In a message dated 6/1/04 9:53:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Starting in Fin2003 you can't optimise the second staff of two-staff
parts like piano that are created with the Setup Wizard. This might
be your problem. Normally you WOULDN'T optimise piano parts, but as
you know, we always do this
On 1 Jun 2004 at 16:42, Mark D Lew wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 2004, at 2:42 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > In the abstract, I just don't think there's any way to make any such
> > determination with any certainty.
>
> Yes, but Johannes is not evaluating in the abstract. He's evaluating
> based on
On Jun 1, 2004, at 2:42 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
In the abstract, I just don't think there's any way to make any such
determination with any certainty.
Yes, but Johannes is not evaluating in the abstract. He's evaluating
based on comparison with similar markings in a large sample of other
scor
Johannes is right on the money on this question. Repeat signs were
not used in the modern way with any consistency before the 19th
century. It's covered well in Robert Donnington, "The Interpretation
of Early Music." The only "interpretation" involved is studying how
the signs were used AT T
On 2 Jun 2004 at 0:22, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 01.06.2004 23:42 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
>
> >> I am pretty sure there is no ambiguity in this case, and section C
> >> is not supposed to be repeated. If it was then this would be a
> >> copying mistake. Naturally such mistakes occur, so if
On 01.06.2004 23:42 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
>> I am pretty sure there is no ambiguity in this case, and section C is
>> not supposed to be repeated. If it was then this would be a copying
>> mistake. Naturally such mistakes occur, so if it makes no sense
>> without the C section repeat then thi
On 1 Jun 2004 at 20:26, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 01.06.2004 19:20 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
>
> > It's clear to me that for the A section, there should be a repeat
> > (leaving out the starting ||: is common well into the 19th century),
> > but not so clear about the C section. I'd make my d
This solution would work nicely for what I'm doing. I know that it's not
hard to add an expression, but aren't we all looking for a way to minimize
keystrokes? :)
Giz
"The truly professional valve oil would be potable & 80 proof!"
At 09:13 AM 6/1/04, you wrote:
What might be nicer/easier would b
At 12:36 PM -0400 6/01/04, dhbailey wrote:
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
At 9:13 AM -0400 6/01/04, dhbailey wrote:
I'm not sure it would be possible, since staff styles are applied
in toto to the selected measures or parts of measures and the
change is immediate, whereas expressions are applied onl
On 01 Jun 2004, at 03:32 PM, John Hinchey wrote:
Something I ran into when switching to Fin 2004b MAC from Fin 2004
and using iKey.
It seemed that iKey was not working in 2004b. What I need to do was
select Finale 2004b as a
new application in iKey and then copy over all of the sequences I had
Hi all,
Something I ran into when switching to Fin 2004b MAC from Fin 2004 and
using iKey.
It seemed that iKey was not working in 2004b. What I need to do was
select Finale 2004b as a
new application in iKey and then copy over all of the sequences I had
created for 2004. Since I did this,
iKe
On 01.06.2004 19:20 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
> It's clear to me that for the A section, there should be a repeat
> (leaving out the starting ||: is common well into the 19th century),
> but not so clear about the C section. I'd make my decision based on
> balance -- if the 3 sections are of comp
On 01.06.2004 17:34 Uhr, d. collins wrote
> In an Italian print of the 1640s, I have a piece in 3 sections with 2
> (double) repeat signs:
>
> A :||: B :||: C ||
>
> I'm wondering what exactly is to be repeated, and whether these signs have
> the same meaning as their modern equivalents. The rea
On 1 Jun 2004 at 17:34, d. collins wrote:
> In an Italian print of the 1640s, I have a piece in 3 sections with 2
> (double) repeat signs:
>
> A :||: B :||: C ||
>
> I'm wondering what exactly is to be repeated, and whether these signs
> have the same meaning as their modern equivalents. The rea
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
At 9:13 AM -0400 6/01/04, dhbailey wrote:
I'm not sure it would be possible, since staff styles are applied in
toto to the selected measures or parts of measures and the change is
immediate, whereas expressions are applied only when that point is
reached in real time.
I want to upgrade my printer to one that has Postscript capabilities and find one that is reasonably priced, if possible, under $400, new or used, inkjet or laser, available in the United States. All replies will be appreciated.
Preston Keys
___
Finale
At 9:13 AM -0400 6/01/04, dhbailey wrote:
I'm not sure it would be possible, since staff styles are applied in
toto to the selected measures or parts of measures and the change is
immediate, whereas expressions are applied only when that point is
reached in real time.
Huh? I'm not understanding
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
At 11:49 PM -0400 5/31/04, Giz Bowe wrote:
At 09:01 PM 5/21/04, you wrote:
I just use Staff Styles. A lot of the parts I write double, and that
always works just fine.
Procedure: Make sure you have all of the instruments you'll be using
in the piece included when yo
At 11:49 PM -0400 5/31/04, Giz Bowe wrote:
At 09:01 PM 5/21/04, you wrote:
I just use Staff Styles. A lot of the parts I write double, and
that always works just fine.
Procedure: Make sure you have all of the instruments you'll be
using in the piece included when you do the Set-Up.
Write the P
Title: Re: [Finale] Optimization
question
At 3:10 AM -0500 6/01/04, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone answer a question about
optimization?
I have MacFin2004b and optimization is not working.
I need a bit more information here; how do you know it's not working?
For e
I'd guess that you probably have your group optimization set to "Only
Remove If All Staves Empty" in the Group Attributes.
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn NY
On 01 Jun 2004, at 03:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone answer a question about optimization?
I have MacFin2004b and op
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone answer a question about optimization?
I have MacFin2004b and optimization is not working.
I need a bit more information here; how do you know it's not working?
For example, after optimizing a system, if you select the staff tool,
and examine the extreme left
Can someone answer a question about optimization?
I have MacFin2004b and optimization is not working. I do have "allow optimization" checked in the Staff Tool dialog box. It was working in all the previous versions.
All the best,
KIM Richmond
___
Finale m
23 matches
Mail list logo
