Date: Sun, 30 May 2010
Chris Bell ch...@directionsinmusic.com wrote:
As a pianist/keyboardist I would feel confused by both of them.
1 I don't like the broken 16ths
I agree. Anything that makes the rhythm more difficult to grasp is undesirable.
(I hate the old style vocal scores that divide
At 12:00 PM 5/30/2010 -0500, Noel wrote:
The only way I ever found to hide lyrics in FIN 2k4 is a kludge. Define
the staff, and set the baseline position relative to the staff so that
the lyric is off the page. So let's say you're doing multiple verses in
a grand staff, and you want to hide the
Dear Bob,
Make the change. I'll be back home tomorrow, and I can help then.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On May 31, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Bob Clifton bclift...@earthlink.net
wrote:
At 12:00 PM 5/30/2010 -0500, Noel wrote:
The only way I ever found to hide lyrics in FIN 2k4 is a kludge.
According to Hoyle, or whoever the expert may be ... is the Re-beam
for Lyrics tool now passe?
Dean
I have opened my soul/To let in the warmth of sound/Now my saving grace
Adrian Estabrook, author
Dean M. Estabrook
http://sites.google.com/site/deanestabrook/
Hi All,
I am using FinMac2010b and OS X 10.6.3. I am in the middle of a big
project and needed to use the Undo/Redo List but was surprised to find
that it's no longer in my Edit menu:
http://leighdaniels.com/pub/editmenu.jpg
Here's how I have Program OptionsEdit set up:
Does this work?
Undo button, go to Edit -- Program Options -- Edit and make sure
Allow Undo is checked and look to see the number of undos allowed.
Steve
On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:33:23 -0400 Leigh Daniels lcdpub...@comcast.net
writes:
Hi All,
I am using FinMac2010b and OS X 10.6.3. I am in
Yes.
Beams are for unambiguously indicating beat divisions and subdivisions. Trying
to get beams to indicate other things (syllabification, phrasing, etc) is a
tradition I'm very happy to see die.
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org
On 31 May 2010, at 12:19 PM, Dean
Ah, two things ... thank you, and ... where the hell have I been
for the last decade or two? However, I'm probably more to be pitied
than censored ... I hit the big 70 next week.
Dean
On May 31, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Yes.
Beams are for unambiguously indicating
On 31 May 2010 at 12:43, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Beams are for unambiguously indicating beat divisions and
subdivisions. Trying to get beams to indicate other things
(syllabification, phrasing, etc) is a tradition I'm very happy to see
die.
I'm not as categorical, but that may be because I
At 2:50 PM -0400 5/31/10, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 31 May 2010 at 12:43, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Beams are for unambiguously indicating beat divisions and
subdivisions. Trying to get beams to indicate other things
(syllabification, phrasing, etc) is a tradition I'm very happy to see
die.
On May 31, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
According to Hoyle, or whoever the expert may be ... is the Re-
beam for Lyrics tool now passe?
Are you asking if the tool still works, or whether no one uses that
style anymore?
I like the modern beaming convention. Beaming to
Yeah, really, what *was* Stravinsky thinking?
Not sure whose rule it is that beams are for beat divisions. Sometimes beat
divisions and metrical divisions aren't the same. I always use beaming for
metrical divisions that conflict with time signatures.
As for lyrics, I remain of two minds. It
On 31 May 2010 at 15:04, John Howell wrote:
I have ALWAYS used
instrumental beaming in my vocal arrangements because it is so much
easier to read, and non-beaming conveys no useful information.
I certainly do that myself, though I reserve the right to break beams
on syllables where it's also
This raises an important issue in the development of notation.
If a program such as Finale can only do a subset of things or things only in a
defined way, that helps to determine what becomes canonic.
Innovations that composers might have initiated are restrained by an industry
model that is
On Mon, May 31, 2010 3:25 pm, Graeme Gerrard wrote:
If a program such as Finale can only do a subset of things or things only in
a defined way, that helps to determine what becomes canonic.
Innovations that composers might have initiated are restrained by an industry
model that is about
I knew there was something I liked about Igor ...
Dean
On May 31, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Yeah, really, what *was* Stravinsky thinking?
Not sure whose rule it is that beams are for beat divisions.
Sometimes beat
divisions and metrical divisions aren't the same. I
No, no my tool still works fine ... which, considering my age
is remarkable ... I was asking about notational convention(s).
Looks like I just need to adjust to the times.
Dean
On May 31, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:
On May 31, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
On Mon May 31, at MondayMay 31 2:50 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Yeah, really, what *was* Stravinsky thinking?
WELL...
He changed his mind a few times about rhythmic notation throughout
his career, most likely to make things more clear to the performer,
as far as I can see. I don't
Stravinsky's music is of course notoriously easy to sight-read.
[grin]
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org
On 31 May 2010, at 2:50 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Yeah, really, what *was* Stravinsky thinking?
___
Finale
At 5:25 AM +1000 6/1/10, Graeme Gerrard wrote:
This raises an important issue in the development of notation.
If a program such as Finale can only do a subset of things or
things only in a defined way, that helps to determine what becomes
canonic.
Innovations that composers might have
Here's the setting:
Here's how I have Program OptionsEdit set up:
http://leighdaniels.com/pub/editprogopt.png
On Mon, May 31, 2010, Steven C Nilson snils...@juno.com wrote:
Does this work?
Undo button, go to Edit -- Program Options -- Edit and make sure
Allow Undo is checked and look to
On Mon, May 31, 2010 4:06 pm, Christopher Smith wrote:
I wouldn't want to put odd notation in front of a
sight-reading orchestra musician today; I would want it as clear as
possible.
So here's the problem. Composers are gold you shouldn't indicate phrasing with
slurs because string players
On 31 May 2010 at 20:55, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
So what's the solution? I just expect musicians to understand that
beaming primarily indicates organization in linear time -- *not*
organization to time signatures. (We used to call that the tyranny of
the barline.)
For music that is
(We used to call that the tyranny of the barline.)
Like Bartók's tyranny of the major and minor modes?
Aaron J. Rabushka
arabus...@austin.rr.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
On Mon, May 31, 2010 9:06 pm, David W. Fenton wrote:
For music that is metrical and an organization according to the
barline, it is, I think, foolish to contradict that with beaming,
unless the point is to explicitly indicate that something is
happening in contradistinction to the underlying
On Mon May 31, at MondayMay 31 8:55 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 4:06 pm, Christopher Smith wrote:
I wouldn't want to put odd notation in front of a
sight-reading orchestra musician today; I would want it as clear as
possible.
So here's the problem. Composers are
On May 31, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I've broken beams from the beat a few times, when it conveys the
information better. A few unassailable examples:
3/4 + 6/8 in alternating measures even when it isn't marked in the
time signature (and other types of hemiola),
three
27 matches
Mail list logo
