On Mar 26, 2009, at 12:33 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 26 Mar 2009, at 12:29 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Mar 26, 2009, at 12:14 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 25 Mar 2009, at 11:49 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Hi Darcy,
Yes, good advice, but it still means having a separate part
On 26 Mar 2009, at 12:29 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Mar 26, 2009, at 12:14 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 25 Mar 2009, at 11:49 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Hi Darcy,
Yes, good advice, but it still means having a separate parts and
score file,
Except it doesn't! That was the enti
On Mar 26, 2009, at 12:14 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 25 Mar 2009, at 11:49 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Hi Darcy,
Yes, good advice, but it still means having a separate parts and
score file,
Except it doesn't! That was the entire point of my suggestion. It
is very easy to add non-
On 25 Mar 2009, at 11:49 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Hi Darcy,
Yes, good advice, but it still means having a separate parts and
score file,
Except it doesn't! That was the entire point of my suggestion. It is
very easy to add non-printing staves to your score file.
Cheers,
- Darcy
---
On 25 Mar 2009 at 23:49, Christopher Smith wrote:
> Yes, good advice, but it still means having a separate parts and
> score file
Hidden systems (in score view) means you have to have a separate file
for parts? How so? Are hidden systems not included in linked parts?
Or do you just have to un
On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:18 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
It would sure be nice if TGTools Smart Explosion still worked but
that's been broken for a long time, too.
Yup. That was a great tool in pre-linked parts days. That was the
original reason I bought the pro version, and it paid for itse
On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:09 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
In any event, can't you use linked parts for everything but the
voiced parts, and extract those parts individually? Doesn't seem like
the worst hardship ever, though I agree it's a pain to lose the
benefits of linked parts for any of your par
Hi All,
I just bit the bait and ordered '09, upgrading from '06, mostly
because I read somewhere
(on this list?) that the annoying behavior of having to completely re-
load Garriton sounds every time one switches
from one version of a document to another with the same sounds, was
fixed. I si
Hi Darcy,
Yes, good advice, but it still means having a separate parts and
score file, which I bend over backwards to avoid doing. I could have
a "score" that is actually a part made up of the staves I want, but
then I don't get all the automatic formatting that I normally get,
and time i
Hi David,
Mirrors can't do what voiced linked parts do. Voiced linked parts
allow you to set up rules like "always show the bottom note unless
there are notes in multiple layers, in which case show Layer 2" and
"always show unisons," etc. So mirrors wouldn't really be helpful in
this situ
On 25 Mar 2009 at 22:59, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> Add new, non-printing staves to the bottom of your score and explode the
> voiced linked parts to these staves (one part per stave) and use those
> staves as the source for your parts. This allows you to at least keep all
> of the parts in the
On 25 Mar 2009 at 21:46, Christopher Smith wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2009, at 8:52 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > On 25 Mar 2009 at 15:44, dhbailey wrote:
> >
> >> What a stupid logic for not fixing a bug -- if the
> >> automotive world had adopted that logic, we'd all still be
> >> crank-starting ou
You should send this in to support as a case (include your file). I
know from personal experience that they are very interested in keeping
things like this in check.
On Mar 25, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Scott Amort wrote:
Hello All,
I decided to try a new project in Finale 2009b and have come acro
Hi Chris,
While I agree this is a stupid bug and ought to be a high-priority fix
(although honestly I despair of linked parts ever seeing ANY
improvement, after two consecutive upgrades where linked parts were
completely ignored), there is a better solution than extraction:
Add new, non-p
On Mar 25, 2009, at 8:52 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 25 Mar 2009 at 15:44, dhbailey wrote:
What a stupid logic for not fixing a bug -- if the
automotive world had adopted that logic, we'd all still be
crank-starting our cars
But software and cars are two different things, so there's absol
David W. Fenton wrote:
I know that with Christopher's help you've already identified what is
a likely cause, but one thing to always consider in Vista (and other
versions of Windows, too) is if running Finale in one of the
compatibility modes makes a difference.
Thanks, David. I did give this
On 25 Mar 2009 at 15:44, dhbailey wrote:
> What a stupid logic for not fixing a bug -- if the
> automotive world had adopted that logic, we'd all still be
> crank-starting our cars
But software and cars are two different things, so there's absolutely
no reason at all to think an analogy that t
On 25 Mar 2009 at 15:30, Scott Amort wrote:
> After a bit of searching, I discovered that this process is invoked when
> printing from a 32-bit application to a 64-bit driver. So, it seems the
> culprit is Vista. However, Finale 2009 is the only application that
> gives me this error. And, Fina
Christopher Smith wrote:
Are you using non-Finale fonts? I had a problem once with that on my Mac
with an old, old font. I don't know what the issues could be with Vista,
though.
No, just Engraver and Tamburo.
The other thing is, are you using any Custom arrowheads in Smart Shapes?
These WIL
Are you using non-Finale fonts? I had a problem once with that on my
Mac with an old, old font. I don't know what the issues could be with
Vista, though.
The other thing is, are you using any Custom arrowheads in Smart
Shapes? These WILL break a PDF or PostScript output, in my case
causin
On 25-Mar-09, at 25-Mar-09 2:27 PM, Stephen Lamb wrote:
I'm editing a file in FinMac 06 where the percussion clef, the
rectangle in the middle of the first row of the clef selection box,
has turned into a small check mark that displays on the top of the
staff. Several other clefs have be
dhbailey wrote:
David McKay wrote:
I attempted to post this earlier, but never saw the post.
Is Finwin 09 an advance on Finwin 2004?
Is it worth upgrading? My wife uses the program to do music worksheets
and I
mainly use it to write transpositions, these days and occasionally use
it to
writ
David McKay wrote:
I attempted to post this earlier, but never saw the post.
Is Finwin 09 an advance on Finwin 2004?
Is it worth upgrading? My wife uses the program to do music worksheets and I
mainly use it to write transpositions, these days and occasionally use it to
write arrangements.
Tha
I attempted to post this earlier, but never saw the post.
Is Finwin 09 an advance on Finwin 2004?
Is it worth upgrading? My wife uses the program to do music worksheets and I
mainly use it to write transpositions, these days and occasionally use it to
write arrangements.
Thanks for any help you
I agree, this is not a logical argument. If there were a workaround
that took a little fussing but still allowed the advantages of linked
parts, I'd be more inclined to agree with MM's thinking on this, but
this definition of a "workaround" really means there is no workaround,
you just hav
Chuck Israels wrote:
[snip]MM people tell me that the order of
priority for bug fixes is dependent upon whether or not there is a
workaround, in this case, extracting the affected parts. I get that
but,to me, that is not exactly a workaround, it's more an abandonment of
a deeply imbedded feat
Hello All,
I decided to try a new project in Finale 2009b and have come across a
major problem printing to PDF. I have Adobe Acrobat 9.1 (full version)
installed, and am running on Vista Ultimate 64-bit. When I try to print
to the Adobe PDF driver, I get an error:
thunking spooler apis from
I'm editing a file in FinMac 06 where the percussion clef, the
rectangle in the middle of the first row of the clef selection box,
has turned into a small check mark that displays on the top of the
staff. Several other clefs have been replaced by other characters,
like a double sharp and a
Thanks so much for clearing that up! I was trying to *import* the MIDI
file! Duh!
Thurletta
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 dhbailey wrote:
You don't import midi files -- in the File Open dialog there
is a drop-down menu where you can choose the file type, and
it shows .mus by default but you can change
Those of you who pointed out that this was a mouse issue, not a Finale
one, were correct. My Logitech MX Revolution has been plaguing me
with unwanted double clicks for quite a while, and I was mistakenly
assigning the problem to Finale. Reverting to another (less fancy,
but otherwise OK)
Probably July, as usual, and I suspect there will be a few useful
fixes. If I were MM, I'd be thinking about how to make the chords
work like the new dynamics - attach to places in the measure that
don't necessarily have entries. Greg Hamilton pointed out to me that,
since that had alread
Pretty much for the added sounds ... I do a fair amount of Band
writing, and it would be nice to have Sax sounds available, as well
as (I assume) some more perc. also.
Dean
On Mar 25, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
What is your reason for wanting to upgrade? Is there something i
Yep ... same mailing. When is 2010 likely to make an appearance?
Dean
On Mar 25, 2009, at 9:41 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
I'm beginning to weaken and am considering upgrading from MacFin
07 to 09. What is the present consensus of the bugginess of
09 ... I mean, my 07
Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
I'm beginning to weaken and am considering upgrading from MacFin 07 to
09. What is the present consensus of the bugginess of 09 ... I mean,
my 07 is working pretty much as advertised, and I don't need grief in my
notational life ... any thoughts one way or the other?
No, there certainly is no emergency.
Dean
On Mar 25, 2009, at 8:50 AM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
I'd wait. Unless there is something you absolutely need in 09...
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Dean M. Estabrook
wrote:
I'm beginning to weaken and am considering upgrading from MacFin
0
What is your reason for wanting to upgrade? Is there something in
Fin09 in particular that you find attractive?
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
> I'm beginning to weaken and am considering upgrading from MacFin 07 to 09.
> What is the present consensus of the buggines
I think so too - as close as we are to 2010.
Chuck
On Mar 25, 2009, at 8:50 AM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
I'd wait. Unless there is something you absolutely need in 09...
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Dean M. Estabrook
wrote:
I'm beginning to weaken and am considering upgrading from
I'd wait. Unless there is something you absolutely need in 09...
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
> I'm beginning to weaken and am considering upgrading from MacFin 07 to 09.
> What is the present consensus of the bugginess of 09 ... I mean, my 07 is
> working pret
I'm beginning to weaken and am considering upgrading from MacFin 07
to 09. What is the present consensus of the bugginess of 09 ... I
mean, my 07 is working pretty much as advertised, and I don't need
grief in my notational life ... any thoughts one way or the other?
Presently on a G5,
Thanks for this tip, Allen!
Larry
-
Larry Beekman Guitar Studio
www.larrybeekman.com
On Mar 24, 2009, at 10:19 PM, Allen Fisher wrote:
Can't you just turn on fretboards and select where you do not want
them to appear and do Utilities-->Change-->Chord Assig
Thurletta Brown-Gavins wrote:
Thanks, to all who contacted me both on and off list. My problem has
been solved and this gave me a chance to use my new Finale 2009. I never
got Finale to process the MIDI files (seemed to want them to be in XML
format or something), but the MUS files saved the da
Honestly, this reminds me a bit of Finale vs. Score discussions.
People who have invested a lot of time and effort learning how to get
good output from Score are (understandably) reluctant to admit to the
possibility that they have wasted their time, and that better options
now exist, for a
42 matches
Mail list logo
