|
|
| MakeMusic Forum > Public Forums > Finale - Windows - FORUM HAS MOVED! > Constructive idea and question for MM | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
gogreen
Registered Member
      
Date Joined Dec 1999
Total Posts : 1618
| Posted 8/23/2016 8:18 AM (GMT -6) |   | What's most disturbing to me about Finale is that over the years, long-standing bugs have not been fixed--at least, those that concern me the most, and features I most often use have not been improved--Finalescript and HP, to name two. Every other app I use on my PCs and iPhone, from Microsoft Office to Firefox to Thunderbird and many others, large programs to smaller apps, periodically release fixes and improvements. These fixes and enhancements most often include bug fixes, not new features, although occasionally releases do include new features and some redesigns. I believe this kind of attention to Finale would create the kind of product loyalty about which companies only dream. Why can't MM do this for Finale?
Arthur J. Michaels
/www.facebook.com/composerarthurjmichaels
Finale 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2011b.r2, 2014d, 2014.5 (currently using 2014.5)
Core i7 860 @ 2.80 GHz, 8.0 GB RAM, Windows 10 Home x64
Garritan COMB2, GPO4, GPO5, Aria Player 1.872, Audacity 2.1.2
Dell 2408 WFP, 1920x1200
M-Audio Delta Audiophile 2496
Casio WK-3000
M-Audio AV40 monitors
AKG K-240 Studio headphones
Brother MFC-L2740DW printer | | Back to Top | |
|
Ron.
Composer
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 8828
| Posted 8/23/2016 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | | |
|
Mike Rosen
himself
Date Joined Feb 2006
Total Posts : 14146
| Posted 8/23/2016 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | | | |
|
Flint
silly bear
Date Joined Oct 2006
Total Posts : 3151
| Posted 8/23/2016 12:06 PM (GMT -6) | |
Michel R. E. said...
which part of linked parts is broken?
If a shared staff has grace notes, the graces notes are completely fubared when attempting to used voiced parts. Been this way since linked parts were released.
woodwind specialist and doubler - Finale 2014d using Speedy Entry - no capslock, GPO 4 Full, Garritan Jazz & Big Band 3, Garritan Concert and Marching Band 2, Windows 10, 12GB RAM, frequently RTFM.
If the composer says in effect to the performer: "I do not care whether you perform my music or not," we cannot argue the matter. But if he indicates: "I want you to perform and respond to this music," then his fundamental duty is to write his music so that it is accessible to interpretation. When the performer cannot approach the composer's meaning because of capriciously obscure notation, he may in effect say to the composer: "Why should I bother to puzzle out your music?" - Gardner Read
| | Back to Top | |
|
Flint
silly bear
Date Joined Oct 2006
Total Posts : 3151
| Posted 8/23/2016 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | |
Motet said...
I maintain you're better off creating distinct parts and combining them onto a staff for display in the score, rather than vice-versa teasing them apart with the "voiced" feature. This is what I actually do - here's an example of how I lay out staves:
Piccolo (score) - use when not playing Flute 3
Flute (score) - normally Flute 1/2, use staff style for Flute 1 if Flute 2 needs to be separated
Flute (score) - either Flute 2, Flute 2/3, or Flute 3 (staff style)
Flute (score) - Flute 3 (when there needs to be three separate Flute staves)
Flute (Flute 1 part)
Flute (Flute 2 part)
Piccolo/Flute (Piccolo/Flute 3 part)
Oboe (score) - either Oboe 1, or Oboe 1/2
Oboe (score) - Oboe 2, when there needs to be two separate Oboe staves
English Horn (score)
Oboe (Oboe 1 part)
Oboe (Oboe 2 part)
English Horn (EH part)
Clarinet (score) - either Clarinet 1, or Clarinet 1/2
Clarinet (score) - Clarinet 2, when there needs to be two separate Clarinet staves
Bass Clarinet (score)
Clarinet (Clarinet 1 part)
Clarinet (Clarinet 2 part)
Bass Clarinet (BC part)
Bassoon (score) - either Bassoon 1, or Bassoon 1/2
Bassoon (score) - Bassoon 2, when there needs to be two separate Bassoon staves
Contrabassoon (score)
Bassoon (Bassoon 1 part)
Bassoon (Bassoon 2 part)
Contrabassoon (CBsn part)
Horns 1/2 (score)
Horns 3/4 (score)
Horn (Horn 1 part)
Horn (Horn 2 part)
Horn (Horn 3 part)
Horn (Horn 4 part)
Etc., etc.
The big benefits to working this way are that I can extensively cue parts (without futzing about interminably with staff styles/voicing), I don't have any issues with grace note spacing, and I don't need to worry about a separate score file for parts - it's all in one file.
For audio renderings (which I will always use a separate file for), I can create a copy of the score and simply delete the "score" staves and work from the individual "part" staves to create the audio.
Negatives are of course that it's a big score, but I've never had any real issues with this layout, excepting Finale's inane 32k frame limit.
woodwind specialist and doubler - Finale 2014d using Speedy Entry - no capslock, GPO 4 Full, Garritan Jazz & Big Band 3, Garritan Concert and Marching Band 2, Windows 10, 12GB RAM, frequently RTFM.If the composer says in effect to the performer: "I do not care whether you perform my music or not," we cannot argue the matter. But if he indicates: "I want you to perform and respond to this music," then his fundamental duty is to write his music so that it is accessible to interpretation. When the performer cannot approach the composer's meaning because of capriciously obscure notation, he may in effect say to the composer: "Why should I bother to puzzle out your music?" - Gardner Read | | Back to Top | |
|
Motet
Isorhythmic
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 12849
| Posted 8/23/2016 1:37 PM (GMT -6) | | | |
|
Flint
silly bear
Date Joined Oct 2006
Total Posts : 3151
| Posted 8/23/2016 2:20 PM (GMT -6) | |
Zuill said...
I think that layout puts all the parts in the score to avoid using voiced parts.
Correct. Since I can't use voiced parts, that is what I use instead. It has some benefits, particularly related to cues, but it would be nice if voiced parts worked correctly to begin with.
woodwind specialist and doubler - Finale 2014d using Speedy Entry - no capslock, GPO 4 Full, Garritan Jazz & Big Band 3, Garritan Concert and Marching Band 2, Windows 10, 12GB RAM, frequently RTFM.
If the composer says in effect to the performer: "I do not care whether you perform my music or not," we cannot argue the matter. But if he indicates: "I want you to perform and respond to this music," then his fundamental duty is to write his music so that it is accessible to interpretation. When the performer cannot approach the composer's meaning because of capriciously obscure notation, he may in effect say to the composer: "Why should I bother to puzzle out your music?" - Gardner Read
| | Back to Top | |
|
Motet
Isorhythmic
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 12849
| Posted 8/23/2016 2:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Since two instruments on one staff involves changing stems, hiding accidentals, a2 passages, etc., teasing the two apart and making the results look right seems like an AI-ish thing to me, if that is the proper term. Combining two parts into one is in a sense lossy. So, even absent the grace note bug, using "voiced" to generate parts from a combined staff is a fool's errand, in my opinion.
(Not to mention the hassle of dealing with layers when entering.)
Finale 2014.5, 2011b, 2005, TGTools
Windows 7, MIDI input
Finale Transposition ChartPost Edited (Motet) : 8/23/2016 2:49:29 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | |
|
gogreen
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 1999
Total Posts : 1618
| Posted 8/23/2016 3:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, Zoots. I posted this constructive idea and question for two reasons. First, my workflow in Finale includes just as many workarounds as it does usual procedures. That's foreboding. Second, it seems as if MM is purposely driving users to other notation programs.
I read the list of bug fixes. My reaction: Meh. These items addressed only one of my major concerns. I thought MM missed the biggies here.
What a shame! I see such potential to create and keep a slew of avid, committed users in what is currently tentative, qualified and grudging product approval at best.
Arthur J. Michaels
/www.facebook.com/composerarthurjmichaels
Finale 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2011b.r2, 2014d, 2014.5 (currently using 2014.5)
Core i7 860 @ 2.80 GHz, 8.0 GB RAM, Windows 10 Home x64
Garritan COMB2, GPO4, GPO5, Aria Player 1.872, Audacity 2.1.2
Dell 2408 WFP, 1920x1200
M-Audio Delta Audiophile 2496
Casio WK-3000
M-Audio AV40 monitors
AKG K-240 Studio headphones
Brother MFC-L2740DW printer | | Back to Top | |
|
CraigP
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2013
Total Posts : 313
| Posted 8/23/2016 3:35 PM (GMT -6) | | gogreen said...
I read the list of bug fixes. My reaction: Meh. These items addressed only one of my major concerns. I thought MM missed the biggies here.
Yes I agree. I just wanted to point out there were more than a handful of fixes. I agree the ones addressed were not big hitters for the most part.
gogreen said...
Second, it seems as if MM is purposely driving users to other notation programs.
I don't know about purposeful, but the effect is the same, regardless of the motivation. It is a vicious circle. The old Minneapolis-based company became comfortable with a very slow cycle of innovation. This interrupted their cash cow, which was the annual purchase cycle by educational institutions. And it also created an opening for a free product like MuseScore. I assume that many schools now don't budget for any notation software and just use MuseScore.
That cycle fundamentally put the Minneapolis company out of business. They were acquired by a venture capitalist who looks upon music composition as being no different from weight training -- it is all about the reps. This is a fundamentally defective view of the art and that just continues the slide. It seems like the business can only afford to support several real coders now. It is at least a little encouraging that they have been able to take the whole product to 64-bit. While much of that is a mechanical process that doesn't require much understanding of the code itself, at least they have touched all of the code now. So one assumes there is at least a possibility of doing some meaningful development.
But frankly it doesn't look very encouraging by the numbers. MakeMusic seems to have about a dozen people involved in all aspects of the notation products, and that would seem to include SmartMusic. Steinberg's development staff is about 10-20 times that large and that is for one product. I'd like to hear what kind of commitment there is to moving Finale forward. And I'd also like to hear how the company goes about identifying and prioritizing bugs. My guess is that some of these bugs are so old that people don't bother to report them anymore. Makemusic may not even be aware of the majority of bugs at this stage.
I'd like to see a commitment to releases at least every 60 days as on an ongoing basis, primarily focused on resolving bugs. As I have pointed out before, Cakewalk has been doing MONTHLY releases for its Platinum product and that product has become rock solid, and one of the best DAWs out there. People can be patient and helpful if they understand what the process is. We have no idea what the process is. If we're looking at another 2+ years before the next set of mostly insignificant bug fixes and enhancements (and more function regression), this isn't a way to retain customers. | | Back to Top | |
|
saxop
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2007
Total Posts : 261
| Posted 8/26/2016 4:42 AM (GMT -6) | | | So in other words, this release was about 90% maintenance, 10% new features. Some of the changes sound huge. 64-bit. CoreGraphics. It sounds like Human Playback was shifted away from its plug-in roots. Transposed instrument entry, which despite being a common request for years was something the original team never found time to do. Fixes for show active layer only sound like they would be hairy to get into. From what I can tell, the vast majority of their time was spent on cleaning and rewriting, not adding stuff. | | Back to Top | |
|
gogreen
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 1999
Total Posts : 1618
| Posted 8/26/2016 7:56 AM (GMT -6) | | It is both disappointing and telling that MM has not responded and answered my original question at the beginning of this discussion.
Arthur J. Michaels
/www.facebook.com/composerarthurjmichaels
Finale 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2011b.r2, 2014d, 2014.5 (currently using 2014.5)
Core i7 860 @ 2.80 GHz, 8.0 GB RAM, Windows 10 Home x64
Garritan COMB2, GPO4, GPO5, Aria Player 1.872, Audacity 2.1.2
Dell 2408 WFP, 1920x1200
M-Audio Delta Audiophile 2496
Casio WK-3000
M-Audio AV40 monitors
AKG K-240 Studio headphones
Brother MFC-L2740DW printer | | Back to Top | |
|
EpeeDad
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 143
| Posted 8/26/2016 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Makemusic did not go out of business and weren't anywhere near doing so. They were a publicly traded company (MMUS) that was taken private when LaunchEquity, which held ~28% of the shares bought out the rest. The financials reported in the last annual report were solid. It is interesting that the executive salaries reported to the SEC were quite modest. By extrapolation from the reported employee expenses, the salaries for their development team was probably also modest. I suspected at the time that they had difficulty attracting top software engineering talent. It has been clear to me that they have had problems with engineering discipline. There appears to have been some needed cleaning house, in that regard.
On the subject of Dorico, it is my professional opinion that they are about a year or so behind in the development process. Before retiring 4 years ago, I managed large scale, complex software development in the international telecom industry. A well funded development effort of the scale of Dorico should be a 24 -30 month effort. It looks as if Steinberg(Yamaha) has decided to force the issue by insisting on a fall release. It also appears that they are not quite ready for prime time, so to speak. I suspect that the second release will be more of what we expect from them.
It appears to me that they are trying to make the long term investment in the product needed to keep it viable. It remains to be seen whether they will be successful. While Sibelius appears to be on the wane, both Notion and Overture have made cutting edge improvements lately and Dorico is clearly intended to be in the hunt.
Interesting times ahead.
Regards,
Chris
mystudyscores.com
Finale 2012C
GPO4, JABB, GWI, CIO, GCPO, GAS
Sonar X3
Kontakt 5.1
Kirk Hunter String Libraries
Hauptwerk
Win7 - 64 bit
Intel dual core 3.6 ghz
8G ram
M-Audio Axiom 61
Akai EWI USBPost Edited (EpeeDad) : 8/26/2016 5:58:15 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | |
|
CraigP
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2013
Total Posts : 313
| Posted 8/26/2016 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | EpeeDad said...
Makemusic did not go out of business and weren't anywhere near doing so.
Well, I guess there could be a debate about what the words "out of business" mean. In my book, when a company closes down, sells out to a new owner who fires basically the whole staff and starts up a shell of an operation 500 miles away with a completely different guiding philosophy, that is "out of business". But if you don't look at it that way, that's OK too.
The question is whether this product will ever be restored to a competitive level. The simple fact is that a large percentage of the base determined that 2014 and 2015.5 were both steps backwards from 2012. And many people seem to be coming to that same judgment about 25. It is not a viable business if a big part of the customer base things the last 3 releases are inferior to the 4-year-old release.
If I were running this business, and I really expected it to be a going concern (as opposed to a cash cow), I would be very vocal about the plans for product development, considering that the competitive landscape has shifted so much in the time since the Minneapolis company folded. It really is at the stage where people who need the best notation tools must be taking a serious look at Overture, Notion, MuseScore, and Dorico. In many ways, each of those products has moved beyond Finale (Dorico being the exception as it isn't formally released yet.)
There are big parts of Finale that are absolutely crappy by 2016 standards: Percussion mapping, Interoperability with other products (especially DAW products), Chord support, automatic placement/spacing, MIDI editing, playback support (really poor mixer and options), etc. Other parts are very functional, but trapped in a 1990s mentality/GUI. | | Back to Top | |
| 40 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Tuesday, December 19, 2023 6:22 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 403,820 posts in 58,165 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2023 |
|
|