Re: [Finale] Re: Thoughts on Mac-Sibelius 2.0

2002-04-17 Thread David W. Fenton
On 17 Apr 2002, at 18:06, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 17.04.2002 16:59 Uhr, Robert Patterson wrote > > > One element in this thread that puzzles me is the view that plugins are > > somehow > > "not part of" the program. Plugins are no less a part of Finale than they are > > of > > Protools or P

Re: [Finale] Re: Thoughts on Mac-Sibelius 2.0

2002-04-17 Thread Johannes Gebauer
On 17.04.2002 16:59 Uhr, Robert Patterson wrote > One element in this thread that puzzles me is the view that plugins are > somehow > "not part of" the program. Plugins are no less a part of Finale than they are > of > Protools or Photoshop. Some of them are incredibly useful. Indeed, it is only

Re: [Finale] Re: Thoughts on Mac-Sibelius 2.0

2002-04-16 Thread David W. Fenton
On 17 Apr 2002, at 8:36, Matthew Hindson wrote: > I would agree in general with this, although personally I would say that > Sibelius is considerably more intuitive at the early stages, less so as you > go along and want to do 'harder' stuff (which may be graphically based, as > you point out).

Re: [Finale] Re: Thoughts on Mac-Sibelius 2.0

2002-04-16 Thread Dan Carno
At 08:36 AM 4/17/2002 +1000, Matthew Hindson wrote: >OK, well, I thought I made it pretty clear in my original posting that these >comments were made in response to a day's testing the new version. I mean, >how in-depth could my comments be after a day's testing? Maybe I should >have made this u

[Finale] Re: Thoughts on Mac-Sibelius 2.0

2002-04-16 Thread Matthew Hindson
> Subject: [Finale] Re: Thoughts on Mac-Sibelius 2.0 > > And so it came to pass that Matthew Hindson spake: > > > > > >My opinion (for what it's worth) is that Sibelius is great for people who > >aren't that interested in how their scores are goin

Re: [Finale] Re: Thoughts on Mac-Sibelius 2.0

2002-04-16 Thread Johannes Gebauer
(The complete message from John is quoted below since it went to me personally instead of to the list) I think the main problem with Finale in this respect is that Coda has not yet managed to provide Finale with good house settings for everyday use. And yes, I would love to have support for house

House Styles (Re: [Finale] Re: Thoughts on Mac-Sibelius 2.0)

2002-04-16 Thread Jari Williamsson
Daniel W. Shipman writes: > What's the "house style?" Is it like "house dressing?" : ) I don't know if this was intended as a serious question or not, but a House Style would be something like a special "look" for the document. In Finale terms that would mean to change all document settings

Re: [Finale] Re: Thoughts on Mac-Sibelius 2.0

2002-04-16 Thread Dan Carno
At 10:43 AM 4/16/2002 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote: >It is true that the factory settings in >Finale leave a lot to be desired, but once you have set up good default >files Finale doesn't require a lot of tweaking at all. Johannes, Yes that is true. But when you are in a position of editing so

Re: [Finale] Re: Thoughts on Mac-Sibelius 2.0

2002-04-16 Thread Dan Carno
At 09:29 AM 4/16/2002 +0200, Jari Williamsson wrote: >Dan Carno writes: (etc.) >...then shouts: > > > but UNLESS YOU ARE USING BOTH PROGRAMS > > ON A DAILY BASIS, YOU ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT THE > > PROGRAM(S) CAN DO. > Jari (et al.), Not shouting, just being emphatic!