Will Roberts wrote:
[snip]>
To be honest I think Sibelius's reputation for having a draconian copy
protection scheme is unjustified, particularly since Finale 2004
introduced almost exactly the same system, except that with Finale you
still can't de-authorize one of your computers without getti
Rocky Road wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, doesn't Sibelius have a little copy protection/activation code
problem that ought to prevent you from switching, given that you
won't upgrade past Finale 2003?
Yep, they've got the same call-response sort of activation scheme that
Finale has
Rocky Road wrote:
Do they allow two "locations" like Finale do from the one purchase? I have
Finale on my laptop for mobile work and on a desktop computer for office
work.
Yes. And they are very nice about reformat (emergency or otherwise, new
machines, and all of the other reasons a registr
Rocky Road wrote:
Do they allow two "locations" like Finale do from the one purchase? I
have Finale on my laptop for mobile work and on a desktop computer for
office work.
Yes, they do. And unlike Finale, you can also use an "unregister"
function to automatically unregister one copy with th
David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, doesn't Sibelius have a little copy protection/activation code
problem that ought to prevent you from switching, given that you
won't upgrade past Finale 2003?
Yep, they've got the same call-response sort of activation scheme
that Finale has.
Sibelius was ver
--- dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>We've already been told that Finale almost had linked
>score/parts a
>while ago and it was nearing completion when it was
>yanked in favor of
>other programming directions.
I should have kept my mouth shut for the last couple
of days! I apologize for t
On 9 Jul 2005 at 0:08, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> David W. Fenton schrieb:
> >>The cadenza example was about having more measures in the part than
> >>there are in the score.
> >
> > Hmm. Easily handled by optimizing out the cadenza systems in the
> > printed score, no?
> >
> > Why make it harder
David W. Fenton schrieb:
The cadenza example was about having more measures in the part than
there are in the score.
Hmm. Easily handled by optimizing out the cadenza systems in the
printed score, no?
Why make it harder than that?
Actually I don't think this is sufficient. What if the la
On 8 Jul 2005 at 10:55, Andrew Stiller wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2005, at 6:56 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> >> Tacet movements and other omitted or added measures for one part
> >> (e.g., optional cadenza not written out in score)?
> >>
> >> Cue notes--not in score, and different in different parts?
>
John Howell wrote:
At 11:18 PM +0200 7/7/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
And much more basic: as Robert remarked it is absolutely essential to
have separate spacing for each part. The way that Finale's spacing
works I fear that this might indeed make the "one file, different
views" approach incr
On 08 Jul 2005, at 5:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, if your computer supports only USB 1.x, attaching a USB 2 MIDI
interface won't get you USB 2 performance.
My suggestion was predicated on getting a USB 2.0 PCI card.
Another option I forgot to mention earlier: if you have built-in
Blue
On 8 Jul 2005 at 6:35, dhbailey wrote:
> David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> [snip]> Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
> >
> > And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
> > cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
>
> USB2 midi interfaces are just external devic
On Jul 7, 2005, at 6:56 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Tacet movements and other omitted or added measures for one part
(e.g., optional cadenza not written out in score)?
Cue notes--not in score, and different in different parts?
Cadenza and cue notes sounds like the same thing to me, and I thin
At 11:18 PM +0200 7/7/05, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
And much more basic: as Robert remarked it is absolutely essential
to have separate spacing for each part. The way that Finale's
spacing works I fear that this might indeed make the "one file,
different views" approach incredibly complicated, a
On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 at 17:13, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Do you have a non-USB keyboard port? If so, I'd try getting the
keyboard off the USB bus so that MIDI is on USB and the rhythmic
values you'
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip]> Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
USB2 midi interfaces are just external devices which connect to the
computer via the USB port. The
On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
Yes, I believe Chris's Mac has only USB 1.1.
And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
I think you misunderstood Johannes.
David W. Fenton schrieb:
Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
Of course Macs support add on cards (at least those that have PCI).
The System doesn't support old fashio
> Don't current Macs ship with USB 2 already?
Most current macs ship with USB 2, Firewire 400 and Firewire 800.
> And if I understood Johannes correctly, Macs don't support add-on
> cards, so how do you add a USB 2 MIDI interface?
Of course they do. Mac supports USB and Firewire PCI cards for e
On 8 Jul 2005 at 1:13, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> David W. Fenton schrieb:
> > Well, what about a non-USB MIDI interface? Did they also take away
> > the printer port (isn't that what used to be used for MIDI, given
> > how I remember all the complaints about contention for the port?)?
>
> Without
On 7 Jul 2005 at 19:14, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > High-end machines that are used for music ought to have options.
>
> All Macs -- high-end or not -- now have USB 2 and FireWire, both of
> which have more than enough bandwidth to spare fo
On 07 Jul 2005, at 7:02 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
High-end machines that are used for music ought to have options.
All Macs -- high-end or not -- now have USB 2 and FireWire, both of
which have more than enough bandwidth to spare for MIDI.
I agree, USB 1.1 is inadequate for MIDI + everythi
David W. Fenton schrieb:
Well, what about a non-USB MIDI interface? Did they also take away
the printer port (isn't that what used to be used for MIDI, given how
I remember all the complaints about contention for the port?)?
Without wanting to fuel a completely unnecessary platform war her
On 7 Jul 2005 at 23:18, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> Andrew Stiller schrieb:
> >
> > On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
> >
> >> In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
> >> view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are
> >> reflected immediat
David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, it can't be done by event count, since you can have a different
number of events. If you get 16 from the MIDI interface and 15 from
the keyboard, you want the extra from the MIDI interface ignored,
because it didn't have a corresponding rhythmic value.
Likewise,
On 7 Jul 2005 at 17:13, Christopher Smith wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> > Do you have a non-USB keyboard port? If so, I'd try getting the
> > keyboard off the USB bus so that MIDI is on USB and the rhythmic
> > values you're typing is *not* on USB.
>
> Umm, AFA
On 7 Jul 2005 at 16:43, Andrew Stiller wrote:
> > "Link/Unlink to score" would be great.
> >
> > - Darcy
>
> Indeed it would--provided that turning on this feature did not
> immediately change anything in either linked file.
I don't think that's a very good idea. It seems to me that creating
a
On 7 Jul 2005 at 16:36, Andrew Stiller wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
>
> >
> > In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
> > view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are
> > reflected immediately in the parts and vice versa is b
And you can add to these: music examples for books.
BF
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
David W. Fenton opined:
part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't
preparing any performance materials at all.
Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
par
Hi Chris,
You have two possible solutions:
1) Get a FireWire MIDI interface.
2) Get a USB 2.0 card and a Belkin Tetrahub:
http://tinyurl.com/6s9mf
I have a FW MIDI interface and I never have a problem with Speedy not
keeping up with MIDI input.
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 07 Jul 2005, at 4:36 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are
reflected immediately in the parts and vice versa is because th
Andrew Stiller schrieb:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are reflected
immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the notes are only
stored in
On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Do you have a non-USB keyboard port? If so, I'd try getting the
keyboard off the USB bus so that MIDI is on USB and the rhythmic
values you're typing is *not* on USB.
Umm, AFAIK USB is the only option for Mac keyboard plugging in.
That ac
On 7 Jul 2005 at 10:15, Technoid wrote:
> On 7/6/05, Aaron Sherber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
> > view of the score.
>
> >From a software engineering standpoint, this is the way it should be.
> Word processors and many oth
"Link/Unlink to score" would be great.
- Darcy
Indeed it would--provided that turning on this feature did not
immediately change anything in either linked file.
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mai
On 7 Jul 2005 at 1:00, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> > Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam
> > algorithm. Even now, I often find myself "getting ahead" of Speedy
> > Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale "remembers" the
> > numeric k
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
view of the score. The reason that note changes to score are reflected
immediately in the parts and vice versa is because the notes are only
stored in one place. On the other
On 7 Jul 2005 at 0:22, Christopher Smith wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 11:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
[]
> > Is your MIDI interface USB? If so, you may have something else
> > contending for the bandwidth of the USB interface, and that could be
> > the reason you're having the problem.
>
> I ha
On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:00 AM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Christopher Smith wrote:
Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself "getting ahead" of Speedy
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale "remembers" the
numeric keypad keys
On 7/6/05, Aaron Sherber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special
> view of the score.
>From a software engineering standpoint, this is the way it should be.
Word processors and many other applications have been doing this for
years: Store t
Richard Yates wrote:
Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
part extraction: 1) hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and
printed in close score, and 2) songs, including pop vocal music, and 3)
choral music, where the voice parts are printed in full score,
Owain Sutton wrote:
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
David W. Fenton opined:
part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't
preparing any performance materials at all.
Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
part extraction: 1) hymn tunes an
Christopher Smith wrote:
Yet my concern about slowdown holds even more with a new beam
algorithm. Even now, I often find myself "getting ahead" of Speedy
Entry. I discovered, disconcertingly, that Finale "remembers" the
numeric keypad keys I hit for rhythmic values in sequential order (as
you
On Jul 6, 2005, at 11:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
A plugin for repeats is certainly more appropriate, in my opinion,
than a plugin for beaming, but I still think the basic functionality
of repeats is obtuse and ridiculous. In my database application
programming I have a rule: never require a
On 6 Jul 2005 at 23:10, Christopher Smith wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:47 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > On 6 Jul 2005 at 21:17, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >>>
> On
On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:47 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Jul 2005 at 21:17, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
It'll be
interesting to see how t
On 6 Jul 2005 at 21:17, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> It'll be
> interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeat
On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:39 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
It'll be
interesting to see how the new mid-measure repeats business works
and whether or not it will adjust the measure numbers
appropria
On Jul 6, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
That's a very good idea. I was wondering myself how to solve that
particular problem, but if Finale just integrates Patterson Beams
into the Beam Options, well, there's your solution right there.
-
Agreed, so please write MM (as I h
> > Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
> > part extraction: 1) hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and
> > printed in close score, and 2) songs, including pop vocal music, and 3)
> > choral music, where the voice parts are printed in full score, or in
On 6 Jul 2005 at 14:58, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:21 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > And it would also be nice, if, for instance, you could format your
> > linked parts, then save a single part out to a separate file, which
> > would no longer be connected to the score, so
On 06 Jul 2005, at 7:06 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Now, whether or not things like beam breakage and angle and other
elements that are at some level purely "cosmetic" should be linked, I
don't know. I can't think of a strong argument either way for
beaming, though I think that, in particular, av
On 6 Jul 2005 at 13:46, John Howell wrote:
> At 5:22 AM -0500 7/6/05, Jim wrote:
> >David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i
> >see here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you
> >enlighten me as to their benefit? I'm not sure I see the benefit of
> >having
On 6 Jul 2005 at 10:36, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
> David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> >Other than Andrew, who has suggested anything else?
> >
> >Didn't we start from the Sibelius demo, which gives examples of
> >editing in both the score and the part, and how in each case, the
> >changes appear in the othe
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
David W. Fenton opined:
part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't
preparing any performance materials at all.
Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
part extraction: 1) hymn tunes and song books, which are
On 6 Jul 2005 at 13:05, Andrew Stiller wrote:
>
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:53 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > If part view is just a view of the underlying data, you
> > automatically get two-way linking. That is, changes to the score
> > appear in the parts, and changes to the parts appear in the
David W. Fenton opined:
part extraction is something *everyone* has to do, unless they aren't preparing
any performance materials at all.
Among the sizeable areas of publishing today do not make much use of
part extraction: 1) hymn tunes and song books, which are prepared and
printed in
Andrew,
Two-way dynamic linking is implicit in the notion of Dynamic Parts.
Everything we've been talking about assumes two-way dynamic linking as
a starting point.
If the "Auto Page Turns" plugin can be fixed and integrated into the
Extract Parts/Extract Dynamic Parts dialog, that seems li
On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:21 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
And it would also be nice, if, for instance, you could format your
linked parts, then save a single part out to a separate file, which
would no longer be connected to the score, so you could then make
changes to that part (like Darcy's change
At 08:34 AM 7/6/2005, you wrote:
More useful to me would be *reverse* linking, because part extraction
provides the final proofreading check of the score, particularly for
things like arco/pizz. and con/senza sord. It would indeed be very nice,
therefore, to be able to make a change to a pa
On Jul 6, 2005, at 7:30 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:On the matter of whether features are "just" plugins, it would be relatively simple for MM (and Finale's users) to have cake and eat it too. Two extensions of the plugin interface would integrate them in ways that would erase much of the distinctio
At 5:22 AM -0500 7/6/05, Jim wrote:
David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i
see here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you
enlighten me as to their benefit?
I'm not sure I see the benefit of having an ex-post change made to a
PART be reflected in the
David W. Fenton wrote:
Other than Andrew, who has suggested anything else?
Didn't we start from the Sibelius demo, which gives examples of
editing in both the score and the part, and how in each case, the
changes appear in the other? And how layout issues are independent
for the two views?
At 01:05 PM 07/06/2005, Andrew Stiller wrote:
>Part view is something you (not me, I never use it) use before the
>actual parts are extracted. Any dynamic linkage feature that I can ever
>conceive using would be applicable to parts that have *already been
>extracted and edited* and are therefore i
On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:53 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
If part view is just a view of the underlying data, you automatically
get two-way linking. That is, changes to the score appear in the
parts, and changes to the parts appear in the score. The exception to
this is, of course, spacing, which is
On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:24, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
> Indeed. I think Dynamic parts is something that needs to be added to
> Finale ASAP. But it needs to go BOTH WAYS, as other readers of pointed
> out. When I do changes, it's usually after someone PROOFED it on a
> part.
Other than Andrew, who has sugg
On 6 Jul 2005 at 11:34, Andrew Stiller wrote:
> Thinking about the issue of linked parts, I realize that what I would
> like is considerably less than that. Dynamic linking is useful only if
> you make musically significant changes in the score that need to be
> reflected in the parts. I won't
On 6 Jul 2005 at 14:14, Robert Patterson wrote:
> The last two annual releases reveal that MM is concerned with other
> matters than notation. Unfortunately for those of us who care about
> notation, MM's actions suggest that they believe there is more money
> in other aspects of the music busines
On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:57, Christopher Smith wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >
> > I have always felt that the easiest way for Finale to get "linked
> > parts" (I hesitate to use that expression, since it seems tied into
> > the in my opinion erroneous idea that the parts
Indeed. I think Dynamic parts is something that needs to be added to
Finale ASAP. But it needs to go BOTH WAYS, as other readers of pointed
out. When I do changes, it's usually after someone PROOFED it on a part.
Makemusic hasn't announced any major updates (yet) to Smartmusic. I'd
think they
On 6 Jul 2005 at 5:22, Jim wrote:
> David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i see
> here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you enlighten
> me as to their benefit? I'm not sure I see the benefit of having an
> ex-post change made to a PART be reflected in t
Generally many of you haven't been happy with the
mass-market features introduced in Finale. Come up
with one or two of your own that MakeMusic has the
ability to implement and can be marketed to a wide
audience.
Tyler
Sigh. This argument is depressingly familiar. "Generally many of you
hav
At 11:34 AM 7/6/05 -0400, Andrew Stiller wrote:
>Dynamic linking is useful only if
>you make musically significant changes in the score that need to be
>reflected in the parts. I won't say I never do that, but it only
>happens once or twice a year, and almost never impacts more than one or
>t
On 5 Jul 2005 at 22:43, Tyler Turner wrote:
> --- Darcy James Argue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We did.
> >
> > A while back, many of the people on this list came
> > up with a
> > reasonably detailed plan for implementing a feature
> > that looks very
> > much like Sibelius's Dynamic P
Thinking about the issue of linked parts, I realize that what I would
like is considerably less than that. Dynamic linking is useful only if
you make musically significant changes in the score that need to be
reflected in the parts. I won't say I never do that, but it only
happens once or tw
dhbailey wrote:
And the new data format for Finale2K5 has been released publicly?
Finale2K4?
I won't speak to "publicly", as I'm uncertain of this; I would submit,
though, that it is instructive to compare the apparently outside the
Coda / Net4Music / MakeMusic organization who have written
On the matter of whether features are "just" plugins, it would be relatively
simple for MM (and Finale's users) to have cake and eat it too. Two extensions
of the plugin interface would integrate them in ways that would erase much of
the distinction.
1. Plugins should be able to add themselves
I haven't read much of this thread, but I would advise anyone to read marketing
hype with liberal doses of salt. If Sib's new feature works as well as
marketed, it will be a first for the computer industry.
That said, I know enough about Enigma data structures to speculate that MM
could probabl
On Jul 5, 2005, at 8:10 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
Another observation - if Finale implemented a score-part link that was
anything like part extraction, I'd simply not use it, because it
wouldn't do what I needed. I always end up making parts by deleting
staves manually from the score. What ex
On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:57 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I have always felt that the easiest way for Finale to get "linked
parts" (I hesitate to use that expression, since it seems tied into
the in my opinion erroneous idea that the parts should be in separate
files, linked back to a score file) was
Jim wrote:
David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i see
here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you enlighten me
as to their benefit?
I'm not sure I see the benefit of having an ex-post change made to a
PART be reflected in the SCORE. Some changes in p
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
That is, by contemplating switching to Sibelius, aren't you
contemplating getting yourself into a much worse situation than you
are with activated Finale?
I would say so. The Sibelius data file structure is proprietary, and it
is illegal in
Tyler Turner wrote:
[snip]
It's great that MakeMusic can focus features on the
engravers because of their importance - but it's a lot
better when the features that help the engravers can
also help the majority of the users.
Amen to that! And linked scores/parts would help everybody because t
y 06, 2005 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
Jim wrote:
[snip]
*For me, it's all about doing the best job with the least amount of
nuisance.
[snip]
So you're saying that having a mixer will reduce nuisance far more than
linked score
Jim wrote:
[snip]
*For me, it's all about doing the best job with the least amount of
nuisance.
[snip]
So you're saying that having a mixer will reduce nuisance far more than
linked score/parts?
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mai
David W. Fenton wrote:
That is, by contemplating switching to Sibelius, aren't you
contemplating getting yourself into a much worse situation than you
are with activated Finale?
I would say so. The Sibelius data file structure is proprietary, and it
is illegal in the U.S. under the DMCA, t
--- Darcy James Argue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tyler,
>
> We did.
>
> A while back, many of the people on this list came
> up with a
> reasonably detailed plan for implementing a feature
> that looks very
> much like Sibelius's Dynamic Parts. Between us, we
> decided exactly how
> it
On 06 Jul 2005, at 12:51 AM, Tyler Turner wrote:
Generally many of you haven't been happy with the
mass-market features introduced in Finale. Come up
with one or two of your own that MakeMusic has the
ability to implement and can be marketed to a wide
audience
Tyler,
We did.
A while back, m
--- Richard Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well,
> whatever you are doing ain't working so well.
Please don't misunderstand - I'm a former employee of
MakeMusic. I'm not one now, and I don't speak
officially for them. I'm trying to help out by giving
you some ideas for how you can have a bett
>Engravers, while
> a much smaller group, are critical for the success of
> Finale because they are key in setting Finale's
> reputation.
I have no reason to think that this list is not reasonably representative of
the engravers who you say are key in setting Finale's reputation. Well,
whatever yo
--- Owain Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What market IS MakeMusic focussing on? A lot of the
> uncertainty here is
> that we don't know whether there's a real commitment
> to engravers, or to
> serious composers, because most of the 'advances' or
> of no relevance to
> these groups.
> _
On 5 Jul 2005 at 23:29, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> At 09:43 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >Fewer and fewer people are actually creating music to be performed by
> > live musicians. Good computer-based playback means you don't need
> >human beings. While Dennis may think this is A Go
--- "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That this may very well be true suggests to me one
> distressing fact:
>
> Fewer and fewer people are actually creating music
> to be performed by
> live musicians. Good computer-based playback means
> you don't need
> human beings.
Yes, pro
At 09:43 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
>Fewer and fewer people are actually creating music to be performed by
>live musicians. Good computer-based playback means you don't need
>human beings.
>While Dennis may think this is A Good Thing, I think it's very
>distressing -- perhaps the be
least amount of nuisance.
- Original Message -
From: "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <finale@shsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has
dynamic score/parts linking!
> On 5 Jul 2005 at 18:25, Tyler Turner wrote:> >
On 6 Jul 2005, at 02:25, Tyler Turner wrote:I'd just like to address a few of the general pointsmentioned. 1. It was suggested that MakeMusic should stop puttingtime into playback features because their marketdoesn't need them. I don't have marketing figures tolook at, but I'd be extremely surprise
Tyler Turner wrote:
3. Sibelius is not focusing on one market. Their three
big features are clearly each aimed at a different
part of their market. There is the worksheet creator
for educators, linked parts for engravers, and video
for composers. Both Sibelius and MakeMusic realize
that focusi
On 5 Jul 2005 at 18:25, Tyler Turner wrote:
[]
> 2. It was mentioned that Finale's playback has now
> caught up to and in some ways perhaps exceeded that of
> Sibelius. There's no competition. Finale's playback is
> far beyond Sibelius', both in terms of automatic
> playback and in customizabilit
David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, doesn't Sibelius have a little copy protection/activation code
problem that ought to prevent you from switching, given that you
won't upgrade past Finale 2003?
Yep, they've got the same call-response sort of activation scheme that
Finale has.
Sibelius was ver
I'd just like to address a few of the general points
mentioned.
1. It was suggested that MakeMusic should stop putting
time into playback features because their market
doesn't need them. I don't have marketing figures to
look at, but I'd be extremely surprised if composers
and arrangers didn't ma
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
