Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[dhbailey]

Jonathan Smith wrote:

And good heavens, why can't I enter a whole note and  have it stay a 


whole note?


Andrew Stiller



Ah-ha, now this one really annoys me too. The notehead selection process 
for drum maps is designed so you get to choose closed and open noteheads 
- which is great for all those crazy notehead shapes that come with the 
percussion fonts. But what it doesn't do is differentiate between a half 
and whole note.


There is a BIG difference in these to even the untrained eye. I get fed 
up with having to change these individually. This should really be 
fixed, how long have we had drum mapping now? And how many upgrades 
since then to get it fixed. 

What is needed is a third selection box for whole notes, then you could 
even set up things like the crossed cymbal heads  to be slightly larger 
for whole notes than half notes which would really look swish.




Don't hold your breath on getting percussion maps or any other internal 
dysfunctional aspects of Finale working properly or easily any time soon.


The marketing department is what drives Finale development, so if it 
won't make good advertising copy the development team only gets to work 
on it during their coffee breaks.  Or so it seems.


Or if Sibelius does it first.  So perhaps if you lobby them to come up 
with extremely easy, transparent, intuitive percussion staves, and make 
a big marketing splash about it, then Finale will follow suit.


We'll probably get "ThoughtNotator(tm)" before we get improved 
percussion maps!



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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Jonathan Smith]

And good heavens, why can't I enter a whole note and  have it stay a  whole note?  Andrew Stiller Ah-ha, now this one really annoys me too. The notehead selection process for drum maps is designed so you get to choose closed and open noteheads - which is great for all those crazy notehead shapes that come with the percussion fonts. But what it doesn't do is differentiate between a half and whole note.There is a BIG difference in these to even the untrained eye. I get fed up with having to change these individually. This should really be fixed, how long have we had drum mapping now? And how many upgrades since then to get it fixed. What is needed is a third selection box for whole notes, then you could even set up things like the crossed cymbal heads  to be slightly larger for whole notes than half notes which would really look swish.Jonathan___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Andrew Stiller]

On Sep 17, 2005, at 2:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I don't see any way around percussion maps, except for GM
synthesizers, where the map is defined. For non-GM synthesizers,
you'd always need to set up a map for Finale.


I accept all that as a fait accompli--but I don't accept that I should 
have to physically deal with the maps myself, any more than I have to 
manipulate Enigma code in order to do note entry.



Well, I think your gripe is with the people who defined the way
percussion works in General MIDI.


I have that gripe *too.* But even if you accept as a given that 
unpitched percussion should all be thrown into one channel, the concept 
has been very poorly realized: gunshot, but no tam-tam? What were they 
thinking? And aside from *that*, it is a fact that almost every 
percussion instrument is built at a variety of different pitch levels, 
which composers can and do exploit. At a minimum, therefore, midi users 
ought to be given the option of taking any individual percussion sound 
and applying it to a channel of its own where multiple pitch levels can 
be obtained.


The existing midi percussion structure simply does not meet 
professional standards, and will at some point have to be drastically 
reformed if it is ever to become anything more than a toy.


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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Andrew Stiller]

On Sep 17, 2005, at 10:48 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:

If I create a note expression reading "snare drum" and attach it to a 
note, Finale shd. be intelligent enough to automatically give me a 
snare drum sound from all  recurrences of  that "pitch" until further 
 notice.


What if he hits a snare and a tom at the same time, attached to the 
same stem?


Put 'em in different layers.

What if you want different sounds on the same notehead, like snare 
playing back with RLRL, accents, rimshots and the like?


This is what articulations are supposed to be for. But completely aside 
from that, do we need woodwind maps to assure proper playback of, say, 
flute harmonics? No we don't. Do we need string maps for pizz., senza 
vibr., +, col legno (tratto and battuto), ponticello, tasto, flautando? 
No we don't.


Also, I should be able to switch from, say, snare drum  to vibraphone 
and back again  without  having to invoke staff styles.




OK, I don't understand this objection at all. Staff styles are the 
EASIEST way to make switches of this type


What I am really objecting to is the whole idea of a specialized 
"percussion staff," when there need not be, and should not be, any such 
thing. I realize that other types of instrument have to use staff 
styles to switch sounds (say from cl. to sop. sax)--but a percussionist 
who plays vibes and snare is not "doubling" or even switching 
instruments--indeed pitched and unpitched instruments may even be 
required to sound simultaneously, and Finale's percussion playback and 
notation capabilities ought to reflect that state of affairs.


Another point: Suppose I want to change the line or space on which a 
given instrument  appears after it has been entered? The transposition 
dialog won't work, and if you go to drag a note vertically, the  first 
thing it does is zoom to some weird place altogether off the staff. 
Same goes for rests, and you can't use the Move Rests plugin. This is 
totally unacceptable behavior.


And good heavens, why can't I enter a whole note and  have it stay a 
whole note?


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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Owain Sutton]

David W. Fenton wrote:

Are you applying those kinds of settings to all staves in a certain 
measure? If so, why use a staff style at all, since many of those 
things can be turned off in the measure attributes dialog?






Oh, and thirdly...no, I'm not always applying them to all staves!
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Owain Sutton]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 18 Sep 2005 at 2:14, Owain Sutton wrote:



I'm certainly not claiming to be the norm!  However, this use of
multiple staff styles is the only way I've found to easily manipulate
aleatoric passages, which I deal with fairly often.  And I don't see
that the example that I've given is 'extreme' - I chose it because all
I was doing was hiding key sigs, time sigs, bar lines, and repeat
bars, at various stages.



Are you applying those kinds of settings to all staves in a certain 
measure? If so, why use a staff style at all, since many of those 
things can be turned off in the measure attributes dialog?





Two reasons for doing it all by staff styles.  One, as not everything 
can be done via measure attributes (including things not visible in the 
sample screenshot I gave), it would end up being a mixture of the two 
methods, i.e. even more confusing to work with!  Secondly, staff styles 
give the option of using partial bars.

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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[David W. Fenton]

On 18 Sep 2005 at 2:14, Owain Sutton wrote:

> I'm certainly not claiming to be the norm!  However, this use of
> multiple staff styles is the only way I've found to easily manipulate
> aleatoric passages, which I deal with fairly often.  And I don't see
> that the example that I've given is 'extreme' - I chose it because all
> I was doing was hiding key sigs, time sigs, bar lines, and repeat
> bars, at various stages.

Are you applying those kinds of settings to all staves in a certain 
measure? If so, why use a staff style at all, since many of those 
things can be turned off in the measure attributes dialog?

I do agree with your point that if you scroll to a point where the 
leftmost measure is in the middle of a passage with the same staff 
style, the name should be displayed in the staff style bar above the 
first visible measure of that staff style. That seems common sense 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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[David W. Fenton]

On 17 Sep 2005 at 15:20, Mark D Lew wrote:
[re: MIDI tool:]
> I don't mind the user-unfriendliness.  I can see why it would bother
> others, though.  It's rather cold and mathematical. Personally, I
> don't mind typing in note values as EDUs, and once you understand the
> odd logic of the numbers it's rational and does what I tell it to do,
> but that is a bit of an initial barrier to making it work.  I can also
> see how it would be inefficient if you had a lot of edits to make, but
> I only ever use it to change a few notes here and there, so that's not
> a problem for me either.

Well, one thing that I didn't even know for a very long time was when 
the MIDI tool is selected, you can block select measures (as with the 
Mass Edit tool) and use the MIDI tool menu to, say, add or subtract 
note velocities, or to change start/stop times of all the selected 
notes. This is pretty useful in a lot of circumstances.

The part of the MIDI tool interface that is infuriatingly amateurish 
is the way the data displayed in the MIDI window relates to the 
score. The top window often overlaps the staff you're attempting to 
edit, so you can't see the notes (especially ledger lines above the 
staff, very common in the piano right hand). And then there's the 
incredibly stupid bug that if the first measure in scroll view of the 
staff you double click on to open the MIDI editing window doesn't 
have any notes, you instead get the data for one of the *other* 
staves. This one makes no sense to me at all as anything but a bug 
that never should have lasted more than one version, but it has been 
there in every version of Finale I've ever used for editing MIDI 
data.

But I'm accustomed to it and am no longer confused or frustrated by 
this kind kind of stupidity.

I do see why it drives people away from the idea of making use of it.

The one part I just can't use it the continuous data mode, because 
you just can't create the kinds of curves you want. There's some 
problem with it that prevents ever being able to get precise control 
over the results, so I just don't use it except if forced to do so.

-- 
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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Owain Sutton]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 17 Sep 2005 at 20:54, Owain Sutton wrote:



I like to have the colours set to very light blue, for this reason -
which makes the names unreadable.  And here's a typical jungle I
encounter, in this case with a dark colour used to make the names
visible:

http://www.owainsutton.co.uk/images/staffstyles.jpg



Is that a common situation in your scores? I have never applied more 
than one staff style to even a single measure in any of the pieces 
I've ever created. 

Am *I* the unusual one, or is your example simply extreme, as it 
seems to me?





I'm certainly not claiming to be the norm!  However, this use of 
multiple staff styles is the only way I've found to easily manipulate 
aleatoric passages, which I deal with fairly often.  And I don't see 
that the example that I've given is 'extreme' - I chose it because all I 
was doing was hiding key sigs, time sigs, bar lines, and repeat bars, at 
various stages.

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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[David W. Fenton]

On 17 Sep 2005 at 23:03, Owain Sutton wrote:

> I 
> think somebody else already suggested a context-menu tick-list, which
> I can't imagine is a difficult thing to implement.

It could easily be applied to the existing context menu that you get 
when you right click on a selection of measures when in the staff 
tool. It would obviate the need to display staff names, and, perhaps, 
even the need for multiple bars, though it would be nice to have some 
kind of way of collapsing the multiplying bars. So far as I can see, 
if you aren't displaying the names of the staff styles, it really 
isn't all that useful to have 6 bars displayed if you have 6 staff 
styles -- all you really need is an indication that there's more than 
one style applied. In combination with the tick list in the context 
menu that should take care of the whole issue.

-- 
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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[David W. Fenton]

On 17 Sep 2005 at 20:54, Owain Sutton wrote:

> I like to have the colours set to very light blue, for this reason -
> which makes the names unreadable.  And here's a typical jungle I
> encounter, in this case with a dark colour used to make the names
> visible:
> 
> http://www.owainsutton.co.uk/images/staffstyles.jpg

Is that a common situation in your scores? I have never applied more 
than one staff style to even a single measure in any of the pieces 
I've ever created. 

Am *I* the unusual one, or is your example simply extreme, as it 
seems 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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[David W. Fenton]

On 17 Sep 2005 at 15:27, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> On 17 Sep 2005, at 3:06 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > OK, this UI is just fine, after all. I wonder why displaying the
> > names is not turned on by default? How could it be an inconvenience?
> 
> 1) Because the bars with names are very large, and if you have  
> multiple staff styles, they quickly get in the way of the music, . . .

OK, I can see how having many staff styles could be a problem, though 
I can't imagine having more than 3 at a time applied to a single 
measure on a regular basis. Seems to me that it would be a problem 
only rarely.

And it could be fixed by MakeMusic if they just put them closer 
together (instead of using the same vertical offset for the first one 
from the staff as the spacing interval between staff style bars).

> . . . even 
> if you make them a very light gray (which IMO they should be by 
> default).

Well, the coor is not a very hard thing to change. I don't mind the 
blue at all, as long as it's transparent, though I do see that once 
you have the words turned on, gray is a better color for them, as the 
words seem to make the blue ones less transparent.

> 2) Because, in Finale 2006, they are no longer transparent -- they 
> draw *on top* of the music. (One of my least favorite 2k6 bugs.)

Well, that's a bug, and needs to be fixed.

> 3) Because even with the names off, it's easy to find the name of a 
> staff style bar -- just right-click the bar.

That's one I just didn't know about. Where do you all pick up these 
things? I guess I missed all of this because of not upgrading until a 
few versions after staff styles were introduced (I think they were 
introduced in Finale 98, and I had just bought 97, so I didn't 
upgrade until version 2003).

-- 
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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Mark D Lew]

On Sep 16, 2005, at 6:56 AM, Williams, Jim wrote:


1. The ossia tool
2. The mirror tool


I think I tried these way back when (v 3.x?) and found them awkward, so 
I developed alternate habits.  I used to do a lot of older opera 
transcriptions so I actually did several ossias for cadenzas, but I 
still found it easier to make a separate staff and do various little 
kludges to make it appear properly.



3. The tempo tool


Never used.


4. The MIDI tool


I have little interest in playback, and no interest in sophisticated 
playback, but I do nevertheless use the Midi tool occasionally.  Some 
of my clients, including the one I did the bulk of my professional work 
for, want rudimentary playback to work -- nothing fancy, just the play 
the right notes.  The Midi tool was often the simplest way to correct 
little playback problems.  Most significantly, I routinely use it to 
make classic appoggiaturas play back properly.  This is a pretty basic 
need, and if there's a better way to handle it than in the Midi tool, I 
don't know it.
Similarly, I'll also occasionally use the same tool to correct the 
playback when a visually tricky passage is best addressed with kludges 
that would otherwise play back incorrectly.


I don't mind the user-unfriendliness.  I can see why it would bother 
others, though.  It's rather cold and mathematical. Personally, I don't 
mind typing in note values as EDUs, and once you understand the odd 
logic of the numbers it's rational and does what I tell it to do, but 
that is a bit of an initial barrier to making it work.  I can also see 
how it would be inefficient if you had a lot of edits to make, but I 
only ever use it to change a few notes here and there, so that's not a 
problem for me either.


By the way, the only part of the Midi tool I ever use is the window 
that lets you change start and stop times of individual notes.  The 
rest of it I never touch.




5. The rhyming dictionary
6. The Band-in-a-Box harmonizer.


Never use these.  They seem like useless frills to me, but to each his 
own.


mdl

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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Owain Sutton]

Christopher Smith wrote:



> 3) Because even with the names off, it's easy to find the name of a
> staff style bar -- just right-click the bar.
>


Really?  If I right-click on the style bar itself, I get only the name 
of that style.  If I right-click on the bar, I get the list of styles, 
but no indication of which ones are applied.




Yes, that's right. You get the name of the style when you right-click on 
it (or control click, on my Mac.) You want the whole list of what is 
applied? Well, is it THAT hard to right-click three times?




Not hard - but a typical example of a clunky counterintuitive interface 
which any decent software company should consider an embarassment.  I 
think somebody else already suggested a context-menu tick-list, which I 
can't imagine is a difficult thing to implement.  But I still won't hold 
my breath, because I'm sure there's all sorts of fancy 'groundbreaking 
features' which will take priority.

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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Christopher Smith]

On Sep 17, 2005, at 3:54 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:




Christopher Smith wrote:

In the Staff Menu, check Show Staff Style Names. No problems keeping 
track now.
I also reduced the intensity of the colour of staff styles, so that I 
could see though them more easily.

Christopher



I like to have the colours set to very light blue, for this reason - 
which makes the names unreadable.  And here's a typical jungle I 
encounter, in this case with a dark colour used to make the names 
visible:


http://www.owainsutton.co.uk/images/staffstyles.jpg



Hmm, I wonder if that is a Fin2006, or a Windows thing, because on 
FinMac2005 I don't get the style bars opaque. Also, setting the colour 
to anything at all makes the text in my version the colour OPPOSITE to 
the colour I choose for the bar itself, for maximum text contrast no 
matter what colour I choose. Colours are transluscent, too, so light 
blue-gray hardly upsets me at all.


In your position, I would complain. Your example looks very messy to 
deal with.






Nope, I don't accept the UI is fine.  The names should appear on the 
staff style no matter what part of the page (in page view) is being 
shown.  At the moment, I have various names all over the place.




They seem to appear when they start, or at the beginning of a new 
system. You want them to appear at the left of the screen, no matter 
what part of the page is showing? Shouldn't be hard to accomplish on 
MakeMusic's end; as I see this kind of thing in sequencers all the 
time.





Darcy James Argue wrote:

> 3) Because even with the names off, it's easy to find the name of a
> staff style bar -- just right-click the bar.
>


Really?  If I right-click on the style bar itself, I get only the name 
of that style.  If I right-click on the bar, I get the list of styles, 
but no indication of which ones are applied.




Yes, that's right. You get the name of the style when you right-click 
on it (or control click, on my Mac.) You want the whole list of what is 
applied? Well, is it THAT hard to right-click three times?


But you can always ask for the feature.

Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Owain Sutton]

Christopher Smith wrote:

In the Staff Menu, check Show Staff Style Names. No problems keeping 
track now.


I also reduced the intensity of the colour of staff styles, so that I 
could see though them more easily.


Christopher



I like to have the colours set to very light blue, for this reason - 
which makes the names unreadable.  And here's a typical jungle I 
encounter, in this case with a dark colour used to make the names visible:


http://www.owainsutton.co.uk/images/staffstyles.jpg




David W. Fenton wrote:

> I wish the style name were larger, because right now with my reduced
> visual acuity (a temporary situation -- perhaps you've noticed my
> inaccurate typing lately), I can't read it at all.
>
> I also see that multiple styles are displayed by multiplying the
> number of blue bars.
>
> OK, this UI is just fine, after all. I wonder why displaying the
> names is not turned on by default? How could it be an inconvenience?
>


Nope, I don't accept the UI is fine.  The names should appear on the 
staff style no matter what part of the page (in page view) is being 
shown.  At the moment, I have various names all over the place.







Darcy James Argue wrote:

> 3) Because even with the names off, it's easy to find the name of a
> staff style bar -- just right-click the bar.
>


Really?  If I right-click on the style bar itself, I get only the name 
of that style.  If I right-click on the bar, I get the list of styles, 
but no indication of which ones are applied.

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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[dhbailey]

Christopher Smith wrote:



On Sep 17, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:



Well if that's the tack we're taking, then the elimination of 
percussion maps has to go at the top of the list. Just last week I had 
a long back-and-forth w.  someone at MakeMusic who had the greatest 
difficulty even imagining the idea that someone might want to enter 
percussion notes on a plain old ordinary staff and have them play back 
properly based on instrument names placed in the score as note 
expressions or staff names, without the user having to configure a 
balky, rebarbative, and entirely counterintuitive database behind the 
scenes.





Part of the idea of the percussion staff is that you CAN enter a note, 
either through Speedy/Simple Entry or a MIDI file (that presumably is 
already playing a sound mapped onto a synth or sampler) and have it 
appear on the correct staff line, with the correct note head, and have 
it play back correctly. Because there are so many standards out there 
for all three of those criteria, they supply a few common ones and leave 
the rest up to us.


I agree that the UI could be improved, especially the way type-in boxes 
react, but the basic idea is sound, IMHO. (I also don't like the 
JazzPerc font, so I have turned that off, losing certain noteheads that 
might prove useful, but that is another issue.)





One aspect of the Percussion Map UI that should be changed (and it would 
be extremely easy to do so, in my non-programmer's opinion) is that if 
you edit anything for a particular note the "Notes To Use" check box for 
that note automatically gets checked by the program.  Why would anybody 
edit it if they weren't going to use it?  And if they change their mind, 
they can uncheck it.


One other aspect of this is that when you are in the edit dialog (at 
least on the windows platform) for a percussion map, the red X that 
usually means "close this window" doesn't work.  You have to click DONE 
to close that window. Why have the red X appear if it doesn't work?


I agree that the whole percussion aspect of Finale needs a good rewrite.

Will we get it?  Probably not -- it's not glamorous, it isn't a 
marketable bell or whistle, it doesn't make good sales copy.


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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Darcy James Argue]

On 17 Sep 2005, at 3:06 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


OK, this UI is just fine, after all. I wonder why displaying the
names is not turned on by default? How could it be an inconvenience?


1) Because the bars with names are very large, and if you have  
multiple staff styles, they quickly get in the way of the music, even  
if you make them a very light gray (which IMO they should be by  
default).


2) Because, in Finale 2006, they are no longer transparent -- they  
draw *on top* of the music. (One of my least favorite 2k6 bugs.)


3) Because even with the names off, it's easy to find the name of a  
staff style bar -- just right-click the bar.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[David W. Fenton]

On 17 Sep 2005 at 14:49, Christopher Smith wrote:

> On Sep 17, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:

> > Staff styles are a nightmare when you have several of them at work
> > at once.  I'll sometimes have one affecting the notehead font,
> > another removing barlines, and so on, all overlapping in different
> > places. Keeping track of which are applied to which parts of the
> > score is awful - and this again is a result of a poor and
> > inconsistent UI.
> 
> In the Staff Menu, check Show Staff Style Names. No problems keeping
> track now.

Well, what do you you know! I didn't know such a thing existed.

> I also reduced the intensity of the colour of staff styles, so that I
> could see though them more easily.

The bright blue line is not transparent enough?

I wish the style name were larger, because right now with my reduced 
visual acuity (a temporary situation -- perhaps you've noticed my 
inaccurate typing lately), I can't read it at all. 

I also see that multiple styles are displayed by multiplying the 
number of blue bars.

OK, this UI is just fine, after all. I wonder why displaying the 
names is not turned on by default? How could it be an inconvenience?

-- 
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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[David W. Fenton]

On 17 Sep 2005 at 19:40, Owain Sutton wrote:

> Staff styles are a nightmare when you have several of them at work at
> once.  I'll sometimes have one affecting the notehead font, another
> removing barlines, and so on, all overlapping in different places.
> Keeping track of which are applied to which parts of the score is
> awful - and this again is a result of a poor and inconsistent UI.

I agree with this. The UI for staff styles is not good. There is no 
way, once a style is applied, to be able to figure out which staff 
style(s) is applied to a particular passage of music. It would be 
nice if the staff style name were to pop up if you hovered the mouse 
over the passage, or if you could have a context menu choice to 
display the staff styles, or if the staff styles menu would indicate 
which were applied (with checkmarks by them, for instance).

Or SOMETHING.

-- 
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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Christopher Smith]

On Sep 17, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:




Christopher Smith wrote:

OK, I don't understand this objection at all. Staff styles are the 
EASIEST way to make switches of this type, so I don't get why you 
think it is so inconvenient. You get the clef, key sig, staff name, 
and sounds all in one shot, once you have set it up. I even use staff 
styles to change from soprano sax to clarinet, that have the same 
everything, just so that I can get the abbreviated staff name to show 
up properly without screwing around with it. Assign the staff style 
to a metatool, and you have one-click instrument switching.

Christopher



Staff styles are a nightmare when you have several of them at work at 
once.  I'll sometimes have one affecting the notehead font, another 
removing barlines, and so on, all overlapping in different places. 
Keeping track of which are applied to which parts of the score is 
awful - and this again is a result of a poor and inconsistent UI.




In the Staff Menu, check Show Staff Style Names. No problems keeping 
track now.


I also reduced the intensity of the colour of staff styles, so that I 
could see though them more easily.


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Owain Sutton]

Christopher Smith wrote:






OK, I don't understand this objection at all. Staff styles are the 
EASIEST way to make switches of this type, so I don't get why you think 
it is so inconvenient. You get the clef, key sig, staff name, and sounds 
all in one shot, once you have set it up. I even use staff styles to 
change from soprano sax to clarinet, that have the same everything, just 
so that I can get the abbreviated staff name to show up properly without 
screwing around with it. Assign the staff style to a metatool, and you 
have one-click instrument switching.


Christopher




Staff styles are a nightmare when you have several of them at work at 
once.  I'll sometimes have one affecting the notehead font, another 
removing barlines, and so on, all overlapping in different places. 
Keeping track of which are applied to which parts of the score is awful 
- and this again is a result of a poor and inconsistent UI.


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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[dfenton]

On 17 Sep 2005 at 10:03, Andrew Stiller wrote:

> Well if that's the tack we're taking, then the elimination of
> percussion maps has to go at the top of the list. Just last week I had
> a long back-and-forth w.  someone at MakeMusic who had the greatest
> difficulty even imagining the idea that someone might want to enter
> percussion notes on a plain old ordinary staff and have them play back
> properly based on instrument names placed in the score as note
> expressions or staff names, without the user having to configure a
> balky, rebarbative, and entirely counterintuitive database behind the
> scenes.

Well, I think your gripe is with the people who defined the way
percussion works in General MIDI. And I absolutely understand why
they did it the way they did, because the result is that you can
allocate a single channel (out of the meager 16 that were all that
were available back then) to percussion and play many, many
instruments with it.

Otherwise, even simple pieces with bass drum, snare drum, crash
cymbals, hi-hat, ride cymbal and woodblock would take up 6 of your
MIDI tracks. That's fine as long as you only need 10 or fewer other
instruments, but it's a pretty severe limitation.

Also, it would mean for these 6 instruments you'd basically have to
allocate 2 staves, and put each instrument in a separate layer, or
allocate a lot more staves. Now, putting bass, snare and crash
cymbals on a single staff is standard practice. You might even add
either the hi-hat or ride cymbal, but depending on how extensive a
part for the individual instruments are, you very well might want it
all on one staff. With just 4 channels per staff available (4
layers), you couldn't do it unless there were only 4 unique
instruments playing at a time (you'd have to use patch-switching
expressions).

> If I create a note expression reading "snare drum" and attach it to a
> note, Finale shd. be intelligent enough to automatically give me a
> snare drum sound from all  recurrences of  that "pitch" until further
> notice. Also, I should be able to switch from, say, snare drum  to
> vibraphone and back again  without  having to invoke staff styles.

I don't see any way around percussion maps, except for GM
synthesizers, where the map is defined. For non-GM synthesizers,
you'd always need to set up a map for Finale.

I agree that the existing UI is confusing and I was never truly
successful making it work. Thankfully, I don't have to deal with
percussion much (I've only done so 3 times in almost 15 years of
using Finale).

But the basic problem is not a Finale problem, but a challenge of the
way the designers of MIDI wisely decided to implement percussion.
Criticize the UI all you want, but the basic concept is not (and
*should* not) go away.

-- 
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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Raymond Horton]

On 16 Sep 2005 at 8:56, Williams, Jim wrote:


This exchange leads me to pose the following questions: DO WE HANG OUT
ON ANY OF FINALE'S "LESSER-KNOWN CORNERS? IF SO, HOW MUCH?

Please consider:

1. The ossia tool
   

Gave up on it with the first version I owned, Win 3.7 when, IIRC, it 
would not keep slurs and other elements.  I am contemplating trying it 
again in an upcoming project to see if it has improved.



2. The mirror tool
   

Have never used it, accept by accident. Maybe I should try it sometime. 


3. The tempo tool
   


I only use q = n and expressions to set tempo.


4. The MIDI tool
   

Use this all the time.  I play back most of what I print to check.  I 
make demos using GPO for conductors and others.  I would hate to have to 
export to a sequencer or other program - changes would be a royal 
nuisance.  I prefer to make the playback adjustments needed for a good 
performance in Finale so I can do it with notation and not sequencer 
gibberish.  Since I got an M-Box and ProTools LTE, I have been using 
that for some post-Finale production work on the WAV file, though.




5. The rhyming dictionary
   

I do write some lyrics on occasion and have used this a few times.   


6. The Band-in-a-Box harmonizer.
   

Haven't used it, although I do have an old version of BIAB and have used 
it a handful of times - (when I needed to come up with an ad-lib solo at 
my orchestra job and made a quick rhythm track to practice with). 


David Fenton mentioned a few other tools:

To me, the other strange areas are the chord tool and tab notation, 
 

I have used chord tool quite a lot, back when I wrote charts for my 
church rock band, and at various other times.  I'm sure a lot of folks 
use it. 

I have never used TAB anything - I am a very bad guitarist myself, so I 
wouldn't presume to tell another gutarist where to put his/her fingers 
on the guitar or anywhere else.  I imagine it is useful if it is 
flexible.  ( I write in more decimal point trombone positions [ex. 3.7] 
than would the average guitarist.)


Also, Simple Entry is completely useless, in my opinion, though if 
 



Used Simple Entry when my first Finale machine, with two sound cards, 
had a midi conflict for a while and keyboard entry wouldn't work 
(learned every copy and transpose function quickly as a result) but once 
that was resolved I never went back to it.  I gather that some folks 
prefer it - I can drop it off my menu, so where's the harm?


I also gave up on the transcription tool after several attempts back 
 

I occasionally use the transcription tool for entering simple quarter 
two-eighths types of rhythms.  It can be a little faster, and it can 
also be a change of pace to keep one from getting bored when entering 
notes. 


I also hardly ever use any of the plugins, most of which don't do anything I 
need.
 

I use several of the plugins quite regularly. 


Anybody ever use MicNotator?

Raymond Horton
Bass Trombonist,
Louisville Orchestra
composer, arranger
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Christopher Smith]

On Sep 17, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:


Well if that's the tack we're taking, then the elimination of 
percussion maps has to go at the top of the list. Just last week I had 
a long back-and-forth w.  someone at MakeMusic who had the greatest 
difficulty even imagining the idea that someone might want to enter 
percussion notes on a plain old ordinary staff and have them play back 
properly based on instrument names placed in the score as note 
expressions or staff names, without the user having to configure a 
balky, rebarbative, and entirely counterintuitive database behind the 
scenes.





Part of the idea of the percussion staff is that you CAN enter a note, 
either through Speedy/Simple Entry or a MIDI file (that presumably is 
already playing a sound mapped onto a synth or sampler) and have it 
appear on the correct staff line, with the correct note head, and have 
it play back correctly. Because there are so many standards out there 
for all three of those criteria, they supply a few common ones and 
leave the rest up to us.


I agree that the UI could be improved, especially the way type-in boxes 
react, but the basic idea is sound, IMHO. (I also don't like the 
JazzPerc font, so I have turned that off, losing certain noteheads that 
might prove useful, but that is another issue.)



If I create a note expression reading "snare drum" and attach it to a 
note, Finale shd. be intelligent enough to automatically give me a 
snare drum sound from all  recurrences of  that "pitch" until further  
notice.


What if he hits a snare and a tom at the same time, attached to the 
same stem? Note-attached expressions are actually attached to the 
bottom-most note on a stem; how would we get the note-attached 
expression to recognize ALL the notes and play them back properly, 
without a percussion map?


What if you want different sounds on the same notehead, like snare 
playing back with RLRL, accents, rimshots and the like? Percussion maps 
allow you to have several different sounds that are ENTERED 
differently, but APPEAR the same, so that you get proper playback and 
appearance. I use this for top space kit items like cymbals (x-heads) 
and cue notes (regular noteheads) that don't need expressions attached 
defining them, but need to appear differently.



Also, I should be able to switch from, say, snare drum  to vibraphone 
and back again  without  having to invoke staff styles.




OK, I don't understand this objection at all. Staff styles are the 
EASIEST way to make switches of this type, so I don't get why you think 
it is so inconvenient. You get the clef, key sig, staff name, and 
sounds all in one shot, once you have set it up. I even use staff 
styles to change from soprano sax to clarinet, that have the same 
everything, just so that I can get the abbreviated staff name to show 
up properly without screwing around with it. Assign the staff style to 
a metatool, and you have one-click instrument switching.


Christopher

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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Andrew Stiller]

On Sep 17, 2005, at 7:23 AM, dhbailey wrote:

But all this repeated discussion of these exotic parts of Finale that 
many people don't use because of their crappy UI, wouldn't it be nice 
if for Finale2007 they actually made one of their programmers tackle 
each of them and make the UI be 1) logical, 2) efficient, 3) 
consistent between these things, 4) easy to understand, 5) 
well-documented?




Well if that's the tack we're taking, then the elimination of 
percussion maps has to go at the top of the list. Just last week I had 
a long back-and-forth w.  someone at MakeMusic who had the greatest 
difficulty even imagining the idea that someone might want to enter 
percussion notes on a plain old ordinary staff and have them play back 
properly based on instrument names placed in the score as note 
expressions or staff names, without the user having to configure a 
balky, rebarbative, and entirely counterintuitive database behind the 
scenes.


If I create a note expression reading "snare drum" and attach it to a 
note, Finale shd. be intelligent enough to automatically give me a 
snare drum sound from all  recurrences of  that "pitch" until further  
notice. Also, I should be able to switch from, say, snare drum  to 
vibraphone and back again  without  having to invoke staff styles.


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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[dhbailey]

Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account wrote:
[snip]>
Speaking of lesser-known corners, how about the Transcription feature 
and the Custom Key Signature tool?  Both of these could be quite useful 
except that you need a degree in crytography to decifer how to actually 
use them.


(I suppose the Transcription Feature is now integrated into the Studio 
View in Finale 2006?)


No, to the best of my knowledge and experience, the studio view of 
Fin2006 is simply adding the mixing capabilities (volume level and 
panning and patch selection) to the scroll view.  Transcription tool is 
still separate.


But all this repeated discussion of these exotic parts of Finale that 
many people don't use because of their crappy UI, wouldn't it be nice if 
for Finale2007 they actually made one of their programmers tackle each 
of them and make the UI be 1) logical, 2) efficient, 3) consistent 
between these things, 4) easy to understand, 5) well-documented?


They've added playback features to satisfy those for whom playback is 
very important in Fin2006.  Notation features could use some additions 
but most importantly, wouldn't it be nice if Finale used the next 
version to actually repair long-standing problems and address 
long-standing complaints, such as how hard it is to use some of these 
features which have been in the program since forever but which nobody 
uses (or not very many use) because nobody can figure them out?


The program has enough bells and whistles (even if it doesn't have any 
saxophones in its crown-jewel addition for 2006) to last for a while.  A 
good house-cleaning and making things actually work and be easy to use 
and understand is long overdue.


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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[A-NO-NE Music]

Carl Dershem / 2005/09/16 / 08:58 PM wrote:

>For some odd reason, ossia are very rare in jazz.  :)


I used to use Ossia tool to write kicks and/or 2nd line to one or few
bars.  Using Ossia tool was the only way before stuff style improved.

Oh, not the only way.  I was so frustrated with Ossia tool and used a
new stuff then hid unneeded portion with white square, only to find the
next Finale upgrade printed that white square as a black box on my
Postscript printer, and made the music look XXX rated.  That was around
version 3 :-(


-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Michael Cook]

On 16 Sep 2005, at 15:56, Williams, Jim wrote:

Please consider:

1. The ossia tool
2. The mirror tool
3. The tempo tool
4. The MIDI tool

5. The rhyming dictionary
6. The Band-in-a-Box harmonizer.


1. Yes, a few times. But it's a bore. A really useful Ossia tool would 
let you place, anywhere on the score, an extra portion of staff into 
which you could enter music directly, as many measures as needed. No 
messing around with a "source staff" which is then hidden: Finale 
should take care of this sort of stuff behind the scenes.
2. No. I've often tried, but I always find that there needs to be some 
small difference between the two parts and the Mirror tool wont allow 
it.
3. A few times. But as of 2006 we have the tempo tap staff to do tempo 
editing.

4. Yes, to make an audio demo sound a little bit musical.
5 and 6. Never tried, but who knows: maybe I may find them useful one 
day.


I would add to the list: "SNAP TO GRID". I've used the guides a couple 
of times, but I can't see why a grid of squares might be useful for a 
musical score. Does anybody use the "Snap to Grid" function, and if 
they do, which items are chosen to snap to the grid?


Michael Cook

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

RE: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[David W. Fenton]

On 16 Sep 2005 at 16:33, Lee Actor wrote:

> Granted that Finale is not the ideal tool for playback, but if you do
> use it for that and want a reasonably musical and non-robotic
> performance, I think it would be hard to avoid using the tempo tool
> (though maybe not necessarily for pop, some jazz styles, and music
> written before 1700).

Why would anyone think that music before 1700 would not need tempo 
changes? Hello? Perhaps one doesn't use Chopin-style rubato, or 
Brucknerian ritardano, but there's plenty of ebb and flow of tempo 
that is appropriate in that period (especially in the 100 years 
immediately before 1700!).

Gad, I wish there weren't so many horrid music history teachers out 
there, ones who haven't a clue about the music they teach and end up 
propagating such incredibly stupid ideas as this one.

In any event, the tempo tool is too unreliable, so I use note-
attached expressions to change tempos.

Another trick I use to put air between phrases is to change the meter 
of the last measure of a phrase by adding a 32nd- or 16th-note. This 
works surprisingly well, actually and doesn't require any tempo 
alterations.

I do have to mess around a little with the music spacing in some 
cases to hide the extra time at the end of the measure, but usually 
not too much.

-- 
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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Carl Dershem]

Williams, Jim wrote:

Friends:
 
This exchange leads me to pose the following questions: DO WE HANG OUT ON ANY OF FINALE'S "LESSER-KNOWN CORNERS? IF SO, HOW MUCH?
 
Please consider:
 
1. The ossia tool

2. The mirror tool
3. The tempo tool
4. The MIDI tool

5. The rhyming dictionary
6. The Band-in-a-Box harmonizer.


1.  Never used.  For some odd reason, ossia are very rare in jazz.  :)
2.  Never seen a need for it.  C/P works fine.
3.  Sometimes use when proofing pieces in playback.
4.  Same as 3.
-
5.  I don't do vocal pieces often enough to need it, and those are 
always arrangements of other works.
6.  Once.  Had a need for an arrangement within 2 hours, and didn't have 
the time to write from scratch, and the audience was basically 
guaranteed not to care if it wasn't really spiffy.  The piece worked, 
but was not great.


cd

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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Matthew Hindson Fastmail Account]

Aaron Sherber wrote:


Yup -- Plugins | Miscellaneous | FinaleScript Palette.

For my money, this is something which is a good idea but is generally 
poorly implemented in terms of UI and incompletely implemented in 
terms of functionality. I know that some people here do use it for 
certain tasks. Personally, every time I think of something which I 
think would be an ideal candidate for a batch script, I discover that 
FS can't actually do it.


I actually find it quite useful indeed for certain monotonous tasks, 
particularly since I don't own Quickeys and Finale doesn't recognize 
user-defined keystrokes in Fin2005 on OSX.


For example, I recently had a whole heap of Finale 98 parts using 
outdated fonts such as "Engraver Font Set" that had to be replaced with 
"EngraverFontSet" etc.  Finalescript made this very easy.  Sure as hell 
beat going up to the Data Check menu or whatever it's now called and 
manually selecting the settings for the 20+ files...


The documentation could be improved, but it's a good tool for certain 
tasks I think.


Speaking of lesser-known corners, how about the Transcription feature 
and the Custom Key Signature tool?  Both of these could be quite useful 
except that you need a degree in crytography to decifer how to actually 
use them.


(I suppose the Transcription Feature is now integrated into the Studio 
View in Finale 2006?)


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

RE: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Lee Actor]

>Friends:
>
>This exchange leads me to pose the following questions: DO WE
HANG OUT ON ANY OF FINALE'S "LESSER-KNOWN CORNERS? IF SO, HOW MUCH?
>
>Please consider:
>
>1. The ossia tool
>2. The mirror tool
>3. The tempo tool
>4. The MIDI tool
>
>5. The rhyming dictionary
>6. The Band-in-a-Box harmonizer.

I have a somewhat different response than many of the ones so far.  I have
never used 1, 2, 5, or 6, and never expect to.  I use the MIDI tool a lot,
so much so that I hardly notice its quirks (ok, bugs) any longer.  I'm
surprised that the tempo tool, which I use a great deal, seems to be largely
ignored.  Granted that Finale is not the ideal tool for playback, but if you
do use it for that and want a reasonably musical and non-robotic
performance, I think it would be hard to avoid using the tempo tool (though
maybe not necessarily for pop, some jazz styles, and music written before
1700).  Sure it's just as quirky and clunky as the MIDI tool, if not moreso,
but I've gotten used to it and personally find it indispensable.

Lee Actor
Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic
http://www.leeactor.com



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

RE: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Williams, Jim]

Thanks to everyone who has responded to this thread so far! The responses have 
been extremelyinteresting and enlightening (at least to me), and I hope MM has 
taken note of them as well.
 
Please respond if you haven't already.
 
Owain,  for the reminder about the nonstandard keysig tool.
We've seen responses now about several tools--"a great idea with a crappy UI" 
or similar!!



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Owain Sutton
Sent: Fri 16-Sep-05 17:32
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"





Javier Ruiz wrote:
> The 16/9/05 22:46, Andrew Stiller escribió/wrote:
>
>
>>Add to the list: the Nontraditional Key Signature algorithm. This is
>
>
> Ha!
> I once managed it but then I completely forgot. It is the worst feature
> never programmed...
>


I use this a LOT, because the stuff I deal with depends on it (and from
the discussions I've had with Sibelius users, it's one of the reasons to
not switch...so far...).  The frustrating thing is that it's a
fabulously-powerful resource, inhibited by an embarrassingly-bad front end.

Owain
___
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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Owain Sutton]

Javier Ruiz wrote:

The 16/9/05 22:46, Andrew Stiller escribió/wrote:



Add to the list: the Nontraditional Key Signature algorithm. This is



Ha! 
I once managed it but then I completely forgot. It is the worst feature

never programmed...




I use this a LOT, because the stuff I deal with depends on it (and from 
the discussions I've had with Sibelius users, it's one of the reasons to 
not switch...so far...).  The frustrating thing is that it's a 
fabulously-powerful resource, inhibited by an embarrassingly-bad front end.


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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Javier Ruiz]

The 16/9/05 22:46, Andrew Stiller escribió/wrote:

> Add to the list: the Nontraditional Key Signature algorithm. This is

Ha! 
I once managed it but then I completely forgot. It is the worst feature
never programmed...

[What it really bothers me is how could I live without TGTools...
I always find uses for every plug-in in the collection. I just used the
"Combine Pitches and Rhythms" for a complete orchestral score!]

Javier.




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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Andrew Stiller]

On Sep 16, 2005, at 9:56 AM, Williams, Jim wrote:


Friends:

This exchange leads me to pose the following questions: DO WE HANG OUT 
ON ANY OF FINALE'S "LESSER-KNOWN CORNERS? IF SO, HOW MUCH?


Please consider:

1. The ossia tool
2. The mirror tool
3. The tempo tool
4. The MIDI tool

5. The rhyming dictionary
6. The Band-in-a-Box harmonizer.



I've used the Ossia tool 2 or 3 times. It used to be essential, despite 
its awkwardness, but improvements to the Layout, Measure, and Speedy 
tools over the years have left it virtually useless in its current 
form.


I've used the MIDI tool maybe twice.

The others I've never used, and have no use for.

Add to the list: the Nontraditional Key Signature algorithm. This is 
essential when needed, but hasn't been changed a lick since Finale 1.0 
and is very user-unfriendly. I've been bugging Coda/MakeMusic for years 
to improve the thing, but for obvious reasons  it's always remained a 
low priority for them.



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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Christopher Smith]

On Sep 16, 2005, at 9:56 AM, Williams, Jim wrote:


Friends:

This exchange leads me to pose the following questions: DO WE HANG OUT 
ON ANY OF FINALE'S "LESSER-KNOWN CORNERS? IF SO, HOW MUCH?


Please consider:

1. The ossia tool
2. The mirror tool
3. The tempo tool
4. The MIDI tool




None of the above. MIDI tool on extremely rare occasions.



5. The rhyming dictionary
6. The Band-in-a-Box harmonizer.



The rhyming dictionary, occasionally, but I usually write lyrics with a 
pen and paper, and my Merriam-Webster rhyming dictionary, which is 
better than Finale's.


The Band in a Box harmoniser, no. It is not very good, especially 
compared with my colleague Richard Ferland's Harmonis, which does the 
same thing but way better. But I do it even better, so there.


The MIBAC rhythm section generator is reasonably good and useful if you 
need playback, but Band In A Box does that so much better it makes me 
wonder why they used MIBAC's rhythm section but BIAB's harmoniser?


Christopher

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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[David W. Fenton]

On 16 Sep 2005 at 8:56, Williams, Jim wrote:

> This exchange leads me to pose the following questions: DO WE HANG OUT
> ON ANY OF FINALE'S "LESSER-KNOWN CORNERS? IF SO, HOW MUCH?
> 
> Please consider:
> 
> 1. The ossia tool

I used it a long time ago, and have not used it much. It has 
basically met my needs, though.

> 2. The mirror tool

I tried it back in pre-3.x days, and gave up on it. When I discovered 
changing time signatures for pickup measures, I never used it again.

> 3. The tempo tool

I've tried using it, but the results are too unreliable that I 
abandoned it. I would use it if I could reliably get it to playback 
and incorporate its data into MIDI output, but I've got a number of 
files where the expression that's supposed to turn it on just doesn't 
work, so I quite using it.

> 4. The MIDI tool

I use the MIDI tool all the time. The idea of exporting to MIDI and 
editing in a sequencer is incredibly unpleasant, for the same reason 
that everyone agrees that Sibelius's linked parts are a good idea -- 
if you have to change the original score, you've got to either make 
the changes both in the score and the MIDI file, or you've got to 
recreate the MIDI file and then redo all the tweaks you did in it.

Secondly, I don't like sequencers -- to me, they are unmusical, 
because I'm completely notation-oriented. 

> 
> 5. The rhyming dictionary
> 6. The Band-in-a-Box harmonizer.

These latter two I've never used and never plan to.

To me, the other strange areas are the chord tool and tab notation, 
neither of which I've ever had any call for (though I've often wished 
the chord tool could be used to create figured bass that would play 
back).

Also, Simple Entry is completely useless, in my opinion, though if 
I'm remembering correctly Finale 2004 revamped it significantly and 
made it more usable.

I also gave up on the transcription tool after several attempts back 
in the beginning. The results required way too much cleanup. Now with 
Speedy/keyboard entry, I can get notes in very, very quickly, much 
more quickly than I could with the transcription tool, because it 
took so much time to get accurate results after the fact.

I also hardly ever use any of the plugins, most of which don't do 
anything I need.

-- 
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] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Carl Donsbach]

I've used the Ossia tool maybe half a dozen times over the last 2-3 
years.  Haven't touched any of the others since ver. 3.x.


-Carl Donsbach


Williams, Jim wrote:


Friends:

This exchange leads me to pose the following questions: DO WE HANG OUT ON ANY OF 
FINALE'S "LESSER-KNOWN CORNERS? IF SO, HOW MUCH?

Please consider:

1. The ossia tool
2. The mirror tool
3. The tempo tool
4. The MIDI tool

5. The rhyming dictionary
6. The Band-in-a-Box harmonizer.

And of course, anything I've forgotten. I'm sure you all see why I've drawn a 
line between items 1--4 vs. 5--6.

Here are my answers: OSSIA--use rarely; find it oddly implemented
MIRROR--was so disastrous in earlier versions that I quit in 3.x or so. Cut & 
paste does fine. Is it any better now?
TEMPO--virtually never. There's a better way to do everything it does, IMO
MIDI--awful. If I need decent playback from notation without much editing, I 
use Overture.

5&6 A waste of time, money, and talent. These items have their place for sure, but not in Finale. 
I'm far from an "engraving purist" (I'm vitally interested in playback) but the inclusion 
those two "features" still makes me laugh. The auto-harmonizer requires so much work to 
produce anything anywhere near a usable result that anyone would be better off just learning the basics 
of arranging on their own.

Other comments: *HP is improving greatly. Props to Robert.

 *I don't have the time to do "discovery learning" 
on FinaleScript. For cryin' out loud, it's
  supposed to be a timesaver--more guidance, 
please! Is it in 2006 and I just haven't found
  it yet??
 



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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Aaron Sherber]

At 09:56 AM 09/16/2005, Williams, Jim wrote:
>  *I don't have the time to do "discovery
>learning" on FinaleScript. For cryin' out loud, it's
>   supposed to be a timesaver--more
>guidance, please! Is it in 2006 and I just haven't found
>   it yet??

Yup -- Plugins | Miscellaneous | FinaleScript Palette.

For my money, this is something which is a good idea but is generally 
poorly implemented in terms of UI and incompletely implemented in 
terms of functionality. I know that some people here do use it for 
certain tasks. Personally, every time I think of something which I 
think would be an ideal candidate for a batch script, I discover that 
FS can't actually do it.


2006 is the third version of Finale with FS, and I don't think it's 
really gotten any better. Maybe Robert has been too busy with HP.


Aaron.

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

RE: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Williams, Jim]

Thanks, Dennis...is it now stable? In the past, as I recall, it was fraught 
with errors and breaking a mirror was a disaster. Evidently from your use of it 
you find it stable ;-) Thanks. That's part of what I wanted to know!



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of dc
Sent: Fri 16-Sep-05 9:06
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"



Williams, Jim écrit:
>MIRROR--was so disastrous in earlier versions that I quit in 3.x or so.
>Cut & paste does fine. Is it any better now?

I use it quite often whenever there are written out repeats of whole
sections. Copying is fine, of course, but then any corrections have to be
done twice, or thrice, or... Once I'm sure there are no more corrections or
additions, I convert them if necessary.

Dennis
  



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


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

Re: [Finale] The "lesser-Known Corners"

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 15:56 Uhr Williams, Jim wrote:
This exchange leads me to pose the following questions: DO WE HANG 
OUT ON ANY OF FINALE'S "LESSER-KNOWN CORNERS? IF SO, HOW MUCH?
 
Please consider:
 
1. The ossia tool

2. The mirror tool

I use the mirror tool _a lot_. It's very useful for 18th century scores 
where often eg the two violin parts are identical, etc.


Saved me a lot of time over the years.

The ossia tool is pretty useless in my experience, although I have used 
it, too, but the capabilities are too limited. It has great potential 
though.


Johannes

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

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