working so well.

Please don't misunderstand - I'm a former employee of
MakeMusic. I'm not one now, and I don't speak
officially for them. I'm trying to help out by giving
you some ideas for how you can have a better chance to
make Finale better for yourselves.

> FIX THE BUGS. Is that creative enough?
> 
> Richard Yates

Not unless you're talking specifically about bugs you
know that most users run into. Most users don't run
into bugs frequently. I'm not trying to insult anyone
here. I'm just saying that MakeMusic tends to get
requests from engravers that would specifically help
engravers and few other people. There are very notable
exceptions. But by in large, that's the way it is.
Most bug fixes fall under this (some don't). I just
want to encourage people to send in specific
suggestions for features that would benefit a lot of
people. And the more people on the bandwagon for a
particular feature, the better.

Generally many of you haven't been happy with the
mass-market features introduced in Finale. Come up
with one or two of your own that MakeMusic has the
ability to implement and can be marketed to a wide
audience.

Tyler

__ 
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-05 Thread Richard Yates

>Engravers, while
> a much smaller group, are critical for the success of
> Finale because they are key in setting Finale's
> reputation.

I have no reason to think that this list is not reasonably representative of
the engravers who you say are key in setting Finale's reputation. Well,
whatever you are doing ain't working so well. Finale's reputation here is
sliding dramatically. A few years ago everyone was fervent in defense of
Finale against the claims of Sibelius and others. Now the tenor is much more
in the direction of posters on the edge of making the jump.

> One thing I've never really brought up, I encourage
> you all to be creative in thinking about features that
> would help both you and the vast majority of Finale
> users.

FIX THE BUGS. Is that creative enough?

Richard Yates


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

--- Owain Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What market IS MakeMusic focussing on?  A lot of the
> uncertainty here is 
> that we don't know whether there's a real commitment
> to engravers, or to 
> serious composers, because most of the 'advances' or
> of no relevance to 
> these groups.
> ___

MakeMusic is focusing on composers/arrangers,
educators, students, engravers, and church musicians -
not necessarily in that order.

I believe the company takes in most of its money from
the composers and educational crowd. Engravers, while
a much smaller group, are critical for the success of
Finale because they are key in setting Finale's
reputation. The number of features dedicated to
engravers is highly disproportional in the engravers
favor.

One thing I've never really brought up, I encourage
you all to be creative in thinking about features that
would help both you and the vast majority of Finale
users. I have a few features in mind that I'm not
willing to talk about openly, but I think there are
still features, not implemented in any notation
program, that could vastly increase the work flow for
engravers and virtually everyone else who uses Finale.
I know it can be frustrating to wait for years and
never see the particular things you've asked for get
implemented. And it may be a long time before
MakeMusic gets around to improving the particular area
that would save you time. But there are some aspects
of the program that almost everyone has to use, and I
think looking for ways to improve efficiency in those
areas is a great approach - after all, time is time.
If you save time in part A you get to the annoying
stuff in part B more quickly.

It's great that MakeMusic can focus features on the
engravers because of their importance - but it's a lot
better when the features that help the engravers can
also help the majority of the users. 

Regards,
Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-05 Thread David W. Fenton

On 5 Jul 2005 at 23:29, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:

> At 09:43 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >Fewer and fewer people are actually creating music to be performed by
> > live musicians. Good computer-based playback means you don't need
> >human beings. While Dennis may think this is A Good Thing, I think
> >it's very distressing -- perhaps the beginning of the end of live
> >performance as anything other than a hobby/curiosity.
> 
> That's been going on since the piano roll.
> 
> But the current situation provides the opportunity for committed
> musicians to rise above a mundane level of performance, technique and
> repertoire. 

I would have thought so, but the GPO demos were very disappointing to 
me. Not because of flaws in the samples, but because of the lack of 
attention to detail in what were supposedly fine examples of 
sequences. I heard all sorts of awful things, as well as an 
overreliance on reverb to cover a multitude of sins (not least of 
which being some real shortcomings in the samples themselves).

Creating a good, human-sounding sequence is really, really hard work, 
no matter what tools you are using, because creating a really solid 
musical performance is very hard work even using actual musicians and 
actual musical instruments.

Music is complicated that way -- the smallest details stick out, the 
tiniest discontinuities, the smallest not-quite-right rates of change 
for tempo or dynamics or any of a host of other performance issues.

> . . . Really good new nonpop groups are doing a killer business
> right now, but those few are really good. They have to be, as
> accurate, effective performances are no longer a dream. Now you can
> make 'em right off the score.
> 
> It doesn't reduce opportunities for musicians. For me to be interested
> in what they do, though, they have to make strong contributions to the
> presentation of the music. Mere reproduction of notes is no longer
> sufficient. It never really was, but the 'human playback' reveals
> clearly how little musical ingeniousness has been part of nonpop
> performance since the advent of recording.

Well, Sturgeon's law applies here, don't you think?

> New music and new technology do go hand in hand. Any computer can do a
> great Mendelssohn now, . . .

Really? I've yet to hear it.

> . . . and you can even 'dial in' the level of
> idiosyncrasy; we're now getting to the Data character from ST:TNG,
> albeit four centuries early. On the other hand, great new pieces
> demand inventiveness from the performers -- not just cadenza-copying,
> but real involvement in the work from the beginning of composition to
> the time it appears in the real air.

Well, I had an eye opener the last week. I've always thought of my 
sound card's piano as having a really good sound, but when I mixed 
MIDI sequences in with MP3s of live performances in iTunes, and 
shuffled them, I started hearing that the piano was not so good after 
all.

If all you're listening to is synthesized performances, your ear 
adjusts, just as it did for early hearers of recorded sound who could 
not distinguish a live singer from a 78rpm recording of a singer. You 
learn to hear the music through the imperfections of the performance 
medium.

For me, live performance will always be preferable in terms of 
quality of sound.

And with decent musicians, in every other way, as well.

But I am in a minority in terms of ability to hear distinctions that 
the vast majority of listeners don't even know exist.

> That's definitely enough from me. Off to bed.

I read that as "Orff to bed!" :)

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

--- "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> That this may very well be true suggests to me one
> distressing fact:
> 
> Fewer and fewer people are actually creating music
> to be performed by 
> live musicians. Good computer-based playback means
> you don't need 
> human beings.

Yes, problems can arise from this. The plus side is
that we'll get to hear the music of a much greater
number of musicians. How many musicians have never
been able to get their music performed and have thus
been missed? Do the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages? Tough to say. But we definitely can
guess that technology will only get closer to "human,"
so I won't spend time worrying about stopping it.
Playing instruments and performing will at least for a
long time be something people choose to engage in for
entertainment.

> But then the mixer belongs in your *sequencer*, not
> in Finale.

The rule for attracting a large audience is "keep it
simple." Your average musician doesn't want to work
with multiple pieces of software. There's a delicate
balance to find. If 80% of the market can be satisfied
with only 20% of the functionality (I'm talking about
the sequencing stuff here), then that's what to shoot
for. MakeMusic is including the most critical 20% of
the sequencing features, and with it they'll satisfy
most people. Automation is critical too, and Human
Playback is actually more helpful to the average user
than would be a graphical interface for editing MIDI
data - for the simple reason that most people wouldn't
use the latter. Finale 2006 already provides by far
the best default notation playback of any software in
the world. I really want them to press that advantage
farther, particularly now that Sibelius has laid its
cards on the table for the next two years.

> If I were creating my MIDI files for performance on
> a single 
> synthesizer, I certainly wouldn't be using Finale to
> tweak it for 
> performance, mixer or not. It makes no sense to me
> to do it that way 
> for a carefully tuned performance, given that
> Finale's tools are just 
> not designed to make it very easy to do these
> things.

Right - most professionals don't use Finale for this.
But it's apparent after the success of Human Playback
and the softsynth in selling Finale 2004 that many
people are after instant decent playback more than
near-perfect playback that takes tons of tweaking and
learning to obtain. When Finale 2004 was released,
Sibelius 3 came out with its own set of sounds. What
would have been a great advantage for Finale turned
into more of a means of maintaining equality. Now
Finale will have a clear advantage. Most people will
be able to say, "when I write music with Finale, it
sounds better than with Sibelius."

Regards,
Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-05 Thread Dennis Bathory-Kitsz

At 09:43 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
>Fewer and fewer people are actually creating music to be performed by 
>live musicians. Good computer-based playback means you don't need 
>human beings.
>While Dennis may think this is A Good Thing, I think it's very 
>distressing -- perhaps the beginning of the end of live performance 
>as anything other than a hobby/curiosity.

That's been going on since the piano roll.

But the current situation provides the opportunity for committed musicians
to rise above a mundane level of performance, technique and repertoire.
Really good new nonpop groups are doing a killer business right now, but
those few are really good. They have to be, as accurate, effective
performances are no longer a dream. Now you can make 'em right off the score.

It doesn't reduce opportunities for musicians. For me to be interested in
what they do, though, they have to make strong contributions to the
presentation of the music. Mere reproduction of notes is no longer
sufficient. It never really was, but the 'human playback' reveals clearly
how little musical ingeniousness has been part of nonpop performance since
the advent of recording.

New music and new technology do go hand in hand. Any computer can do a
great Mendelssohn now, and you can even 'dial in' the level of
idiosyncrasy; we're now getting to the Data character from ST:TNG, albeit
four centuries early. On the other hand, great new pieces demand
inventiveness from the performers -- not just cadenza-copying, but real
involvement in the work from the beginning of composition to the time it
appears in the real air.

That's definitely enough from me. Off to bed.

Dennis

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-05 Thread Jim




As I mentioned in an earlier post, I mentioned that 
many of my clients have started to demand a reasonable mockup in addition to a 
printed score. These clients are most concerned with a good quality score and a 
reasonably representative mockup that they can take to conductors, grantwriters, 
etc.
Since I am a heavy user of GPO,  I switched 
temporarily to a competing product (the name of which does not begin with an S) 
that was more GPO-centric and produced acceptable notation.
Though this may anger some parties here,  I 
must report that I have received numerous requests for good mockups, but I have 
NEVER ONCE been questioned about the approach angle of tie ends or other such, 
even with the competing product. It musi be OK; I'm still working at it, albeit 
as time permits. Perhaps the local yokels in music here are simply too 
unsophisticated--or too busy playing--to complain about the ends of the ties on 
my scores
 
So I guess the long and short of it is this: 

*Playback is an in-demand feature that will provide 
a Win-Win for MM and its clients.  
*Things such as circularly-bending staves aren't 
and won't for MM. There are other solutions that meet the very legitimate needs 
of these users.
*So my experience echoes Tyler's earlier 
post.
*I expect (indeed, I HOPE) to see notation and 
sequencing moving even more close together in the 
future, eventually providing a seamless working environment in which files 
need not be passed around from a notation environment to a sequencing 
environment. The competing product with which I work is paving this way, as 
people will shortly see.  I have also ordered 2006 since it seems to be 
taking some steps in this direction.
*For me, it's all about doing the best job with the 
least amount of nuisance.
- Original Message - 
From: "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <finale@shsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has 
dynamic score/parts linking!
> On 5 Jul 2005 at 18:25, Tyler Turner wrote:> > 
[]> >> 2. It was mentioned that Finale's playback has 
now>> caught up to and in some ways perhaps exceeded that 
of>> Sibelius. There's no competition. Finale's playback 
is>> far beyond Sibelius', both in terms of automatic>> 
playback and in customizability. For what you get>> included with the 
program, Sibelius doesn't come>> close. Sibelius gives you 20 
instruments and the>> ability to load 8 of them. Finale gives you 100 
higher>> quality instruments, and the ability to load 64. 
Human>> Playback is far beyond Espressivo, and is optimized 
to>> work with GPO. As alluring as linked parts is to the>> 
engraving crowd, I guarantee you that the inclusion of>> Finale GPO 
will attract more users than anything>> Sibelius has included in their 
new version.> > That this may very well be true suggests to me one 
distressing fact:> > Fewer and fewer people are actually creating 
music to be performed by > live musicians. Good computer-based playback 
means you don't need > human beings.> > While Dennis may 
think this is A Good Thing, I think it's very > distressing -- perhaps 
the beginning of the end of live performance > as anything other than a 
hobby/curiosity.> > []> >> 4. A mixer was a 
highly requested feature long before>> Finale included its own sounds, 
and with good reason.>> Many people make their files for their own 
personal>> use, and the fact that they might play differently 
on>> a different person's equipment matters little . . .> 
> But then the mixer belongs in your *sequencer*, not in Finale.> 
>> .  . .  - they>> still want to balance them so 
that they can hear their>> work. If this wasn't a valued feature, than 
thousands>> of people wouldn't have used the MIDI Tool and>> 
_expression_ Tools for this task all these years. And of>> course, for 
people that did want to share their>> recordings, they've always been 
able to do this via>> free recording software. > > If I 
were creating my MIDI files for performance on a single > synthesizer, I 
certainly wouldn't be using Finale to tweak it for > performance, mixer 
or not. It makes no sense to me to do it that way > for a carefully tuned 
performance, given that Finale's tools are just > not designed to make it 
very easy to do these things.> > Yes, I use Finale to do lots of 
MIDI work, but only GM performances, > not carefully detailed 
final-quality renditions. If I wanted to do > that, I certainly wouldn't 
want to work within the straitjacket that > Finale's horrid UI 
(especially for continuous data) provides. > Replacing that with a mixer 
still woul

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-05 Thread John Bell

On 6 Jul 2005, at 02:25, Tyler Turner wrote:I'd just like to address a few of the general pointsmentioned. 1. It was suggested that MakeMusic should stop puttingtime into playback features because their marketdoesn't need them. I don't have marketing figures tolook at, but I'd be extremely surprised if composersand arrangers didn't make up more than half of themarket for Finale - more than all of the other marketscombined. Good playback was far and away the singlemost attractive feature to the composers I spoke toand corresponded with.2. It was mentioned that Finale's playback has nowcaught up to and in some ways perhaps exceeded that ofSibelius. There's no competition. Finale's playback isfar beyond Sibelius', both in terms of automaticplayback and in customizability. For what you getincluded with the program, Sibelius doesn't comeclose. Sibelius gives you 20 instruments and theability to load 8 of them. Finale gives you 100 higherquality instruments, and the ability to load 64. HumanPlayback is far beyond Espressivo, and is optimized towork with GPO. As alluring as linked parts is to theengraving crowd, I guarantee you that the inclusion ofFinale GPO will attract more users than anythingSibelius has included in their new version.3. Sibelius is not focusing on one market. Their threebig features are clearly each aimed at a differentpart of their market. There is the worksheet creatorfor educators, linked parts for engravers, and videofor composers. Both Sibelius and MakeMusic realizethat focusing on a single market is not in their bestinterest.4. A mixer was a highly requested feature long beforeFinale included its own sounds, and with good reason.Many people make their files for their own personaluse, and the fact that they might play differently ona different person's equipment matters little - theystill want to balance them so that they can hear theirwork. If this wasn't a valued feature, than thousandsof people wouldn't have used the MIDI Tool and_expression_ Tools for this task all these years. And ofcourse, for people that did want to share theirrecordings, they've always been able to do this viafree recording software. Thanks Tyler. In my opinion you've hit every nail on its head.John___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-05 Thread Owain Sutton




Tyler Turner wrote:


3. Sibelius is not focusing on one market. Their three
big features are clearly each aimed at a different
part of their market. There is the worksheet creator
for educators, linked parts for engravers, and video
for composers. Both Sibelius and MakeMusic realize
that focusing on a single market is not in their best
interest.



What market IS MakeMusic focussing on?  A lot of the uncertainty here is 
that we don't know whether there's a real commitment to engravers, or to 
serious composers, because most of the 'advances' or of no relevance to 
these groups.

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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-05 Thread David W. Fenton

On 5 Jul 2005 at 18:25, Tyler Turner wrote:

[]

> 2. It was mentioned that Finale's playback has now
> caught up to and in some ways perhaps exceeded that of
> Sibelius. There's no competition. Finale's playback is
> far beyond Sibelius', both in terms of automatic
> playback and in customizability. For what you get
> included with the program, Sibelius doesn't come
> close. Sibelius gives you 20 instruments and the
> ability to load 8 of them. Finale gives you 100 higher
> quality instruments, and the ability to load 64. Human
> Playback is far beyond Espressivo, and is optimized to
> work with GPO. As alluring as linked parts is to the
> engraving crowd, I guarantee you that the inclusion of
> Finale GPO will attract more users than anything
> Sibelius has included in their new version.

That this may very well be true suggests to me one distressing fact:

Fewer and fewer people are actually creating music to be performed by 
live musicians. Good computer-based playback means you don't need 
human beings.

While Dennis may think this is A Good Thing, I think it's very 
distressing -- perhaps the beginning of the end of live performance 
as anything other than a hobby/curiosity.

[]

> 4. A mixer was a highly requested feature long before
> Finale included its own sounds, and with good reason.
> Many people make their files for their own personal
> use, and the fact that they might play differently on
> a different person's equipment matters little . . .

But then the mixer belongs in your *sequencer*, not in Finale.

> .  . .  - they
> still want to balance them so that they can hear their
> work. If this wasn't a valued feature, than thousands
> of people wouldn't have used the MIDI Tool and
> Expression Tools for this task all these years. And of
> course, for people that did want to share their
> recordings, they've always been able to do this via
> free recording software. 

If I were creating my MIDI files for performance on a single 
synthesizer, I certainly wouldn't be using Finale to tweak it for 
performance, mixer or not. It makes no sense to me to do it that way 
for a carefully tuned performance, given that Finale's tools are just 
not designed to make it very easy to do these things.

Yes, I use Finale to do lots of MIDI work, but only GM performances, 
not carefully detailed final-quality renditions. If I wanted to do 
that, I certainly wouldn't want to work within the straitjacket that 
Finale's horrid UI (especially for continuous data) provides. 
Replacing that with a mixer still wouldn't do it for me, as I don't 
like that as an UI for continuous data, anyway (I think it shapes, 
and would like to be able to draw the shapes for the volume changes).

But, again, I agree that once Finale has its own built-in sounds, 
then, yes, a mixer is an appropriate tool to have built into the 
program.

I just don't think it belonged there before that point.

I also think that Human Playback also increases the level of 
necessity of having a mixer built into Finale, but that's something I 
haven't experienced firsthand (except very briefly for a 45-minute 
transposition job I did last August in California for the performance 
of Handel's Alcina I was playing continuo in).

-- 
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] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!

2005-07-05 Thread dhbailey


David W. Fenton wrote:



Er, doesn't Sibelius have a little copy protection/activation code 
problem that ought to prevent you from switching, given that you 
won't upgrade past Finale 2003?




Yep, they've got the same call-response sort of activation scheme that 
Finale has.


Sibelius was very helpful when I needed to get back one of my 2 installs 
due to a hard-disk change, as was Finale.


But for those who won't upgrade to newer versions of Finale due to 
key-escrow or other such things to enable continued use of the software 
in the event of a corporate meltdown, don't bother with Sibelius either.


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

Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!