Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts

Richard Yates wrote: The Fin2K7 brochure says that a feature of linked parts is "Show different enharmonic spellings between the score and part." Can someone explain to me how this would ever be a useful feature? Richard Yates If you had a concert pitch score, you might want to simply s

[Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts

The Fin2K7 brochure says that a feature of linked parts is "Show different enharmonic spellings between the score and part." Can someone explain to me how this would ever be a useful feature? Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu htt

[Finale] Part Extraction problems & other oddities

I opened a score from WinFin2005 in my newly installed WinFin2k7. I generated parts from Manage Parts, and then extracted. The part appears with the staff spacing terribly squashed, even though I took care to specify the spacing in Page Formats for Parts (in Part Creation Preferences). Also, i

Re: [Finale] Printing problem - garbage for noteheads!

Get a Mac? Just Kidding. So it displays ok and prints all messed up? Try disabling the Maestro Postscript Font in Control Panels->Fonts and see if that does anything. (Quit out of Finale, then do that, then run it again). You might have a messed up postscript font. Brad Nelson wrote: HELP

Re: [Finale] Printing problem - garbage for noteheads!

Select: "Options" "Document Options" "Fonts" "Notation" "Noteheads" Then scroll and selct a notehead font that you have, probably "EngraverFontSet" or "Maestro." Default size is "24 regular". Click "OK", and that should fix it. Hope this helps! Raymond Horton Brad Nelson wrote: HELP!! I

[Finale] Printing problem - garbage for noteheads!

HELP!!  I have a commission deadline due tomorrow I cannot print my score correctly.  All of the noteheads print as fortisstissimo (FFF’s) rather than regular noteheads.  Other symbols are also strange (ie, whole rest appears as a diamond).  I’ve been using Finale for 9 years with no problem.

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

On 14 Aug 2006 at 17:52, Darcy James Argue wrote: > FWIW, here's MacWorld's Mac Pro vs. Dell price shooutout: > > > > They used a different model Dell than I did (Precision 690). > Apparently the reviewer felt that the 490 I used

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

More on the Core 2 rumor front: Appleinsider reports that Apple is preparing for product launches as early as September: Based on various reports from around the world, the Cupertino, Calif.-based company this week is placing WWDC

Re: Tech support was Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

Never ask more than one question: apparently they stop after the first one. You have to open another inquiry to get any more answers after the first one. The tech people do NOT get the info that you so painstakingly filled in at the start of the procedure: apparently this info is for stat

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

FWIW, here's MacWorld's Mac Pro vs. Dell price shooutout: They used a different model Dell than I did (Precision 690). Apparently the reviewer felt that the 490 I used "isn’t really comparable to the Mac Pro in terms of expanda

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

On 14 Aug 2006 at 15:45, A-NO-NE Music wrote: > I just took a look at the accelerator slider. There are 6 positions. > Here is what it says (in Japanese, me translating to English, forgive > me), #1 being max, by the way. Here are the original English captions: > 1) Enable all the accelerator

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

On 14 Aug 2006 at 6:52, dhbailey wrote: > (I wonder why they don't eliminate this the > way that Sibelius ships without it, precisely to make moving from > Finale to Sibelius more difficult?) I've posted this URL before, but there's a good reason for software vendors to make it easy to interope

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

On 14 Aug 2006 at 11:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 17:41 -0400, James Gilbert wrote: > > Why should a notation software program require sooo much RAM in the > > first place? > > True, if all we expected of FINALE was purely notation; no > conversions, no links from parts

Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

Aaron Sherber wrote: I think the TGTools part extraction plugin will cause problems because it usually results in adding staves, and adding staves from within a part is a bad thing for Fin07. I'm also not sure how JW Space Systems will work (haven't tried it). JW Space Systems works great on

Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

Andrew Stiller wrote: If I start from score view will I be able to shift into an individual part and use a) JW Space Systems, b)TGTools/Spacing/Measure Widths, c)Patterson/Tie Mover, d) TGTools/Parts/Intelligent Extraction of Parts? Yes to all. However, only the latest version of Patters

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

Very interesting. Thanks, Hiro. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY On 14 Aug 2006, at 3:45 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Darcy James Argue / 2006/08/14 / 12:42 PM wrote: But this is why I wanted to know what those features *were* -- the slider should (

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

Darcy James Argue / 2006/08/14 / 12:42 PM wrote: >But >this is why I wanted to know what those features *were* -- the slider >should (theoretically) be smart enough not to swamp your video card >with a bunch of unnecessary extra work. I am not really getting back into this thread, but I too

Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

At 03:01 PM 8/14/2006, Andrew Stiller wrote: >I confess I don't understand what "modal" is, A modal window is one which must be closed before you can use the rest of the program. For example, the Document Options window is modal -- while it is open, you can't do anything else with Finale. Same

Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

On Aug 14, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Tyler Turner wrote: While obviously not ideal from a user's perspective, blocking plug-ins from being run while in a linked part is a fairly effective means of protecting the majority of users. None of the included Finale plug-ins that would have been likely to cat

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

Oh yeah ... even with 512 MB, I don't think there would be much happiness in playing back GPO sounds. Dean On Aug 13, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 13.08.2006 James Gilbert wrote: Anyone else find that even with a computer that has 256Meg of RAM you cannot install Finale 2007

Re: [Finale] Best method of re-authorizing?

I called the 800 number and talked to support. Then I essentially re-registered directly from Finale using the "Internet" choice. Then the software just confirmed my registration and that was all.At no time did I need to enter an "authorization" code, and none was given to me, neither by tech suppo

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

On 14 Aug 2006, at 2:15 PM, Tyler Turner wrote: Oops -- sorry, I definitely misread the memory speed thing (it's given differently at each Wiki page). The X600 does not have 2.4 times the memory speed, it has 1.2 times the memory speed. My bad. It's not even 1.2 times. I don't trust this Wikip

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

On 14 Aug 2006, at 2:00 PM, Tyler Turner wrote: No Darcy. It is the 9000 Pro (or at least was advertised as such by the manufacturer) Okay -- I didn't see a mobility version of the 9000 Pro listed in the Wikipedia pages, but I guess the entries aren't as complete as we'd like. http://en.

Re: Tech support was Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Contact the techsupport people at makemusic's > web-site, but be > > forewarned that they designed it so as to > discourage any but the most > > irate and determined customers from actually > completing the process. > > Unless they have revamped it recently, that

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

--- Darcy James Argue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oops -- sorry, I definitely misread the memory speed > thing (it's > given differently at each Wiki page). The X600 does > not have 2.4 > times the memory speed, it has 1.2 times the memory > speed. My bad. It's not even 1.2 times. I don

Tech support was Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

Recently I got through to tech support and received their initial reply relatively easily. I'm pretty sure I replied with an additional question (I could be mistaken) but never heard anymore from them. Looking up the case archive, it ends with their first reply. Anyway, my question to you, and a

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

--- Darcy James Argue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > According to this Radeon_9000#Mobility>, the Radeon 9000 Mobility is > based on the R200 > core, has a fillrate of just 800 MT/s, its clock > speed is 200 MHz and > its memory speed is 250 MHz. (I'm assuming

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

> I wonder how MusicXML export works for linked score/parts in Finale? If you use the MusicXML export on the File menu, then it exports whatever is in your current document - either the score or the part. With the full version of Dolet 3 for Finale, you can only export the score since Finale 2007

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

According to this , the Radeon 9000 Mobility is based on the R200 core, has a fillrate of just 800 MT/s, its clock speed is 200 MHz and its memory speed is 250 MHz. (I'm assuming you have the 9000 and not the 9000 Pro). Whereas the X600 Pro

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

Hey all, The client eventually decided to prepare the parts himself using Logic's notation capabilities. He's a good and literate musician and knows exactly what the notation should look like, so that was never an issue. He was just looking to shave some time off the project, but after di

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

On 14 Aug 2006, at 4:17 AM, Tyler Turner wrote: Oh, one more question... I don't believe you ever specified, but all along I've been assuming that the computer with the Radeon X600 is outperforming the computer with the Radeon 9000 (in Finale, with the hardware acceleration slider up). Do I hav

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

At 8/14/2006 11:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >If your complaint is that they do not make it clear before you purchase, >then I agree, but then 90% of business software on the market today falls >short in the disclosure of performance requirements. But that's just my >humble opinion.. Probabl

Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

Tyler Turner wrote: While obviously not ideal from a user's perspective, blocking plug-ins from being run while in a linked part is a fairly effective means of protecting the majority of users. Perhaps it is fairly effective for the majority of users. I doubt if it will be very effective for

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

> On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 17:41 -0400, James Gilbert wrote: > Why should a notation software program require sooo much RAM in the first > place? True, if all we expected of FINALE was purely notation; no conversions, no links from parts to the score, etc. then it could run in less memory. Every

Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

--- dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr > The fact that the plug-ins are grayed out in parts > mode was discussed on > this list this past week. Nobody on the list knows > whether it's a bug > or a feature, but we're hoping that Finale will fix > things in the > interim release they always bring

Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts

Paul Copeland wrote: G’day everyone. I have just installed Finale 2007. I have Windows XP Home edition. When I create parts and then go to plugins for a part, none of the plugins are highlighted. How can I get the plugins to work with parts? The fact that the plug-ins are

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

On Aug 13, 2006, at 7:35 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hello, It's possible I may need to create Finale files based on a client's Logic (sequencer) files. I've never done this before, so I have some questions: 1) I assume the fasted way to go would be to have Finale import MIDI files ex

[Finale] Using plugins with parts

G’day everyone.   I have just installed Finale 2007.   I have Windows XP Home edition.   When I create parts and then go to plugins for a part, none of the plugins are highlighted.   How can I get the plugins to work with parts?   Many thanks for your help.   Paul Copeland http

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

On 14.08.2006 Richard Smith wrote: I respond to Finale much as you do to Sibelius. I think it's just that I am more familiar with Sibelius. Having customized Finale to reflect your own manner of working is best. Similarly I have programmed Sibelius keyboard commands for my laptop to accommodat

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

Richard Smith wrote: I would like the first two beats of the measure to have the second violin part in voice 2. I don't want the entire bar in voice 2 because it's a piano part and I don't want unneeded stems hanging around. For this kind of short polyphony I would use V1/V2 rather than lay

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

At 08:59 AM 8/14/2006, Richard Smith wrote: >I hesitate to point out that simple entry >was a response to Sibelius' note entry methods (v. 2004 I believe). When >I upgraded to 2005 it was specifically to get simple entry. Well, Simple Entry had been around in Finale for a long time before that.

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

My Finale experience goes back about 1991 or so. I remember when nearly everyone used speedy entry nearly all of the time. Finale's new simple entry is indeed quite good. I hesitate to point out that simple entry was a response to Sibelius' note entry methods (v. 2004 I believe). When I upgrade

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

At 8/14/2006 06:43 AM, dhbailey wrote: >Since James' machine appears to meet the stated RAM requirements, I'm >beginning to wonder if one of the following is actually the case: >1) in typical fashion (typical of programs more than just Finale) the >actual problem is something else and the wrong e

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

Richard Smith wrote: I'm not sure Sibelius is better than Finale at midi import. Both seem to make quite a mess of it. in my experience, Sibelius seems to leave more "debris" around while Finale gives a cleaner initial look but tends to "truncate" complex data. MusicXML is very effective but,

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

Richard Smith wrote: [snip]> because one of the two comes closer to the way we think about music. I'm glad both [Sibelius and Finale] are so mature and capable. [snip] Amen to that, Richard -- without Sibelius, Finale wouldn't have become anything near the program it is today, and without Fin

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

David W. Fenton wrote: On 13 Aug 2006 at 19:30, Tyler Turner wrote: --- "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: None of that makes any sense. Why would an installer check the RAM available when it's *running* rather than the *installed* RAM? Perhaps you're right, though, if the system

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

Darcy James Argue wrote: It's possible I may need to create Finale files based on a client's Logic (sequencer) files. I've never done this before, so I have some questions: 1) I assume the fasted way to go would be to have Finale import MIDI files exported from Logic. Is there anything

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

--- Darcy James Argue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh, one more question... > > I don't believe you ever specified, but all along > I've been assuming > that the computer with the Radeon X600 is > outperforming the computer > with the Radeon 9000 (in Finale, with the hardware > accelerat