I have heard that Notion is demonstrating some pretty impressive
MusicXML import from both Finale and Sibelius at summer NAMM, but I have
not yet seen this myself. I believe that Notion will be the first
program to support MusicXML import before it supports MIDI import.
VirtuosoWorks' July 16 news
On Jul 24, 2005, at 1:36 AM, Ken Durling wrote:
Um, did I rank any of Chuck's achievements? Did I say "cooler than"?
If I misread your post, I apologise, but when you say "now that is a
cool thing" it sort of implies that maybe some previous things WEREN'T
as cool as "that". I was reactin
Richard Yates wrote:
The quality of the engraving isn't in question here - the fact that the
company participated is. Look at the MakeMusic submission -- it's far
inferior to the Sibelius submission. I can't even see the notes or the
staves for the MakeMusic submission!
You are all reading
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Having become quite curious I downloaded the Sibelius 4 demo last night.
I haven't spent much time with it, but I noticed that it did install the
Helsinki font. I haven't attempted to use it in Finale, but I'd like to
know if I could and if that would be legal. Anyone?
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Michael Cook schrieb:
I'm going to put that, with a bit more detail, into a feature request:
my two top priority feature requests are this and some form of house
styles. Maybe some people on the list would like to join me?
I believe that house styles should be par
Tyler Turner wrote:
--- dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Witness Finale's new inclusion of GPO and the
ability to use other
Native Instruments format samples which is far
superior to Sibelius's
formerly superior inclusion of their Kontakt Silver
player. I'll be
very interested to see
David W. Fenton wrote:
I've only had one correspondence with MakeMusic (I've sent in feature
requests, etc., which didn't require a response beyond an acknowledgment),
and it took several messages before the support person even got to the
point of comprehending what I was talking about, despit
Tyler Turner wrote:
--- dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Compare this to MakeMusic, which has several
employees who monitor this
list on their own time (we do appreciate that), but
since there is no
official monitoring of this list we have to follow
"official procedures"
to submit feat
At 07:31 AM 7/24/05 -0400, dhbailey wrote:
>My point about Sibelius as a company working hard to create a presence
>for itself while MakeMusic is just trudging along in the same old rut
>still stands, regardless of the low-brow quality of the comparison in
>question.
David is right. Sibelius ca
Mark D Lew wrote:
On Jul 23, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:
This is wrong. When I worked in customer support, I
computed the number of customer e-mails finished in
one response vs. those that took multiple e-mails to
resolve. I personally was resolving over 90% of the
issues to the sati
I'm as quick as anyone to acknowledge Finale's shortcomings, but sometimes the
Finale bashing can be over the top. We should be clear that Finale gives up
*absolutely nothing* to Sib or any other competitor in quality of printed
output. What we have endless quibbled about is ease-of-use features
When you check the option in Human Playback to optimize for Garriton
Personal Orchestra, does Finale assume that ALL your staves are being
played by GPO?
I ask because I want to send MIDI to many different places, not just
GPO. Does Finale send different instruments CC#1 instead of CC#7 for
v
Robert Patterson schrieb:
Personally, I still think dynamically linked parts are going to be of
little use to me. I like my parts to have cues and to be separated by
instrument even when combined in the score. Heck, I even break divisi
string parts out onto separate staves in the parts. Without e
Johannes Gebauer:
> but eventually the changes to the score after
> the performance were so huge that I simply had no choice but to prepare
> a new "Parts-Score"
>
I remain skeptical that Sib's dynamic linking will be able to maintain your
high standards when this amount of revision is required
d. collins schrieb:
Johannes Gebauer écrit:
Problem is, Sibelius is very much the No.1 for publishers these days
in Germany.
Do you mean that most German publishers now use Sibelius?
I don't have any data available, but from the feeling I get, yes. It
used to be Score, many publishers stu
Robert Patterson schrieb:
Johannes Gebauer:
but eventually the changes to the score after the performance were
so huge that I simply had no choice but to prepare a new
"Parts-Score"
I remain skeptical that Sib's dynamic linking will be able to
maintain your high standards when this amount
On 24 Jul 2005, at 17:10, Robert Patterson wrote:
I remain skeptical that Sib's dynamic linking will be able to maintain
your high standards when this amount of revision is required.
(Specifically, an amount of revision that forces an entirely new page
layout in the parts.) Nevertheless, I cert
On Jul 24, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 24, 2005, at 1:36 AM, Ken Durling wrote:
Um, did I rank any of Chuck's achievements? Did I say "cooler than"?
If I misread your post, I apologise, but when you say "now that is
a cool thing" it sort of implies that maybe som
None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking is an
ease-of-use feature and 2) Finale's output is still essentially equal to if not
superior to Sib's. (Specifically, it is superior when the user wants a notation
that Sib doesn't approve of.)
If you tell me that I can spl
In later operas, pants roles represent male youths, but they are not
"prepubescent". In some cases, their pubescence is very much a part
of the story. Octavian is most certainly not prepubescent. Cherubino
and Siebel are young, but their behavior is clearly that of pubescent
teenagers.
Y
Chuck Israels wrote:
About Carl Dershem's suggestion that my autobiography ought to be a
great read: a few summers ago, I wrote about 200 pages of a spew draft
of a "memoir," showed it to a few people and then left it to sit for a
(long) while. Now it looks about 40 to 50% pertinent and m
On 24 Jul 2005, at 18:42, Robert Patterson wrote:
None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking
is an ease-of-use feature
Certainly. But it is evident that Finale needs more ease of use to
continue to exist next to Sibelius.
and 2) Finale's output is still essential
I just tried to install Finale 2003 on a couple of computers,
so I can work on a project for someone who requires it.
On a computer that has Final 2004, Finale 2003 installed
successfully. But when I install on a computer that
has no Finale, Finale 2003 has a font problem: when I
open an mus
--- dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Sibelius also maintains an in-house forum populated
> by their
> tech-support personnel, same as MakeMusic does.
>
> They go the extra-mile and also officially
> participate in the
> out-of-house group. MakeMusic does not.
If you address my stateme
No one has posted a rational response to the complaint that
the Texas Music people are being prejudicial to "sissies who sing
soprano".
They are trying to CYA by complaining about "singing out of
range" crap.
They are obviously being discriminating in their decisions.
The list person who said it w
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
" Personally, I still think dynamically linked parts are going to be of
little use to me. I like my parts to have cues and to be separated by
instrument even when combined in the score. Heck, I even break divisi string
Robert Patterson schrieb:
None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking
is an ease-of-use feature and 2) Finale's output is still essentially
equal to if not superior to Sib's. (Specifically, it is superior when
the user wants a notation that Sib doesn't approve of.)
N
On 7/24/05, Robert Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm as quick as anyone to acknowledge Finale's shortcomings, but sometimes
> the Finale bashing can be over the top. We should be clear that Finale gives
> up *absolutely nothing* to Sib or any other competitor in quality of printed
> out
--- Richard Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Robert Patterson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> " Personally, I still think dynamically linked parts
> are going to be of
> little use to me. I like my parts to have cues and
> to be separated by
> instrument ev
On 24 Jul 2005 at 2:18, Christopher Smith wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2005, at 6:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> > I remember reading somewhere recently about the change in orchestras
> > where someone entirely attributed the increasing hiring of women
> > entirely to the institution of blind audition
On 24 Jul 2005 at 16:42, Robert Patterson wrote:
> None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking
> is an ease-of-use feature and 2) Finale's output is still essentially
> equal to if not superior to Sib's. (Specifically, it is superior when
> the user wants a notation that
On 24 Jul 2005 at 12:46, Tyler Turner wrote:
> And even though I'm not a
> MakeMusic employee any longer, for the past 4 years I
> have been out on the net correcting misinformation and
> participating on various forums, always in my spare
> time. I haven't seen anyone from Sibelius logging as
> m
> Someone forwarded my posts to this forum about trying out the
> Sibelius demo to Daniel Spreadbury and he answered me in great detail
> and at great length, and then engaged in a lengthy and quite
> interesting discussion of the points I'd raised. He spent *hours*
> responding to my emails.
>
> A
On 24 Jul 2005 at 14:40, Richard Yates wrote:
> > Someone forwarded my posts to this forum about trying out the
> > Sibelius demo to Daniel Spreadbury and he answered me in great
> > detail and at great length, and then engaged in a lengthy and quite
> > interesting discussion of the points I'd ra
> > If you tell me that I can split a part in the score into multiple
> > staves in the score and still have the linking work, then I'll be
> > impressed.
>
> It may be that the kind of work you do would make that really
> valuable, but I've never had a single project where I'd have had any
> need
... Eustazio was also a castrato originally. (I think the part is cut
altogether in later edition.)
mdl
Ouch!
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Raymond Horton wrote:
... Eustazio was also a castrato originally. (I think the part is cut
altogether in later edition.)
Ouch!
Agree with the 'ouch!" but ... could that have been phrased a bit more
subtly?
:o
cd
___
Finale mailing list
Final
On Jul 24, 2005, at 7:21 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
Finale's quality of output is capable of meeting the most rigorous
engraving standards I know of, with only one exception. Finale cannot
produce a proper long slur mark. (Neither can Sibelius, nor any other
program except the now defunct SCO
Tyler Turner wrote:
Sibelius' Dynamic Parts does not cover this. You will
either need to extract the part the old-fashioned way
and split it, or create both flute staves on the
score. They also don't have the option of a TGTools
plug-in for helping with this.
You are right that to separate tw
On 24 Jul 2005 at 15:00, Lee Actor wrote:
> > > If you tell me that I can split a part in the score into multiple
> > > staves in the score and still have the linking work, then I'll be
> > > impressed.
> >
> > It may be that the kind of work you do would make that really
> > valuable, but I've ne
I will be out of the office until August 5, 2005. While I will have
periodic email access, I may not be able to reply to your message in a
timley manner. If you need immediate assistance, please email Rebecca Ott
at [EMAIL PROTECTED], or Christine Fry at [EMAIL PROTECTED]; or, you
may call the Co
At 07:49 PM 7/24/2005, you wrote:
Sibelius' Dynamic Parts does not cover this. You will
either need to extract the part the old-fashioned way
and split it, or create both flute staves on the
score. They also don't have the option of a TGTools
plug-in for helping with this.
Hi Tyler,
Not sure w
Perhaps, but about 1966 or 67 I remember that the NY Phil still had but
one female non-harpist (a bass player).
Raymond Horton
Louisville Orchestra
John Howell wrote:
At 6:02 PM -0400 7/23/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
I remember reading somewhere recently about the change in orchestras
where
--- Dan Carno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 07:49 PM 7/24/2005, you wrote:
> >Sibelius' Dynamic Parts does not cover this. You
> will
> >either need to extract the part the old-fashioned
> way
> >and split it, or create both flute staves on the
> >score. They also don't have the option of a TG
At 10:57 PM 7/24/2005, you wrote:
The filters certainly help a lot, but they aren't as
bright as the TGTools plug-in. Dealing with more than
2 parts on a staff takes more effort, since the
"select players for deletion" filters don't work in
those situations, and if you have 2 voices in a single
m
On Jul 24, 2005, at 4:58 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 24 Jul 2005 at 2:18, Christopher Smith wrote:
Isn't it possible that at least part of the reason was because more
qualified female candidates were auditioning? . . .
I don't know.
What I do know is that the person who was quoted attrib
At 4:34 PM -0700 7/24/05, Mark D Lew wrote:
It doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to fix. As I understand it,
slurs are current drawn as a Bezier curve (actually, the space
enclosed by two almost-parallel Bezier curves) and the slur tool
gives the user access to the control points. Why not
On Jul 23, 2005, at 11:05 PM, Ryan Beard wrote:
I'm saving my file as an audio file. The chord symbols
I've entered won't play back. However, chords have
played back on this same file in the past when saved
as an audio file.
"Enable Chord Playback" is checked in the chord menu.
And I've not chan
On Jul 24, 2005, at 9:43 PM, John Howell wrote:
Keeping in mind that there was an awful lot that Mosaic couldn't and
still can't do, and that MOTU has stopped development, they had this
feature from the very beginning. Every slur has not 3 but 4
adjustment points and is almost infinitely adju
On Jul 23, 2005, at 8:40 PM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Case law, or speculation? All that you describe is several direct
copies of a computer output.
causing me to note that a better way to have said this is "my
informed, lay (that is to say, I am not an attourney) interpretation
of case l
50 matches
Mail list logo
