Hi Guys,
Can anyone confirm that the Cautionary Accidentals Plug-in is broken?
Greg Hamilton and I have both found this not to be working.
Thanks,
Chuck
Chuck Israels
cisra...@comcast.net
(360) 201-3434
8831 SE 12th Ave.
Portland OR 97202
It was really messed up in the early 2014 versions, but the current
patch is working for me.
I have always found that plug-in to be confusing. I only use Courtesy
naturals and Key cancellations, and always select parenthesize
On 11/17/2014 6:34 PM, Ryan wrote:
Is the Cautionary Accidentals
Is the Cautionary Accidentals plug-in still broken in 2014? Can't seem to
get the results I want.
Ryan
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
Has anyone found that running this plugin with parentheses unchecked sometimes
adds (gratuitous and confusing) parentheses to previously added accidentals
(real ones, not cautionary ones). I think I have noticed this only in
instruments that are transposing. After running the plugin, I have
Hi Chuck,
I've seen this too. Not sure what triggers it, but it's very annoying.
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org
On 4 Feb 2011, at 10:46 PM, Chuck Israels wrote:
Has anyone found that running this plugin with parentheses unchecked
sometimes adds (gratuitous and
Thanks, Darcy. Nice to know I'm not crazy, or just doing something that causes
this. I will report the bug.
Chuck
On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hi Chuck,
I've seen this too. Not sure what triggers it, but it's very annoying.
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB:
Anything I might say about the accidentals question has already been
said by someone ... but am I the only one who was bothered that, in
the measure in question, the music is unevenly spaced? The space
between beat 1 and 2 is distractingly larger than the space between
beat 2 and 3.
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
A few folks have said this, but it bothers me. Sophistication? Does
that mean this sophisticated singer is going to be insulted by
courtesy accidentals? Is the presence of courtesies actually a sales
limiter? Will these sophisticated buyers put the score back on the
Barbara Touburg wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 19 Nov 2007 at 15:26, Barbara Touburg wrote:
I agree -- I wouldn't add any cautionaries at all. It seems perfectly
fine to me, a problem that shows up only when reading the score.
That kind of mode shift is standard for the repertory and I
Michael Cook wrote:
I'd choose 1, f natural, without parentheses. This should remove any
confusion or hesitation while sight-reading, especially considering that
the barlines are dotted. I don't think it is necessary to draw attention
to the false relation between e flat and e natural: this is
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip] I would disagree with that. If you put them in they should be
cautionary, enclosed in some form of brackets. Putting them above the
notes is something you do when you are *changing* the notated note,
such as a notated B natural with an editorial flat above it,
On Nov 19, 2007, at 10:40 PM, Robert Patterson wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
Your argument would suggest that every single note should have a
courtesy accidental, and that's absurd.
Not only is it not absurd, it many styles it is by far the clearest
option. See, for example, the scores
Christopher Smith wrote:
The thing that was the most frustrating about the Finale aspect of this
job was that there was no setting or combination of settings that I
could find in the Cautionary Accidentals plugin that would give me what
I needed.
That's right. The Cautionary
On 20-Nov-07, at 8:53 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
Christopher Smith wrote:
The thing that was the most frustrating about the Finale aspect
of this job was that there was no setting or combination of
settings that I could find in the Cautionary Accidentals plugin
that would give me
On 20 Nov 2007 at 5:50, dhbailey wrote:
Barbara Touburg wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 19 Nov 2007 at 15:26, Barbara Touburg wrote:
I agree -- I wouldn't add any cautionaries at all. It seems perfectly
fine to me, a problem that shows up only when reading the score.
That kind of
On 20 Nov 2007 at 5:59, dhbailey wrote:
I've seen lots of editions of early music (mostly recorder music but
something in my memory is suggesting I've seen them in H.A.M. also)
where the editorial accidentals above the notes did NOT change the
unambiguous (to those who already knew the
At 5:53 AM -0500 11/20/07, dhbailey wrote:
But if someone would know the false relationship is a common feature
of this style of music, they would very likely also know that the F
would be lowered on the descending melodic line after having been
raised on the ascending line.
OK, several
On 20 Nov 2007 at 18:02, John Howell wrote:
At 5:53 AM -0500 11/20/07, dhbailey wrote:
But if someone would know the false relationship is a common feature
of this style of music, they would very likely also know that the F
would be lowered on the descending melodic line after having been
At 2:47 PM +0100 11/19/07, dc wrote:
I have several disagreements with other editors on cautionary
accidentals and would be interested in other opinions.
What cautionary accidentals would seem appropriate in the alto part,
m.5, of this piece, bearing in mind that it is for three (solo)
dc / 07.11.19 / 8:47 AM wrote:
1) fa natural
2) e natural
3) both
4) none
#4 in my logic.
I am answering without any knowledge of the style, hoping to win the
prize by chance.
:-)
--
- Hiro
Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com
dc wrote:
I have several disagreements with other editors on cautionary
accidentals and would be interested in other opinions.
What cautionary accidentals would seem appropriate in the alto part,
m.5, of this piece, bearing in mind that it is for three (solo) voices
(1610, if that makes any
On Mon, November 19, 2007 8:47 am, dc wrote:
What cautionary accidentals would seem appropriate in the alto part, m.5,
of this piece, bearing in mind that it is for three (solo) voices (1610,
if
that makes any difference):
http://www.philomela.net/ex/deus.jpg
1) fa natural
2) e natural
dc wrote:
I have several disagreements with other editors on cautionary
accidentals and would be interested in other opinions.
What cautionary accidentals would seem appropriate in the alto part,
m.5, of this piece, bearing in mind that it is for three (solo) voices
(1610, if that makes
dc wrote:
I have several disagreements with other editors on cautionary
accidentals and would be interested in other opinions.
What cautionary accidentals would seem appropriate in the alto part,
m.5, of this piece, bearing in mind that it is for three (solo) voices
(1610, if that makes any
On Mon, November 19, 2007 2:50 pm, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
In my view, it would depend upon the musical sophistication of the
likely users of the score. The more expert and familiar with early
music, the more one can omit both; the lower the level of
sophistication, the more necessary both
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Mon, November 19, 2007 2:50 pm, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
In my view, it would depend upon the musical sophistication of the
likely users of the score. The more expert and familiar with early
music, the more one can omit both; the lower the level of
sophistication,
On 19 Nov 2007 at 15:26, Barbara Touburg wrote:
dc wrote:
I have several disagreements with other editors on cautionary
accidentals and would be interested in other opinions.
What cautionary accidentals would seem appropriate in the alto part,
m.5, of this piece, bearing in mind
On 19 Nov 2007 at 9:30, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Mon, November 19, 2007 8:47 am, dc wrote:
What cautionary accidentals would seem appropriate in the alto part, m.5,
of this piece, bearing in mind that it is for three (solo) voices (1610,
if
that makes any difference):
On 19-Nov-07, at 4:25 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Mon, November 19, 2007 2:50 pm, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
In my view, it would depend upon the musical sophistication of the
likely users of the score. The more expert and familiar with early
music, the more one can omit both; the lower
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 19 Nov 2007 at 15:26, Barbara Touburg wrote:
I agree -- I wouldn't add any cautionaries at all. It seems perfectly
fine to me, a problem that shows up only when reading the score.
That kind of mode shift is standard for the repertory and I don't
think it would give
I'd choose 1, f natural, without parentheses. This should remove any
confusion or hesitation while sight-reading, especially considering
that the barlines are dotted. I don't think it is necessary to draw
attention to the false relation between e flat and e natural: this is
a common
On 19 Nov 2007 at 17:11, Michael Cook wrote:
I'd choose 1, f natural, without parentheses. This should remove any
confusion or hesitation while sight-reading, especially considering
that the barlines are dotted.
But it's not in the original source, and putting in without
parentheses
Wow. There are so many different reasons to object to what is basically a
reading aid little different from cleaning up the scribble and shortening
the notes for modern tastes, the thing that's already happening in a new
edition!
Were there no editorial decisions beyond that? If there were
On 19 Nov 2007 at 20:37, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
So what is expected? That the sophisticates want a skeletal version onto
which they can hang their ornamentational or chromatic laundry? And that
the non-sophisticates are given no guidance or suggestion?
I voted for leaving the score as it
On Mon, November 19, 2007 9:05 pm, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 19 Nov 2007 at 20:37, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
So what is expected? That the sophisticates want a skeletal version onto
which they can hang their ornamentational or chromatic laundry? And that
the non-sophisticates are given no
On 19 Nov 2007 at 21:31, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Mon, November 19, 2007 9:05 pm, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 19 Nov 2007 at 20:37, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
So what is expected? That the sophisticates want a skeletal version onto
which they can hang their ornamentational or
At 7:05 PM -0500 11/19/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 19 Nov 2007 at 17:11, Michael Cook wrote:
I'd choose 1, f natural, without parentheses. This should remove any
confusion or hesitation while sight-reading, especially considering
that the barlines are dotted.
But it's not in the
On 19 Nov 2007 at 22:18, John Howell wrote:
At 7:05 PM -0500 11/19/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 19 Nov 2007 at 17:11, Michael Cook wrote:
I'd choose 1, f natural, without parentheses. This should remove any
confusion or hesitation while sight-reading, especially considering
that
I notice that Dennis Collins, who started this foodfight, has been
mighty cagey about his own views. I'd like to hear 'em.
--
Robert Patterson
http://RobertGPatterson.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
On Nov 19, 2007, at 7:40 PM, Robert Patterson wrote:
If you omit a courtesy accidental, and if ever in any rehearsal a
musician stops it to ask, what is my note at blah-blah-blah, you
should have added the courtesy acci. In a pro orchestra rehearsal
that omitted acci could just
David W. Fenton wrote:
If you sing the notes that are clearly indicated on the page, it will
come out correctly.
That is true in any courtesy accidental situation. That is, hence, the
reason they are courtesy and not obligatory.
In my experience, many performers in many situations are not
I remember there was a problem with this plugin when it was first
released years ago. Tobias at the time brought out a corrected version.
The problem with the original version was that it messed up manually
included cautionaries.
I am wondering whether the current version which ships with
42 matches
Mail list logo
