Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[shirling & neueweise]

At 15:49 -0400 4/29/07, Andrew Stiller wrote:
I can't believe that for all the zillions of replies Mark's query 
generated, nobody every bothered to answer this question.


like this?

At 13:32 +0200 4/28/07, shirling & neueweise wrote:

attach it to the note. (expression menu: context-sensitive or note-attached).


--

shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Aaron Sherber]

At 06:56 AM 4/30/2007, Lawrence David Eden wrote:
>I use meta-tool created expressions all the time...for note attached
>and for measure attached expressions.
>I have a staff list defined that shows the measure attached
>expressions once in the score and on every extracted part.
>I am using FinMac 2k3.  Did behavior of the program change with 
later versions?


No. The point was that you can't define a staff list as a *default* 
when entering measure expressions. When you place a measure 
expression with a metatool, it shows up on all staves. You then have 
to specifically enter the assignment dialog if you want either a 
staff list or "this staff only".


Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Lawrence David Eden]

I use meta-tool created expressions all the time...for note attached 
and for measure attached expressions.
I have a staff list defined that shows the measure attached 
expressions once in the score and on every extracted part.

I am using FinMac 2k3.  Did behavior of the program change with later versions?





On Apr 29, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:



 On Apr 28, 2007, at 3:40 AM, Mark D Lew wrote:

  I can't figure out how to use a metatool for an expression and 
not have it show up on every staff.  I don't see a place to define 
that.  What am I missing?


 I can't believe that for all the zillions of replies Mark's query 
generated, nobody every bothered to answer this question. The 
answer is this:


Hey, don't be so hard on us! We DID answer it: you can't define 
staff lists with measure expressions entered as metatools. You have 
to use note expressions. Mark knew how to change types.


Now your info about TG Tools was very good. But I hadn't omitted 
that because I didn't bother, I omitted it because I didn't KNOW 
that.


Christopher



___
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] should we expect another upgrade?

[Mark D Lew]

On Apr 29, 2007, at 12:49 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:

In the Expression menu,  turn on Context Sensitive. Then when you  
use an expression metatool with the cursor placed directly on or  
below the note, a note expression will be placed. With any other  
cursor position, a measure expression will appear--on all staves.


Christopher is right, I did know that. I must have Context Sensitive  
turned on, because that's how all my expression metatools behave. I  
think of that as normal behavior, and I had forgotten that it was  
even possible to specify anything else, but now that you mention it,  
I do have a vague memory of turning Context Sensitive on once upon a  
time.  But since I so rarely use metatools for expressions, it  
doesn't come up.


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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Christopher Smith]

On Apr 29, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:



On Apr 28, 2007, at 3:40 AM, Mark D Lew wrote:

 I can't figure out how to use a metatool for an expression and  
not have it show up on every staff.  I don't see a place to define  
that.  What am I missing?


I can't believe that for all the zillions of replies Mark's query  
generated, nobody every bothered to answer this question. The  
answer is this:


Hey, don't be so hard on us! We DID answer it: you can't define staff  
lists with measure expressions entered as metatools. You have to use  
note expressions. Mark knew how to change types.


Now your info about TG Tools was very good. But I hadn't omitted that  
because I didn't bother, I omitted it because I didn't KNOW that.


Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Andrew Stiller]

On Apr 28, 2007, at 3:40 AM, Mark D Lew wrote:

 I can't figure out how to use a metatool for an expression and not 
have it show up on every staff.  I don't see a place to define that.  
What am I missing?


I can't believe that for all the zillions of replies Mark's query 
generated, nobody every bothered to answer this question. The answer is 
this:


In the Expression menu,  turn on Context Sensitive. Then when you use 
an expression metatool with the cursor placed directly on or below the 
note, a note expression will be placed. With any other cursor position, 
a measure expression will appear--on all staves.


With regard to this, I would like to recommend 
TGTools/Modify/Expressions, which I find invaluable for orchestral 
scores and the like. Enter a dynamic as a measure expression in all 
staves, then apply the plug-in and turn them all into note expressions. 
There is even an option for deleting the expression from empty 
measures.


Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://www.kallistimusic.com/

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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Aaron Sherber]

At 12:15 PM 4/28/2007, Christopher Smith wrote:
>Actually, I understand what Aaron is saying for movement titles.
>
>A measure expression can be set to align with the left barline of bar
>1, handle centre aligned, but with an additional horizontal offset of
>exactly half the printed page width (3.5 inches for an 8X11 sheet
>with .75 inch margins). This would exactly centre it on the page
>above the first system of that movement for all parts, no matter what
>the layout, and it would move with the first system, whatever you did
>with it. If you indent your first system, just deduct that amount
>from the additional offset.

Yep, that's it exactly.

Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Aaron Sherber]

At 12:28 PM 4/28/2007, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>It only goes some of the way, though: It doesn't handle several lines
>(you can only left allign them, not center),

True. Although you can kind of fake center alignment with spaces.

>and if you have different
>indents for the first system (ie depending on the staff names for
>instance, and different in score and parts) it simply doesn't work any
>more without a lot of fiddling and readjustment.

In linked parts, I find it takes a minimum of fiddling. And none at 
all in the particular things I've been doing.


Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Aaron Sherber]

At 10:57 AM 4/28/2007, shirling & neueweise wrote:
>agreed (in principle), but typically the whole note measure takes up
>far too little space in the part (and is not proportionally related
>to surrounding measures) for the musician to be able to judge at
>which point the decresc. ends (p starts); for such precision you
>would be best to write out a dotted half tied to quarter; otherwise
>the musician is either going to estimate, or is going to check the
>score / ask colleagues... or is simply going to do whatever s/he
>feels like doing that day at that time.

Yes, you're right about this.

Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Christopher Smith]

On Apr 28, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:


On 28.04.2007 Christopher Smith wrote:

Actually, I understand what Aaron is saying for movement titles.
A measure expression can be set to align with the left barline of  
bar 1, handle centre aligned, but with an additional horizontal  
offset of exactly half the printed page width (3.5 inches for an  
8X11 sheet with .75 inch margins). This would exactly centre it on  
the page above the first system of that movement for all parts, no  
matter what the layout, and it would move with the first system,  
whatever you did with it. If you indent your first system, just  
deduct that amount from the additional offset.

Very cool, Aaron!


It only goes some of the way, though: It doesn't handle several  
lines (you can only left allign them, not center), and if you have  
different indents for the first system (ie depending on the staff  
names for instance, and different in score and parts) it simply  
doesn't work any more without a lot of fiddling and readjustment.


I see your point, but I could just go back to the way I did it  
before; turn on rulers and drag or nudge until the line shows up at  
the right place.


Now all this could be solved by allowing centre justification in text  
expressions, just as we already have in Text Tool blocks.


Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 28.04.2007 Christopher Smith wrote:

Actually, I understand what Aaron is saying for movement titles.

A measure expression can be set to align with the left barline of bar 1, handle 
centre aligned, but with an additional horizontal offset of exactly half the 
printed page width (3.5 inches for an 8X11 sheet with .75 inch margins). This 
would exactly centre it on the page above the first system of that movement for 
all parts, no matter what the layout, and it would move with the first system, 
whatever you did with it. If you indent your first system, just deduct that 
amount from the additional offset.

Very cool, Aaron! 


It only goes some of the way, though: It doesn't handle several lines 
(you can only left allign them, not center), and if you have different 
indents for the first system (ie depending on the staff names for 
instance, and different in score and parts) it simply doesn't work any 
more without a lot of fiddling and readjustment.


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] should we expect another upgrade?

[Christopher Smith]

On Apr 28, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:


On 28.04.2007 Aaron Sherber wrote:
I haven't dealt with the latter two, but for movement titles I use  
measure expressions, and in this case measure offset coordinates  
work better than page coordinates.


I think you are still talking about different things. As far as  
tempo indications like "Allegro" or similar go, you are correct,  
measure expressions work well, as such an indication needs to be  
alligned with the start of the time sig. However, quite often one  
wants titles which are centered above the first staff. The only way  
to do this properly is with a page attached text block, which will  
get pretty messy once you change your layout or use linked parts.




Actually, I understand what Aaron is saying for movement titles.

A measure expression can be set to align with the left barline of bar  
1, handle centre aligned, but with an additional horizontal offset of  
exactly half the printed page width (3.5 inches for an 8X11 sheet  
with .75 inch margins). This would exactly centre it on the page  
above the first system of that movement for all parts, no matter what  
the layout, and it would move with the first system, whatever you did  
with it. If you indent your first system, just deduct that amount  
from the additional offset.


Very cool, Aaron!

Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 28.04.2007 Aaron Sherber wrote:

I haven't dealt with the latter two, but for movement titles I use measure 
expressions, and in this case measure offset coordinates work better than page 
coordinates.



I think you are still talking about different things. As far as tempo 
indications like "Allegro" or similar go, you are correct, measure 
expressions work well, as such an indication needs to be alligned with 
the start of the time sig. However, quite often one wants titles which 
are centered above the first staff. The only way to do this properly is 
with a page attached text block, which will get pretty messy once you 
change your layout or use linked parts.


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] should we expect another upgrade?

[shirling & neueweise]

I think that positioning the expression as you suggest would still 
result in the offset being given as EVPU -- that is, absolute units.


yes.

My way, with an offset in beats from the beginning of the measure, 
the expression always falls in the right place regardless of how the 
measure is spaced.


agreed (in principle), but typically the whole note measure takes up 
far too little space in the part (and is not proportionally related 
to surrounding measures) for the musician to be able to judge at 
which point the decresc. ends (p starts); for such precision you 
would be best to write out a dotted half tied to quarter; otherwise 
the musician is either going to estimate, or is going to check the 
score / ask colleagues... or is simply going to do whatever s/he 
feels like doing that day at that time.


if it is critical, yes i agree on using beat points, but often 
composers are really slack about notating this kind of precision, in 
which case, the end of the measure solution is the most elegant 
(-looking) one in many cases.


so, for example, if there are several instruments having this whole 
note with decresc. to 4th beat in the score i might in some cases 
still attach it to the right measure and cmd-drag (unlink) in the 
score to the 4th beat so that in the parts it is aligned with the 
right barline (with an appropriate leftwards offset); this gives you 
much more freedom with hairpin placement as well... which still sux 
in linked parts.


--

shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[shirling & neueweise]

It is f=?)(()/ plain stupid that Finale doesn't at least remember 
the last setting of the staff asignment dialog


ah ok, i wasn't sure what you were on about, yes i totally agree.

--

shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Aaron Sherber]

At 09:17 AM 4/28/2007, shirling & neueweise wrote:
>
>>If you make it measure-attached, you can specify the displacement in
>>beats from the beginning of the measure, which means it'll still be
>>in the right place in the part.
>
>even better is right aligned to right measure with a specific
>leftwards offset to avoid collision with barlines and to look fab.

I don't want to get into a whole thing here, because I was talking 
about one rather specific kind of thing which is now lost from the 
quote. Basically, a measure expression on a single staff is useful 
for indicating the endpoint of a cresc or dim that falls mid-measure 
with no note to attach it to. My example was beat 4 of a whole note.


But I do disagree with your method for this case. I think that 
positioning the expression as you suggest would still result in the 
offset being given as EVPU -- that is, absolute units. Imagine a 
situation where one instrument has running sixteenths and another has 
a whole note, dim to p on beat 3. Your way, the p is a measure 
expression with a left offset in EVPU from the right barline. In the 
extracted part, where that measure is smaller with just the whole 
note there, that offset becomes too big -- the expression is no 
longer under beat 3 in the measure. My way, with an offset in beats 
from the beginning of the measure, the expression always falls in the 
right place regardless of how the measure is spaced.


Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 28.04.2007 Christopher Smith wrote:

But as for expressions attached to page coordinates: isn't that what the Text 
tool is for?



In a way, yes, but it doesn't really work. Even with text frames you can 
only _either_ attach it to the page _or_ to a measure. And ideally 
expressions should be able to support settings like "horizontally centered".


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] should we expect another upgrade?

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 28.04.2007 shirling & neueweise wrote:


> Actually, that is not always ideal, and sometimes plain silly. How do you place an 
"Allegro" marking to a note to allign with the start of the time sig (as you can 
with a measure attached expression), let alone the trouble when extracting parts.

it's not silly at all, mark seemed fairly clearly to be referring to 
note-specific expressions; although i could be wrong... and of course tempi and 
other score-related expressions should be measure attached.


All I said was there are situations where measure attached expressions 
have a lot of advantages.


> This is one area where Finale behaves plain stupid.

huh? why?  aside from not being able to attach expressions to page coordinates 
as well...



It is f=?)(()/ plain stupid that Finale doesn't at least remember the 
last setting of the staff asignment dialog when using metatools, just as 
it does when entering them manually. It makes metatools pretty useless 
with measure assigned expressions. There are many possible solutions to 
this problem, and it has been a problem for many years. The least that 
should have been done is a setting where Finale remembers the last 
setting. That's not too much to ask. Personally I think it should be 
even better about it, and let you assign a default stafflist to each 
expression.


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] should we expect another upgrade?

[Aaron Sherber]

At 09:44 AM 4/28/2007, shirling & neueweise wrote:
>
>>But as for expressions attached to page coordinates: isn't that what
>>the Text tool is for?
>
>what about movement titles? copyright notices on individual pieces in
>a set with part extraction? performance notes as "footnotes"?

I haven't dealt with the latter two, but for movement titles I use 
measure expressions, and in this case measure offset coordinates work 
better than page coordinates.


In a part, a new movement may begin anywhere vertically on the page: 
the top system, a middle system, etc. So page coordinates aren't very 
useful. But in the things I do, the movement always begins at the 
first measure at the beginning of a system. So my movement titles 
will always be a certain distance above that measure and a certain 
distance to the right, to get them horizontally centered on the page.


Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Christopher Smith]

On 28-Apr-07, at 9:44 AM, shirling & neueweise wrote:



But as for expressions attached to page coordinates: isn't that  
what the Text tool is for?


what about movement titles? copyright notices on individual pieces  
in a set with part extraction? performance notes as "footnotes"?


I stand corrected. I wasn't looking far enough ahead, as no doubt,  
the Finale programmers weren't either.


Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[shirling & neueweise]

But as for expressions attached to page coordinates: isn't that what 
the Text tool is for?


what about movement titles? copyright notices on individual pieces in 
a set with part extraction? performance notes as "footnotes"?


--

shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Christopher Smith]

On Apr 28, 2007, at 8:33 AM, shirling & neueweise wrote:




This is one area where Finale behaves plain stupid.


huh? why?  aside from not being able to attach expressions to page  
coordinates as well...




I think he was referring to not having easy access to the Staff Lists  
when using Measure-attached metatools. That is kind of stupid. I wish  
I didn't have to backtrack, or avoid metatools altogether with  
Measure expressions. I would like some kind of toggle to call up the  
Staff Lists, like hold down Option while clicking to get the staff  
list box.


But as for expressions attached to page coordinates: isn't that what  
the Text tool is for?


Christopher


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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[shirling & neueweise]

If you make it measure-attached, you can specify the displacement in 
beats from the beginning of the measure, which means it'll still be 
in the right place in the part.


even better is right aligned to right measure with a specific 
leftwards offset to avoid collision with barlines and to look fab.


--

shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Aaron Sherber]

At 08:13 AM 4/28/2007, Christopher Smith wrote:
>Things that are global, like rit, accel, a tempo, rehearsal letters,
>and any style markings, should be assigned using measure-attached
>expressions. These are the only things that measure-attached
>expressions should be used for (though I also put in elapsed measures
>this way, you know, repeated measures that get numbered?)

In general, I agree completely with this advice. For me the principal 
exception is the following situation:


4/4 time, whole note, f on beat 1 dim to p on beat 4. The f is a note 
expression, of course, but the p has to be a measure expression, 
since there is no note to attach it to. If you attach it in the score 
to the whole note, the displacement will be in EVPU and you will 
almost certainly need to move it in the part. If you make it 
measure-attached, you can specify the displacement in beats from the 
beginning of the measure, which means it'll still be in the right 
place in the part.


Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[shirling & neueweise]

Actually, that is not always ideal, and sometimes plain silly. How 
do you place an "Allegro" marking to a note to allign with the start 
of the time sig (as you can with a measure attached expression), let 
alone the trouble when extracting parts.


it's not silly at all, mark seemed fairly clearly to be referring to 
note-specific expressions; although i could be wrong... and of course 
tempi and other score-related expressions should be measure attached.



This is one area where Finale behaves plain stupid.


huh? why?  aside from not being able to attach expressions to page 
coordinates as well...


--

shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[shirling & neueweise]

Yes, it is a drag that you can't use staff lists when using 
metatools on measure-attached expressions, but the staff assignment 
dialogue box is only a right-click away.


or left hand shift + right hand return and you can can immediately 
type values / tab through fields and hit enter ***very*** quickly 
since your hands are already in place on the keyboard.


--

shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 28.04.2007 shirling & neueweise wrote:

> I just now tried doing that, but my immediate problem is I can't figure out 
how to use a metatool for an expression and not have it show up on every staff.

attach it to the note. (expression menu: context-sensitive or note-attached).



Actually, that is not always ideal, and sometimes plain silly. How do 
you place an "Allegro" marking to a note to allign with the start of the 
time sig (as you can with a measure attached expression), let alone the 
trouble when extracting parts.


This is one area where Finale behaves plain stupid.

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] should we expect another upgrade?

[Christopher Smith]

On Apr 28, 2007, at 3:40 AM, Mark D Lew wrote:

 my immediate problem is I can't figure out how to use a metatool  
for an expression and not have it show up on every staff.  I don't  
see a place to define that.  What am I missing?  Most of my work is  
piano-vocal and most of my expressions I want on one staff only.   
If I can't get the metatool to put the expression on one staff only  
then I have to go back through the dialog box anyway which would  
defeat the purpose of the metatool.




Use note-attached expressions for that.

In fact, once I cottoned on to the following advice, I got a lot  
quicker.


Dynamics, along with any instrument-specific instructions, should be  
assigned as note expressions. This often means assigning the same  
expressions in several staves, but with metatools and automatic  
placement, this goes very quickly, and you can even assign everything  
in one staff and copy only note-attached expressions into the other  
staves.


Things that are global, like rit, accel, a tempo, rehearsal letters,  
and any style markings, should be assigned using measure-attached  
expressions. These are the only things that measure-attached  
expressions should be used for (though I also put in elapsed measures  
this way, you know, repeated measures that get numbered?)


Yes, it is a drag that you can't use staff lists when using metatools  
on measure-attached expressions, but the staff assignment dialogue  
box is only a right-click away.



I also noticed that once I assign a default position to an  
expression, any time I enter that expression and want it somewhere  
else, I have to type in the relative offset from the default  
position instead of the absolute coordinates.  That will take some  
getting used to.  I'm basically going to be doing math in my head  
each time, like, "Let's see, I want this at -66, but my default  
position is defined as -42, so I need to type in -24."  I'm  
starting to doubt that this is really going to save me time.


Jef gave you some good advice about this. I learned it this way, so  
all my placements are off the default baseline.


Christopher



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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[shirling & neueweise]

My standard procedure for entering an expression is the same as it's 
been for about eight years now


i did this eight years ago as well, but spent an afternoon learngin 
how to work with it, doing experiments and setting my expression up 
to my meticulous tastes for positioning, and will never go back to 
completely manual positioning.



I never drag or eyeball, because I'm a freak about wanting to 
specify the exact coordinates about everything I place.


you can do this also by nudging expressions, when you know that at 
200% viewing a nudge corresponds to 3 EVPUs and at Y% = 4 EVPUs.



But I'm open-minded.  If it really is going to save me so much time, 
I'm willing to learn new habits.


i guarantee it.


I pick the most commonly used coordinates, I can set up a metatool 
and save the trouble of going through the dialog boxes at least on 
those occasions where the position I want is the one I set up as the 
default, right?


yes. and with the right settings the positioning will be adjusted 
according to the note's (vertical) position in relation to the staff. 
for example, the expression will be in exactly the same position 
below an A4, G4 and F4 but will be lowered by 12 EVPUs on E4, by 24 
on D4, etc.  if you transpose, or extract transposed parts from a 
C-score the expression will adjust itself correctly in a majority of 
cases.



I just now tried doing that, but my immediate problem is I can't 
figure out how to use a metatool for an expression and not have it 
show up on every staff.


attach it to the note. (expression menu: context-sensitive or note-attached).

this brings up another point: if you are using only measure-attached 
expressions, there is absolutely no way to get the kind of precision 
you claim to be a freak about on the horizontal axis, since this is 
proportional (in relation to beats) and except in cases where 
expressions are placed at specific beat values (i.e. at 0 EVPUs and 
NOT offset by 5 EVPUs or whatever from the beat, eg. 1.5, 3.666) the 
positioning in relation to the music changes with the music spacing 
(different spacing; more or less measures per system), while 
note-attached horizontal positioning will always be in absolute 
relation to the note it is attached to.



I'm basically going to be doing math in my head each time, like, 
"Let's see, I want this at -66, but my default position is defined 
as -42, so I need to type in -24."  I'm starting to doubt that this 
is really going to save me time.


yes but once set up properly you won't need to adjust anything in the 
majority of cases; you are already doing math in fact every single 
time you apply an expression, and **way** more math than you really 
need to with auto-positioning.


you could even set up a macro (iKeys or whatever) to pump in you most 
common adjustments (-12, -24 EVPUs) if you really want to be geeky 
about it 8^)


--

shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 28.04.2007 Mark D Lew wrote:

I just now tried doing that, but my immediate problem is I can't figure out how 
to use a metatool for an expression and not have it show up on every staff.


If you absoloutely need to use measure epressions, then you are stuck. 
This is one of the worst bits of design in Finale. To make things just 
slightly easier, use the metatool, then, while the expression is still 
selected, hit shift-return and change the staff assignment directly.


Not great, though, and metatools with measure bound expressions is 
simply a nightmare at the moment.


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] should we expect another upgrade?

[Mark D Lew]

On Apr 27, 2007, at 10:24 AM, shirling & neueweise wrote:

mark, holy crap, man, check this thing out.  auto-placement  
positions the expressions to avoid staves and the notes, really  
worth the time, especially for people as meticulous as i think you  
are (as i am) about positioning.  of course there will always be  
exceptions where adjustments will be necessary, but they involve  
entering values like -12 EVPUs to make small adjustments instead of  
changing -216 to -228 or whatever for high notes.   and you have  
75% less things to adjust when extracting transposing parts from  
scores in C.


a really incredible time-saver.  man, really, i can't even believe  
you don't use it!


Heh.  I don't use metatools for expressions either.  My standard  
procedure for entering an expression is the same as it's been for  
about eight years now:  I double click in the measure and pick the  
expression I want from the list.  At that point, the dialog box for  
position comes up, so I type in the numbers I want for my H and V  
position.  Nine times out of ten I know exactly where I want it, so I  
never have to move it.  If I do move it, I will invariably go back  
into the dialog and type new numbers.  I never drag or eyeball,  
because I'm a freak about wanting to specify the exact coordinates  
about everything I place.


But I'm open-minded.  If it really is going to save me so much time,  
I'm willing to learn new habits.


I understand I can assign a default X and Y position to each  
expression, so if I pick the most commonly used coordinates, I can  
set up a metatool and save the trouble of going through the dialog  
boxes at least on those occasions where the position I want is the  
one I set up as the default, right?


I just now tried doing that, but my immediate problem is I can't  
figure out how to use a metatool for an expression and not have it  
show up on every staff.  I don't see a place to define that.  What am  
I missing?  Most of my work is piano-vocal and most of my expressions  
I want on one staff only.  If I can't get the metatool to put the  
expression on one staff only then I have to go back through the  
dialog box anyway which would defeat the purpose of the metatool.


I also noticed that once I assign a default position to an  
expression, any time I enter that expression and want it somewhere  
else, I have to type in the relative offset from the default position  
instead of the absolute coordinates.  That will take some getting  
used to.  I'm basically going to be doing math in my head each time,  
like, "Let's see, I want this at -66, but my default position is  
defined as -42, so I need to type in -24."  I'm starting to doubt  
that this is really going to save me time.


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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Randolph Peters]

Randolph Peters wrote:
 >If you prefer hand positioning your expressions, just choose

"vertical click position" for the note positioning. I know there is
no option like that for the horizontal position,


Aaron Sherber wrote:

Well, except for 'Horizontal Click Position'. 


I need an editor! I went into Finale to double check things as I was 
writing the email and I couldn't see the 'Horizontal Click Position'. 
I even said to myself, "Hey, where's the 'horizontal click position'?"


It was right there in front of me. Can I plead "refrigerator 
blindness"? You know, the inability to see the thing that is right in 
front of your nose?


With egg on my face,
Randolph Peters
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Aaron Sherber]

At 01:46 PM 4/27/2007, Randolph Peters wrote:
>If you prefer hand positioning your expressions, just choose
>"vertical click position" for the note positioning. I know there is
>no option like that for the horizontal position,

Well, except for 'Horizontal Click Position'. 

Aaron.

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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Randolph Peters]

Andrew Stiller wrote:
I hand-position all expressions anyway, because the automatic 
placement (like engraver slurs) does not meet my standards. Such 
hand-positioning is made more difficult by the auto-placement 
apparatus, especially the stupid thingy w. the four triangles that 
just gets in the way and is impossible to suppress. AFAIK.


You don't need to have the triangles on the screen. Just uncheck the 
"Adjust above staff baseline" or "Adjust below staff baseline" in the 
Expression menu and they won't show up on your screen.


If you prefer hand positioning your expressions, just choose 
"vertical click position" for the note positioning. I know there is 
no option like that for the horizontal position, but the centering or 
left/right alignment is a good default for a starting place. If you 
want to move the expression from there, a few taps of the arrow key 
or sliding the expression with your mouse is no harder than it was 
before automatic expression placement was introduced.


Sure, there is a bit of work to organize your expression library with 
the note placements you want, but you only have to do that once. From 
there on, it does save time, even if you want to tweak each 
expression.


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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[shirling & neueweise]

I noticed that, but entering the x,y positions of all my expressions 
is so ingrained a habit for me that so far I haven't bothered to 
learn the new system.


mark, holy crap, man, check this thing out.  auto-placement positions 
the expressions to avoid staves and the notes, really worth the time, 
especially for people as meticulous as i think you are (as i am) 
about positioning.  of course there will always be exceptions where 
adjustments will be necessary, but they involve entering values like 
-12 EVPUs to make small adjustments instead of changing -216 to -228 
or whatever for high notes.   and you have 75% less things to adjust 
when extracting transposing parts from scores in C.


a really incredible time-saver.  man, really, i can't even believe 
you don't use it!


--

shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Mark D Lew]

On Apr 27, 2007, at 12:27 AM, dc wrote:

Placement of expressions was much better in 2004, and a good reason  
to upgrade...


I noticed that, but entering the x,y positions of all my expressions  
is so ingrained a habit for me that so far I haven't bothered to  
learn the new system.


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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Andrew Stiller]

On Apr 27, 2007, at 3:27 AM, dc wrote:


Mark D Lew écrit:

I don't think I'd call 2k4 dramatically inferior to 2k2, but off the
top of my head I can't think of anything I care about that it does
better than 2k2 did.


Placement of expressions was much better in 2004, and a good reason to 
upgrade...


Dennis



I hand-position all expressions anyway, because the automatic placement 
(like engraver slurs) does not meet my standards. Such hand-positioning 
is made more difficult by the auto-placement apparatus, especially the 
stupid thingy w. the four triangles that just gets in the way and is 
impossible to suppress. AFAIK.


Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://www.kallistimusic.com/


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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Mark D Lew]

On Apr 26, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:

On the Mac, that is not strictly true. FinMac 2002 was an almost  
perfect program, and I would still be using it today were it not  
for the fact that it will not run under Mac OSX. OSX required me to  
"upgrade" to Finale 2K4--which was in fact no upgrade at all, but a  
buggy step backward. All subsequent Mac versions of Finale use 2K4  
as a baseline--and indeed, 2K7 is a superior product to 2K4, though  
it is still dramatically inferior to 2K2.


I too was very happy with 2k2 and upgraded to 2k4 only because of the  
OS.


I don't think I'd call 2k4 dramatically inferior to 2k2, but off the  
top of my head I can't think of anything I care about that it does  
better than 2k2 did.


I'm just happy not to have to run Classic anymore.  It looked funny  
and it required me to do a detour through PDF in order to print.   
When I first switched to 2k4 the different look was a distraction,  
but now that I'm used to it, I like that it has a look consistent  
with everything else in OS X.


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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Martin Banner]

I know Tom Johnson, and this was not him.


On Apr 26, 2007, at 9:11 PM, Chuck Israels wrote:

I don't know if the person at the Choral Directors Assn. meeting is 
the same one I see yearly at the Jazz Educators Convention.  The one I 
know is Tom Johnson, and I like him enormously.  He will often let me 
know what is up at MM, and he has yet to mislead me.  Nonetheless, 
that does nothing to relieve my disappointment with the problems in 
2007, nor does it change what I experience as a much reduced level of 
communication with the support and development staff at MM.


Chuck


On Apr 26, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Martin Banner wrote:


unfortunately, I do not...


On Apr 26, 2007, at 8:20 PM, shirling & neueweise wrote:



martin, do you have a name for this rep?  i don't think claims of 
this sort should be taken lightly.


I attended the national convention of the American Choral Directors 
Association in Miami back in March. Make Music had an exhibit booth 
there, and I spent some time chatting with the MM rep then, who 
informed me that there was going to be another upgrade to Finale 
2007 in the near future. That was back at the beginning of March, 
and next week is the beginning of May. I'm not quite sure what this 
guy's idea of "near future" was.


--

shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ 
http://newmusicnotation.com

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







Martin Banner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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


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







Martin Banner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Chuck Israels]

I don't know if the person at the Choral Directors Assn. meeting is  
the same one I see yearly at the Jazz Educators Convention.  The one  
I know is Tom Johnson, and I like him enormously.  He will often let  
me know what is up at MM, and he has yet to mislead me.  Nonetheless,  
that does nothing to relieve my disappointment with the problems in  
2007, nor does it change what I experience as a much reduced level of  
communication with the support and development staff at MM.


Chuck


On Apr 26, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Martin Banner wrote:


unfortunately, I do not...


On Apr 26, 2007, at 8:20 PM, shirling & neueweise wrote:



martin, do you have a name for this rep?  i don't think claims of  
this sort should be taken lightly.


I attended the national convention of the American Choral  
Directors Association in Miami back in March. Make Music had an  
exhibit booth there, and I spent some time chatting with the MM  
rep then, who informed me that there was going to be another  
upgrade to Finale 2007 in the near future. That was back at the  
beginning of March, and next week is the beginning of May. I'm  
not quite sure what this guy's idea of "near future" was.


--

shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http:// 
newmusicnotation.com

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







Martin Banner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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


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] should we expect another upgrade?

[Martin Banner]

unfortunately, I do not...


On Apr 26, 2007, at 8:20 PM, shirling & neueweise wrote:



martin, do you have a name for this rep?  i don't think claims of this 
sort should be taken lightly.


I attended the national convention of the American Choral Directors 
Association in Miami back in March. Make Music had an exhibit booth 
there, and I spent some time chatting with the MM rep then, who 
informed me that there was going to be another upgrade to Finale 2007 
in the near future. That was back at the beginning of March, and next 
week is the beginning of May. I'm not quite sure what this guy's idea 
of "near future" was.


--

shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale







Martin Banner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[shirling & neueweise]

martin, do you have a name for this rep?  i don't think claims of 
this sort should be taken lightly.


I attended the national convention of the American Choral Directors 
Association in Miami back in March. Make Music had an exhibit booth 
there, and I spent some time chatting with the MM rep then, who 
informed me that there was going to be another upgrade to Finale 
2007 in the near future. That was back at the beginning of March, 
and next week is the beginning of May. I'm not quite sure what this 
guy's idea of "near future" was.


--

shirling & neueweise ... new music publishers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Richard Yates]

>MakeMusic really owes us a version that fixes the most 
>annoying of Finale's bugs. Whether we'll get one is doubtful. 
>I'm willing to be surprised however.

For me the sign of a change will be when bugs are fixed that may be
insignificant to production but should be an embarrassment to the company.
That will show a standard and philosophy of excellence. 

My favorite (especially since it was fixed once and then reintroduced in a
later version) is the drifting handles on measure attached expressions when
the staff is not sized at 100%. 

Richard Yates

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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[dhbailey]

Martin Banner wrote:
I attended the national convention of the American Choral Directors 
Association in Miami back in March. Make Music had an exhibit booth 
there, and I spent some time chatting with the MM rep then, who informed 
me that there was going to be another upgrade to Finale 2007 in the near 
future. That was back at the beginning of March, and next week is the 
beginning of May. I'm not quite sure what this guy's idea of "near 
future" was.


Yeah, there will be another upgrade to Fin2007 in the near future -- The 
upgrade to Fin2008 which we'll all have to pay for and isn't too far 
off, August being just over 3 months away.


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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Randolph Peters]

Andrew Stiller wrote:
FinMac 2002 was an almost perfect program, and I would still be 
using it today were it not for the fact that it will not run under 
Mac OSX. OSX required me to "upgrade" to Finale 2K4--which was in 
fact no upgrade at all, but a buggy step backward.


I think Finale 2003 was great. It was like 2002 with a few more 
improvements. And it was fast in OS 9.


I like some of the new ideas in 2007 such as linked parts, but the 
implementation leaves a lot to be desired. But the problem that 
drives me crazy the most is the switching enharmonic bug. This was 
introduced in 2007 and it forces me to change the way I've worked 
with Finale for years. I don't have confidence that the music I enter 
will stay the way I want it.


It's not that I can't get any work done, but I'm forced to constantly 
think about the tool rather than the music.


MakeMusic really owes us a version that fixes the most annoying of 
Finale's bugs. Whether we'll get one is doubtful. I'm willing to be 
surprised however.


The list of what should get fixed first shouldn't entirely be based 
on what people are complaining about the most. The problems that 
effect the integrity of the data (and our confidence in the program) 
need to have the highest priority. Long standing bugs deserve special 
treatment, even if there are few users of the feature. Recently 
introduced bugs also need to be quashed as soon as possible because 
they invalidate the reasons for upgrading in the first place.


MM needs a strategic philosophy and administrative support in order 
to solve these issues. Based on the last three upgrades, I can't see 
much evidence of that.


Looking back at various versions over the years, the most disastrous 
for me have been Finale 3.0
and Finale 2004 (the version for Mac OS 9 was a joke). I never did 
get bitten by the overwrite bug, so 2005, 2006 weren't all that bed 
for me. I know that others had different experiences.


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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Eric Dannewitz]

Well, when you consider they said SmartMusic 10 was "coming soon" for 
almost 9 months.


Martin Banner wrote:
I attended the national convention of the American Choral Directors 
Association in Miami back in March. Make Music had an exhibit booth 
there, and I spent some time chatting with the MM rep then, who 
informed me that there was going to be another upgrade to Finale 2007 
in the near future. That was back at the beginning of March, and next 
week is the beginning of May. I'm not quite sure what this guy's idea 
of "near future" was.


Martin Banner
[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] should we expect another upgrade?

[A-NO-NE Music]

Andrew Stiller / 2007/04/26 / 12:44 PM wrote:

>Only half of this problem is MakeMusic's fault. The other half is  
>Apple's.

I am not too sure about that.  Luck does work here in a great deal to my
eyes.  I have seen quite a few heavy applications suffered/still-
suffering OSX move over, while others didn't have that kind of fatal
problems, or I should say Finale seems to be one of the apps which has
been cornered for overhaul from ground up.  This is not because they
designed it badly.  This is because their legacy design happened to be
harder on OSX port.  The way I see is, tho, all the innovative apps
which implemented brilliant functions beyond OS APIs are now suffering.

So, they should rewrite from the ground up, but you can't expect they
have that kind of R&D.  It is simply not possible in the music software
business.

P.S. There was SoundDesigner II, the first commercial digital audio
editor every studio had to own, which was written in Pascal.  This app
is an example of the luck.  It didn't suffer System 7 and PPC move
over.  It ran until the end of OS9 even though the developer left it
long time ago.  I still see comments on the net people miss this app. 
It was that good, yet didn't trip over OS/computer upgrades until OSX.

-- 

- Hiro

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


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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Martin Banner]

I attended the national convention of the American Choral Directors 
Association in Miami back in March. Make Music had an exhibit booth 
there, and I spent some time chatting with the MM rep then, who 
informed me that there was going to be another upgrade to Finale 2007 
in the near future. That was back at the beginning of March, and next 
week is the beginning of May. I'm not quite sure what this guy's idea 
of "near future" was.


Martin Banner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Andrew Stiller]

On Apr 26, 2007, at 5:27 AM, dhbailey wrote:

 With Finale, any of us are free to jump off the  
"pay-for-features-you-probably-won't-use-along-with-a-couple-of-bug- 
fixes" annual upgrade merry-go-round and to continue to use our most  
recently purchased version (and any/all previous versions) for as long  
as we wish to.


On the Mac, that is not strictly true. FinMac 2002 was an almost  
perfect program, and I would still be using it today were it not for  
the fact that it will not run under Mac OSX. OSX required me to  
"upgrade" to Finale 2K4--which was in fact no upgrade at all, but a  
buggy step backward. All subsequent Mac versions of Finale use 2K4 as a  
baseline--and indeed, 2K7 is a superior product to 2K4, though it is  
still dramatically inferior to 2K2.


Only half of this problem is MakeMusic's fault. The other half is  
Apple's.


Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://www.kallistimusic.com/kallisti.html

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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[dhbailey]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:

On 26.04.2007 Randolph Peters wrote:
Should we expect another upgrade to Finale 2007 before Finale 2008 
comes at us?




No.

Johannes




While I agree with Johannes on this answer, I would phrase it differently:

*Should* we expect another upgrade?  Yes, because as end-users who have 
paid the price the company has asked, we have a right to receive a 
product which works as advertised.  And because a software company which 
really cared about its product would be constantly striving to eliminate 
bugs.


*Will we get* another upgrade?  No, because MakeMusic doesn't seem to be 
that sort of company and doesn't appear (as a company -- I remain 
convinced the development team would dearly love to be given free reign 
to fix the long-standing bugs) to care if one of their flagship products 
is bug-filled.  They're happy to have a bug-riddled program on the 
market and proud to market it as a great product.  They would rather 
save any possible bug fixes after the first flurry of update patches 
(which I'm convinced are only released to quiet the most vocal 
complaints, not because they really want to fix anything) for the next 
annual "upgrade" (is it really an upgrade when they fix bugs?) where 
they can charge money.


To get to another reply which brought up yet again the notion of Finale 
being subscription-ware -- I think the big difference is that with what 
I would imagine real subscription-ware to be, the current version stops 
working at some fixed date so the user absolutely has to pay the 
subscription fee to keep using the program at all.  With Finale, any of 
us are free to jump off the 
"pay-for-features-you-probably-won't-use-along-with-a-couple-of-bug-fixes" 
annual upgrade merry-go-round and to continue to use our most recently 
purchased version (and any/all previous versions) for as long as we wish 
to.  That's the big difference.


Nobody is forcing any of us to upgrade at all.  Well, nobody except 
fellow users with whom we might have to share files, if they have 
upgraded and we haven't.  But with the continued improvement in MusicXML 
and the Dolet plug-ins, that is becoming less and less important.


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

Re: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 26.04.2007 Randolph Peters wrote:

Should we expect another upgrade to Finale 2007 before Finale 2008 comes at us?



No.

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] should we expect another upgrade?

[Lora Crighton]

--- "Williams, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Randolph,
> I wrote several years ago that Finale had become
> subscriptionware...I was pooh-pooed at the time but
> stand by my statement.
> We SHOULD expect another updater given all the
> documented and yet-unresolved issues with 2007, but
> perhaps experience tells us otherwise.
> 
> The answer to this question would perhaps be
> revealing: Given that a "new" version appears some
> time between July and September, what was the LATEST
> date anyone can remember at which an updater for an
> "old" (then-current) version appeared? I honestly
> don't know.
> 

They recently sent out a special offer to those of us
who haven't upgraded to 2007 yet.  Even though I will
be using Finale a lot over the summer - big school
project due Aug 3 - I'm going to wait for the new version.

-- 
Io la Musica son, ch'ai dolci accenti
So far tranquillo ogni turbato core,
Et or di nobil ira et or d'amore
Poss'infiammar le più gelate menti.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?

[Williams, Jim]

Randolph,
I wrote several years ago that Finale had become subscriptionware...I was 
pooh-pooed at the time but stand by my statement.
We SHOULD expect another updater given all the documented and yet-unresolved 
issues with 2007, but perhaps experience tells us otherwise.

The answer to this question would perhaps be revealing: Given that a "new" version 
appears some time between July and September, what was the LATEST date anyone can remember at which 
an updater for an "old" (then-current) version appeared? I honestly don't know.



From: Randolph Peters
Sent: Wed 25-Apr-07 21:36
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: [Finale] should we expect another upgrade?


Since this seems to be a slow day on the Finale list, I thought I'd 
throw out a question to the group.


Should we expect another upgrade to Finale 2007 before Finale 2008 comes at us?

I know most of us want one that fixes some long term bugs, but can we 
reasonably expect one to be offered?


I feel that I've paid for too many new versions hoping that old bugs 
would finally be resolved. With 2007, there are also a lot of new 
bugs and the three upgrades haven't done anything to fix them.


I'm worried that Finale 2008 will repeat this sorry cycle.

Would a letter-writing campaign help? One where we emphatically ask 
that bug fixes be the top priority?


-Randolph Peters
___
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