John T Sylvanis wrote:
Short of being Warren Buffet or Bill Gates or Paul Allen and being
able to hire your own development team to give you what you want, you're
stuck with what's available. :-) >>
That's exactly what my point is: we're stuck with whatever the
manufacturers offer us. And they
John T Sylvanis wrote:
Well, yes, in this case I am an "pen and ink" composer and that's why I'd
use a traditional notation software. But I also want realistic rendition,
that is as close as possible to real sounds. It's been done, Kontact 2
(the whole package) is very good about it, at least the
dc wrote:
Is there anyway to automatically have (linked) inherit the name of the
part in question, rather than the part1, part2, etc. given by default?
Do you mean as the name of the part? Do you mean as part of a text block?
You can edit the names of the parts, if they weren't automaticall
As far as I can tell, the fastest way is to do as you say: generate
all the parts, then delete the ones you don't need.
On 6 Oct 2006, at 12:59, dc wrote:
dhbailey écrit:
You can edit the names of the parts, if they weren't automatically
named properly when the parts were created, in the Ma
dc wrote:
dhbailey écrit:
You can edit the names of the parts, if they weren't automatically
named properly when the parts were created, in the Manage Parts dialog.
Sorry, I realize my question wasn't quite very clear (not even for
myself!). And that I was using the wrong button to create my
On 5 Oct 2006 at 21:52, John T Sylvanis wrote:
> Microsoft was first to offer the Office suite
> and that's why WordPerfect and their suite don't have market share.
> They lagged behind Microsoft for years as far as integration.
WordPerfect made many, many mistakes. They died with the transition
On 5 Oct 2006 at 22:10, John T Sylvanis wrote:
> I think integration will happen because the market will
> mature one day and then someone will HAVE to make a move to entice
> people to buy the product of their new, epochal, idea which has been
> done by Microsoft 20 years before
You keep citing
On 5 Oct 2006 at 22:29, John T Sylvanis wrote:
> But I also want realistic rendition,
> that is as close as possible to real sounds. It's been done, Kontact 2
> (the whole package) is very good about it, at least the demos. This is
> what I'd expect from a notation software rendition wise.
I *don
On 6 Oct 2006 at 4:08, dhbailey wrote:
> Pure economic strong-arm tactics forced Office onto millions of
> computers that otherwise the owners would have had to look at the
> actual features and capabilities of various competing word processors,
> database managers, spreadsheets.
Look at the wor
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And Sonar doesn't run natively on Mac. And speaking of platforms, coding
for Linux would be preferable to many professional users ready to jump
from Windows before Vista arrives, way ahead of integrating an
extraneous engraving program in one or
On 6 Oct 2006 at 4:37, dhbailey wrote:
> So you can build most of what you want right now. The big triangle of
> what you want (incredibly realistic playback, sequencing and notation)
> is in place with one big broken link, which MusicXML is working hard
> to bridge, and that is between sequencin
dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Garritan also made money by not including some very important
instruments in their GPO product, most notably saxophones and electric
guitars and basses, very reasonably claiming that those instruments
aren't part of the standard orchestra. So they then for
At 02:15 PM 10/6/06 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
>Look at the world of software in 1993, when the first version of
>Office was created. It offered:
>1. Word 6
>2. Excel 5
>3. PowerPoint something-or-other
3. PowerPoint 4
4. Access 2
I still have this MS Office installed on my old Pentium 100 la
On 6 Oct 2006 at 19:17, Ken Moore wrote:
> Windows (probably XT
> Home Ed.)
Don't waste your money on XP Home -- get XP Pro.
This goes for everyone, no matter what they are going to use it for
or where.
XP Media Edition is a version of XP Pro, BTW, and can be hacked to
allow something other
On 6 Oct 2006 at 14:51, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> At 02:15 PM 10/6/06 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >Look at the world of software in 1993, when the first version of
> >Office was created. It offered:
> > 1. Word 6
> > 2. Excel 5
> > 3. PowerPoint something-or-other
>
> 3. PowerPoint 4
>
I don't believe saxophone is included in an orchestra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra
I don't believe that the London Symphony Orchestra has saxophones in it.
Ken Moore wrote:
dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Garritan also made money by not including some very important
instrument
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 13:55:52 -0400, "David W. Fenton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The analogy to a notation package and a sequencer is unclear. Finale
> does not store its data as MIDI, so you couldn't just embed an
> existing sequencer into Finale. No sequencer I know of reads Finale
> data fi
Dennis, I believe that this is a Font Annotation issue. Darcy
pointed out a few days ago (maybe that was off list - to me, I don't
remember) that Font Annotation affecting ties happened around
2005/2006. In any case, I believe that the cure for this will be
adjusting the annotation for t
It is, if you're playing Ravel, among other composers...
On Oct 6, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
I don't believe saxophone is included in an orchestra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra
I don't believe that the London Symphony Orchestra has saxophones in
it.
Martin Banner
Regardless of when or how the sax has been used in orchestras, i believe
your are mischaracterizing Gary Garritan as he were someone that
deliberately left out a particular instrument to try to get more money
from you later. Many people know that Gary Garritan is one of the
nicest people in the in
At 03:09 PM 10/6/06 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
>Not Access 2, because that wasn't released until 1993, and the first
>Office bundle that included Access was the one released in 1994.
You're right. I have Office Professional 4.3 (the original box is still on
the shelf -- REAL MANUALS!), which I
Just a quick response to the complaint about instrumentation in
sample libraries.
Whoever makes them and markets them has to decide what to include and
what to leave out, just as MM must make similar decisions about their
products. It seems foolish to criticize the exclusion of one or two
On Oct 6, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
I don't believe saxophone is included in an orchestra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra
I don't believe that the London Symphony Orchestra has saxophones
in it.
Hey, the LSO doesn't even list a bass trombonist, so I don't know how
On Oct 6, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Steve Schow wrote:
Regardless of when or how the sax has been used in orchestras, i
believe
your are mischaracterizing Gary Garritan as he were someone that
deliberately left out a particular instrument to try to get more money
from you later. Many people know th
On Oct 6, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Steve Schow wrote:
Trying to interpret a midi file, which is essentially a captured
performance, and turn it into an appropriate notation is interesting,
but how useful? Doing the opposite, taking a notation and rendering a
reasonable performance is much more inter
On 6 Oct 2006 at 12:15, Steve Schow wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 13:55:52 -0400, "David W. Fenton"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > The analogy to a notation package and a sequencer is unclear. Finale
> > does not store its data as MIDI, so you couldn't just embed an
> > existing sequencer into Fin
Except when they're programming works which call for saxophone, and then
you can be there's saxophones in the London Symphony Orchestra. Every
orchestra maintains lists of first-call players for instruments which
they choose not to maintain a regular seat for.
David H. Bailey
Eric Dannewit
On 6 Oct 2006 at 15:31, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> At 03:09 PM 10/6/06 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >Not Access 2, because that wasn't released until 1993, and the first
> >Office bundle that included Access was the one released in 1994.
>
> You're right. I have Office Professional 4.3 (the
De Rein. Je suis content d'avoir ete capable d'aider.
Chuck
On Oct 6, 2006, at 12:48 PM, dc wrote:
Chuck Israels écrit:
Dennis, I believe that this is a Font Annotation issue. Darcy
pointed out a few days ago (maybe that was off list - to me, I don't
remember) that Font Annotation affecti
Steve Schow wrote:
Regardless of when or how the sax has been used in orchestras, i believe
your are mischaracterizing Gary Garritan as he were someone that
deliberately left out a particular instrument to try to get more money
from you later. Many people know that Gary Garritan is one of the
ni
Yes, and I'm sure every orchestra maintains lists for first call
Accordian players, and other instruments NOT regularly in the Orchestra.
You reinforced my point. Saxophone is not a regular part of an
Orchestra. Wind Ensemble/Orchestra, yes, but a traditional Orchestra, no.
dhbailey wrote:
Ex
At 04:00 PM 10/6/06 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
>So, it's perfectly possible to have a box that was purchased in one
>year that doesn't include what it says it includes!
I wasn't clear. I have the box, manuals and software. It is what it says.
It's the whole package, with Access 2.0, including
> Certainly it does. There is absolutely a provision for noting the key
> signature in a MIDI file. FInale has an option for inferring it, too,
> but if you write like I do, it will be useless.
Well, basically I used a bad example to mean the same thing. The point
is, with notation we write
Well, just a day or two ago, somebody claimed Finale did *not*
include a sequencer. But it obviously does.
Sequencing : Finale = Notation: Band in a Box or Sonar.
Well, just a day or two ago, somebody claimed Finale did *not*
include a sequencer. But it obviously does.
Sequ
On Oct 5, 2006, at 10:13 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
I do 19th century notation as well,
I'll bet you don't! Do you half-cancel a double sharp when a plain
sharp appears in the same bar? Does an accidental applied in one octave
apply to all other octaves? Do you write "G.P." over every
> But it doesn't include all the features that standalone sequencers
> include, such as piano roll editing (completely irrelevant, seems to
> me), or event editing (also irrelevant, as that's not the way the
> data is stored). I made both of these arguments at the time.
>
> Those are examples o
But, as I said a couple of days ago, much of this has been obviated
by the increasing sophistication of Human Playback, which makes it
unnecessary to manually edit many volume settings, for instance.
that's the ideal, of course -- to have Finale interpret the notation
into correct playback with
At 04:50 PM 10/6/06 -0400, Andrew Stiller wrote:
>Written musical notation is continuously and seamlessly evolving, and
>its current form can be characterized as "19th century" only as a
>deliberately inaccurate pejorative. You need to stop that.
19th century quirks aren't the same as 19th centu
Steve Schow wrote:
> Regardless of when or how the sax has been used in orchestras, i believe
> your are mischaracterizing Gary Garritan as he were someone that
> deliberately left out a particular instrument to try to get more money
> from you later. Many people know that Gary Garritan is o
On Oct 6, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
I don't believe saxophone is included in an orchestra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra
I don't believe that the London Symphony Orchestra has saxophones in
it.
It does when it needs to.
The Wikipedia article clearly needs tweaking
Group...
Somehow I started this bekakte topic about whether or not Finale is a sequencer
at about the same time I asked a question about wandering augmentation dots.
Has anyone been bitten by the wandering dot bug?
If so, are there definable circumstances that produce it? If so, what are th
Suddeny I see a Dutch word. What does bekakte mean in English? In Dutch
to bekakt means pretending to be chique and insisting on displaying it.
Williams, Jim wrote:
Group...
Somehow I started this bekakte topic
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu
At 11:43 PM 10/6/06 +0200, Barbara Touburg wrote:
>Suddeny I see a Dutch word. What does bekakte mean in English? In Dutch
>to bekakt means pretending to be chique and insisting on displaying it.
I'm sure you'll be swamped with replies. verkakte, vekakte, farkakte,
fakakta, fekokteh, farcockteh,
On Oct 6, 2006, at 1:11 PM, dhbailey wrote:
Steve Schow wrote:
Regardless of when or how the sax has been used in orchestras, i
believe
your are mischaracterizing Gary Garritan as he were someone that
deliberately left out a particular instrument to try to get more
money
from you later.
Barbara...
Op z'n Jiddisch betekent "bekakt" iets anders. ;-)
Jim
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Barbara Touburg
Sent: Fri 06-Oct-06 17:43
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: [Finale] Re: OT bekakte
Suddeny I see a Dutch word. What does bekakte mean in Englis
I understand all of this. I used to sell both. I am not here to develop
partisan positions, nor am I the person who swears by one OS or another
and prone to participation in wars of adamant allegiance to a product or
another. Microsoft's products are good products and many people enter the
fashion
David, points well taken, but I use the term integration as the ability
to make the programs inside a package communicate seamlessly. And, though
it's not integration at the level you understand it must be, Microsoft
has achieved
seamless communication between all of the programs inside Office. An
On 6 Oct 2006 at 19:43, John T Sylvanis wrote:
> My point
> was absolutely NOT to compare the two, but to use their presence as a
> vehicle of comparison related to the music software market.
Yes, and the point that David and I have been making is that it was a
poor choice of comparison that ha
On 6 Oct 2006 at 20:42, John T Sylvanis wrote:
> I use the term integration as the ability
> to make the programs inside a package communicate seamlessly.
That's an idiosyncratic definition that doesn't have much merit.
In any event, even that would be quite difficult and probably not
justified
At 12:11 PM -0700 10/6/06, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
I don't believe saxophone is included in an orchestra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra
You missed the asterisk! But in this case, Wikipedia fails to be all
things to all people, although it certainly tries hard. Saxophone is
a standard
On 6 Oct 2006 at 22:31, John Howell wrote:
> At 12:11 PM -0700 10/6/06, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
> >I don't believe saxophone is included in an orchestra.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra
>
> You missed the asterisk! But in this case, Wikipedia fails to be all
> things to all people, altho
Then go edit Wikipedia. However, I doubt they will take your edit. You
just said "standard additional instrument". It's not a standard
instrument, but an additional instrument. Get it? Ok, really slow
now.Standard...ADDITIONALinstrument.
So, yeah, they will ADD a saxophonist or
Jim,
I promised to write again so here it is.
I contacted this list because I am totally incompetent as to music
software. I iterated many times what I wanted, though ideal as it may
seem. All I want is to write a score into a notation package as Finale
and then play the results as realistically
That may be, the point still remains: produce notation software that has
realistic rendition which then can be recorded to
media. CD or tape or whatever may come in the future, for a demo. This
will liberate the composer from his eternal dependence of the musicians
or conductors. Why should the inc
Whether or you consider the sax a part of the orchestra or not, I have
yet to hear a sampled sax sound that couldn't totally destroy all of the
other instruments. In my concert band scores, usually replace the sax
sounds with clarinet so I can preserve some balance. I would love a
sampled class
55 matches
Mail list logo
