Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!wuarchive!uunet!ogicse!milton!blake.u.washington.edu!ramsiri From: ramsiri@blake.u.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Re: FINALE Message-ID: <13053@milton.u.washington.edu> Date: 15 Dec 90 06:55:05 GMT References: <12925@milton.u.washington.edu> <1076@artsnet.UUCP> Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu Distribution: usa Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Lines: 172 In article <1076@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes: >In article <12925@milton.u.washington.edu> ramsiri@blake.u.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) writes: >>I am VERY close to purchasing FINALE for the MAC. From what I gather, >>it is perhaps the best publishing program available on any platform. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I'd disagree strongly with that. >I would place both A-R Editions Sun/Unix-based system at the top, >followed quickly by SCORE version 3.0. Please tell me more about A-R.. i think i may have called that company about a year ago.. i got the impression that while the final ouput of a score was truly engraving quality.. the input of the musical information was strictly ascii... I am not personally interested in conceiving of music in a non musical way. After all.. i would like to use the progam for composition as well.. > >>My next project will require the printing of over 600 pages of music. > >There's the start of your problems with FINALE. WHY? My 600+ pages will actually be a combination of score and text. I am hoping that importing encapsulated Poscript Scores to a DTP program won't be too much of a hassle.. not all scores will need cutting and pasting.. but i definitely will need the capablility importing music into a document. SInce ATARI's NOTATOR has a proprietary file format which doesn't allow anything greater than a screen dump (bit mapped) to a file, i am forced to get into a program such as FINALE.. or perhaps SCORE.. as you intimate. >You're going to have some bug appear with any of the best >programs. However, if you're unable to get adequate answers, that >should tell you something! A demo of FINALE I attended in St. >Paul, I noted that although the input of simpler music had a >graceful, user-appealing feel, any level of genuine complexity >both baffled the demonstrator (musically; the "can you do this" >questions primarily coming from myself anbd Alice Parker) and >required slow, extensive editing. > I hope to be able to score contemporary music with whatever program i end up with.. i must have the power to design my own marking and symbols.. also need the flexibility in removal of bar lines etc... >>Since purchasing FINALE will also mean purchasing a MAC and laser printer >>etc... (I will have to sell my Atari 4MB system with NOTATOR etc)... > >No! No! NO! There is a new version of FINALE for IBM-clone PC/AT! >I'm having someone review it right now. >Several things to know so far: If your processor time is premium, >you should know that FINALE uses a *lot* of time on screen graphics >instead of skeleton-drawn but well-placed screen symbols. >You need a very fast machine to keep from losing patience, most >recommended is a full-blown 386, not an SX. The SX is visibly >slower. You will also need WINDOWS 3.0. (We're about to try it >with WINDOWS 2.0). > A Tech support person at Coda, "Kurby" ? , tells me that the FINALE version for the 386 is a bit ahead of the update for the Mac.. however, the mac will be updated shortly.. He did, however, suggest that running FINALE on the MAC was a little more graceful than running it on MSDOS. >By comparison, I'm currently running SCORE v. 3.0 on a Packard >Bell 286-AT at 12Mz. SCORE does not waste screen-building time like >FINALE. (The monitor is a Hercules monochrome, BTW) WINDOWS is >not required. I would quickly say that your msavings in hardware >costs (buying a 286 instead of a MAC or a full-blown 386) will >more than offset the several hundred dollars more you'll pay for >SCORE. (And I think that the MAC FINALE costs more than the >IBM-clone FINALE.) I am giving serious thought to a 386 or a 486 ... i don't care at for MSDOS.. but once i've got the program running.. it won't matter too much.. i do have to consider the MSDOS file system.. i think it is a joke.. i much prefer UNIX and MAC.. considering i have over 400+ files already created that have to be converted to another format.. i want a flexiblility in filenaming etc.. MSDOS is a joke. I do like the $99 price tag of Mark Williams' "Coherent" Unix clone.. however! I would never buy MAC's AUX > >The results from SCORE are superior, in my book. FINALE has never >satisfied me either with their slurs or horizontal symbol spacing. Others have also told me that Score is definitely of publish quality and that FINALE is not quite. But i also understand that SCORE is ascii based.. I don't think i would like that.. though i must admit, i have never tried it.. doesn't seem like an intuitive way to deal with music. Music scoring by nature is a very graphic oriented proceedure, i think a program should be bent toward that emphasis. > >As for LEARNING CURVE: SCORE v.3.0 is light-years ahead of >their v.2.xx on that. Their documentation, this time developed by >William Holab (music editor at G. Schirmer, NY) is excellent, >thoroughly reorganized, and written from the professional music >editor's perspective. The improvements in the program (text >handling, pagination, array-handling and total capacity, vastly >extended symbol libraries, more improvements in slurring, >insertion of raw PostScript commands as items, etc.) also have >made what was almost a nightmare with v. 2.x and earlier a genuine >breeze with v.3.0. > > >Be VERY careful. While a program like SCORE will have an >APPARANTLY longer startup to the learning curve, you will probably >find you will save time especially in editing complex >scores and in handling large numbers of pages. > >Even if you DO decide on FINALE, you will probably be better off >on the IBM-clone 386 DOS platform in the long run (especially if >you finally decide you DON'T like FINALE after all). Actually, if i had my druthers, i'd be running a NeXTstation right now.. unfortunately, no GREAT music program exists for it yet.. > >And last, but not least, do you have any idea how long 600 pages >is going to take you? Sounds like a hymnbook to me! If it IS a Not a hymn book. It's " YAMTM " Yet another music teaching method etc.. >hymnbook, then you will surely want to use SCORE, as I've seen to >examples of hymnbooks set with FINALE. You will have severe A student of mine printed out the score of his opera with SCORE.. looked fantastic... he's also done a few of my lesson handouts for me.. love the output.. again, never have used the program... don't know how much the program requires one to do non-musical things to get work done. I think the philosophy behind these programs should be to eliminate the non-musical processes. Environments should be easily customized.. someday, we may see some "learning" built in to the programs... wouldn't be too hard to do, actually... there are all sorts of ways a program can show the user how to be more efficient.. ! > >Cheers, . to you all too! > >--Mark > >======================================== >Mark Gresham ARTSNET Norcross, GA, USA >E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham >or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu >======================================== -Kevin ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu