On 25/07/05, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 01:16 PM 7/25/05 +, Robert Patterson wrote:
>
>> one must remember that different pages have different staff
>> configurations. (Look at any Mahler Symphony score.) On one
>> page Fls 1&2 share a staff. The next page they may sp
At 01:16 PM 7/25/05 +, Robert Patterson wrote:
>one must remember that different pages have different staff
>configurations. (Look at any Mahler Symphony score.) On one
>page Fls 1&2 share a staff. The next page they may split onto
>2 staves. Even worse, on one page Hns 1,3,5,7 share a staff
David Bailey:
>
> I'm not sure you can say the output is superior -- the ability to work
> in modes that Sibelius doesn't approve of is superior in Finale, but the
> output to paper can look gorgeous with either program
>
I believe this is what I said, too, in so many words.
> So, apparently
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 Sib doesn't approve of.)
If yo
Michael Cook wrote:
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
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
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
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
--- 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 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
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
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 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
> > 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
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
--- 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 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
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
- 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
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
ROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality
>
> 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.
> >
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
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
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
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
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
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
