|
|
| MakeMusic Forum > Public Forums > Finale - Macintosh - FORUM HAS MOVED! > Fin07 Thoughts and comments | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
iandberg
Registered Member
      
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 12/3/2006 2:38 PM (GMT -6) |   | I recently used Fin07 for a film project and have to say, the linked parts feature was an amazing convenience. The combination of that and my new Intel Mac Mini made the job of prepping 40+ cues for recording fairly snappy. Why hasn't this feature made it in before? Surely the concept must have come across someone's mind in the past. During the project I came across the usual frustrations, which I try to steer around with macro programs like iKey (thank you iKey!). And, as with any version, the bugs seem to find me. I used Fin2005 on another big film project and I was ready to toss Finale out the window from the bugs. But I'll rant about '07 here.
Linked Parts
Despite the convenience of linked parts, I still need to make separate scores for part creation purposes. There are still some items that need score settings apart from part settings. Like bar numbers, which are frequently bigger on the score than in the parts. There should be checkboxes for 'show in part' or 'show in score.' Also, I like the convention on big scores to have oversized time signatures on select staves, while the other staves have them hidden. Can't have it both ways for score 'n parts. Linked parts is at least a step in the right direction, albeit a late step.
In my recent project, I was receiving score files from a PC-using orchestrator. Odd quirks seem to come up that I couldn't recreate on a fresh new file. For instance, I grouped the violins together, but the group (or any other group for that matter) didn't show up when I created linked parts. I had to manually add Vln2 to Vln1, then go to the part, add a brace, etc. Rrrrgh. I think the template was made in Fin06 WIN.
I like the option of printing all the parts at once, with copies and all. But who would print the score and the parts at the same time? I would think, most of the time, the score needs one kind of page set-up, and parts another page set-up, for the different paper sizes. With the linked parts within the file, you can have two different paper sizes going on. Could Finale get sophisticated and offer multiple page setups, and some way to pull from multiple printer trays (if available)?
Finalescript
I like Finalescript and I've used it to do simple stuff, but bugs seem to crop up. Batch printing, doesn't give you the print dialog, so you can forget trying to do manual feed projects. Even if manual feed comes up as the default in the dialog, Finale ignores it.
Try this: create a text block with "Concert <score name insert>", which may look like "Concert Score". In a Finalescript, do: search "concert" replace "" - which should replace 'concert' with nothing. It works except the insert is now "partname()", which looks like C++ residue or something.
I tried doing a batch Doc settings import, but each file took so long, as if it was doing each parameter separately. It was much faster to import into each file the manual way, via menu option. (And when you do a 'load library', Finale defaults to the library folder every time, and not the last place you were at when loading a library. I know, the program options is set that way, but still annoying. I should be able to 'turn off' the default location)
No keycuts for Finalescripts? Seems like a no-brainer - at least some reserved possibilities.
Text Expressions
I like the decision to have position settings for Text Expressions. But why not have the selection box application method as well? With the articulation tool, you can, of course, drag a box around what you want to have articulations. Why not carry the concept to Text Expressions? It would make adding dynamics a breeze. In fact, I've made articulations out of dynamic markings to take advantage of the drag-box feature. Need mf's for brass? Drag a box, type in the corresponding number, done!
Why can't the Text Expression window be stretchable? Many people have tons of marking to sort through. The window needs to be more usable in this regard, with a search field and columns that sort.
Other
Why hasn't the chord suffix editor been updated? It's been, what, 10 years? Why hasn't the shape designer area been updated? It feels like MacDraw circa 1985. C'mon!!
Got a weird appearance when importing doc options - the time sigs changed to mysterious code. (see attachment)
If notes already have articulations, you can't drag the box around them again. Have a modifier key access box dragging?
The 'Change > articulation assignments' function doesn't work on linked parts. You have to go to the score to do it.
Automatic courtesy accidentals on the fly.
SmartShape hairpin groups. Like cresc-decres as one shape. Customizable SmartShapes (other than lines and text)
Dble-clicking a note with the slur tool is great, it slurs to the next note. How about a modifier key that slurs the whole bar? Or from current note to last note in the bar.
Bar numbers that don't collide with anything.
One of the most important things I programmed in iKey were function key shortcuts for the most oft-used tools. This was a huge convenience. Clicking each little icon every time you needed a tool is for the birds. If Finale is going to tout productivity, they need to look at basic needs, like getting around in a zippy fashion. Look at Photoshop, where just about every tool has a key equivalent, plus you can program your own for any menu item.
The increasing standard for Page Setup (on Mac) is Cmnd-Shift-P. Get on the Mac-wagon!
Postscript preview should hide system locks.
Measurement units is more of a view menu item. Other apps use this approach.
Multi-page view seems a bit silly when you can't modify the other pages. And when you try using speedy entry in multi-page view, you get weird display issues, bad redraws. On my PC score files, bumping a bar via Mass Edit causes multipage view to turn off. Try simply hiding Finale, then returning to it - it doesn't redraw correctly in multipage view. Perhaps because the mode is turned off after hiding the app.
I'd like to see more raw data manipulation. I'd love to have a music copying equivalent to TextWrangler or BBEdit - where anything you could think of altering, you could. Why not a plug-in like: turn all C3s into D2s? What about a text export showing instruments involved, whether they tacet, the duration of the piece, etc, so that a spreadsheet can be built with overall score info from the entire project. So you can see who's playing on what, and you can schedule your session accordingly. Have a central file that all your scores point to, that keeps track of all the scores in a given project, so you can refer to the entire project, share markings, batch print scores, do big database reports. text search and replace with Grep! Less consumer fluff, more professional raw stuff.
A file is immediately flagged as dirty upon opening. Have they given up trying to discern through editing actions whether it's dirty or not? Even right after reverting, it's dirty.
If you open two files of the same name, but different locations, Finale thinks they're the same file and won't open the other. It should treat them differently, like any other Mac program.
I'll bet a Finale developer would come up with new efficiency ideas if they put themselves through an exercise, like cleaning up and prepping scores and parts for 40 cues in a couple days. Under the gun, you begin to desire certain things.
After choosing to include Garritan sounds in the installation, I get a message that it's not compatible with Intel Mac systems, but by then I can't reverse its installation. Why not have this message BEFORE it installs Garritan?
Adding a shortcut on the desktop after installation is a Windows convention, not Mac. Offer to add the app to the dock instead.
Like some other forum members, I don't see why MakeMusic should come out with a new version every year, other than $ opportunities. I usually never see enough new heavy features to justify the expense. Is it too much to ask to take a year off and fix all the little loose ends?
That's all. Thanks for reading.
Ian
File Attachment :
Weird Time Sig.pdf 109KB (application/pdf)This file has been downloaded 264 time(s). | | Back to Top | |
|
Philip.
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2006
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/3/2006 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Bravo, Ian,
I for one support these suggestions 100% -- Well thought out and practical.
If Finale implements all these suggestions, it will by a dynamite program without peer. Please listen MM!
Please do us all a favor and submit them directly to MakeMusic. I would gladly fork over $100 for all of these things.
Re the Weird time signature, looks like the Time Signature font got changed to Seville. Go to Doc Options>Fonts>Notation>Time to fix (you probably knew that) Check the source of the Library, maybe the problem originated there.
Philip | | Back to Top | |
|
Philip.
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2006
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/3/2006 8:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Ian said...
The library I imported was one I created for this project. And because the time sig appears to say 2fr. and 4fr. suggests it's some underlying code we're not supposed to see. Like the result I got when using Finalescript to replace some text, and I ended up with partname(), which looks like C++ or something. The time sig issue eventually snaps out of it, and the parts weren't affected by it either.
Hi Ian,
2fr., 3fr., 4fr., etc. are the how the numbers 2,3,4 etc. display in the Seville font, not hidden code, if it helps your debugging. (2nd fret, 3rd fret, 4th fret)
Somehow the font weirdly got changed from Maestro to Seville for the Time Signature. | | Back to Top | |
|
iandberg
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 12/3/2006 9:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Philip said...
2fr., 3fr., 4fr., etc. are the how the numbers 2,3,4 etc. display in the Seville font, not hidden code, if it helps your debugging. (2nd fret, 3rd fret, 4th fret)
Ah, I get what you're saying. I never use Seville, so I wasn't familiar with its appearance. Sure enough, it's displaying something other than what the options say. see pic: (pic is showing the score view)
| | Back to Top | |
|
iandberg
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 12/4/2006 2:30 AM (GMT -6) | | | ah -you're right. Forget that whole rant. Still, it seemed to happen by itself. I was going merrily along my routine when Seville popped in for some reason. Problem with some of these bugs is that they're hard to recreate for tech support. | | Back to Top | |
|
diz
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 626
| Posted 12/5/2006 9:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | Ian - you've just convinced me NOT to upgrade from 2006 to 2007 ... thanks! | | Back to Top | |
|
Jetcopy
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2000
Total Posts : 4795
| Posted 12/6/2006 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | poco a poco said...diz said...
Ian - you've just convinced me NOT to upgrade from 2006 to 2007 ... thanks! I am thinking about this too, using Finale2004 and having a HUGE orchestrawork coming up I don´t know what to do. Go with 04 and be without linked parts (it willl be a lot of parts) or update to 07 and have the wonderful linked parts but risking to run into bugs and what not...you have in someways convinced me to update to 07 
I never liked 2004, way too sluggish. 2005 much better. 2006 still lagged on my computer.
But 2007, wow, it's really fast! There are many bugs that have been brought up over the past few months, I'm very optimistic that a maintenance release will fix these issues. But I'm a full time engraver and just finished up another job using 2007, and had no problems at all. Now I've read many of the problems that people have described, and have worked around those issues. If you're interested at all in 2007, I'd suggest getting the upgrade and do a small project first. In many ways it's a completely different program from 2004. You're going to have to actually read parts of the manual to get the best results from 2007. Linked parts will work for you, but require a specific workflow to make that happen. Do not just jump into linked parts and expect Finale to do everything for you.
JT
G4 Powerbook, OSX 10.4.2, 1.67 GHz, 1.5 GB ram | | Back to Top | |
|
poco a poco
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 193
| Posted 12/6/2006 12:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Jetcopy said...poco a poco said...diz said...
Ian - you've just convinced me NOT to upgrade from 2006 to 2007 ... thanks! I am thinking about this too, using Finale2004 and having a HUGE orchestrawork coming up I don´t know what to do. Go with 04 and be without linked parts (it willl be a lot of parts) or update to 07 and have the wonderful linked parts but risking to run into bugs and what not...you have in someways convinced me to update to 07 I never liked 2004, way too sluggish. 2005 much better. 2006 still lagged on my computer. But 2007, wow, it's really fast! There are many bugs that have been brought up over the past few months, I'm very optimistic that a maintenance release will fix these issues. But I'm a full time engraver and just finished up another job using 2007, and had no problems at all. Now I've read many of the problems that people have described, and have worked around those issues. If you're interested at all in 2007, I'd suggest getting the upgrade and do a small project first. In many ways it's a completely different program from 2004. You're going to have to actually read parts of the manual to get the best results from 2007. Linked parts will work for you, but require a specific workflow to make that happen. Do not just jump into linked parts and expect Finale to do everything for you. JT
It´s funny, I always felt that 2005 was much slower than 2004 (we have had every update at school). I also heard from our technician that 2005 didn´t support core image in OS X wich made it slower...true, I don´t know.
2006 was better and 2007 is really good in terms of speed but it lags for me when scrolling and a program shouldn´t do that in the year of 2006 with a fairly new computer.
Hmm, maybe I will wait on installing it then - or not 
Finale 2004c Powerbook 1.25 Ghz 1.25 GB Apple cinema display 20"
Digi002
Logic PRO 7.2
ProTools LE 7.1
NI Kontakt
EastWest Symphonic lib. Gold XP PRO | | Back to Top | |
|
Jetcopy
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2000
Total Posts : 4795
| Posted 12/6/2006 12:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Ebony Ivory said...Jetcopy said...
I never liked 2004, way too sluggish. 2005 much better. 2006 still lagged on my computer. I thought 2006 contained the speed improvements (graphics redraws, etc), and was supposed to be lots faster than 2005? Or is that just on the PC? I didn't think I'd seen that the graphics were rewritten again for 2007! Can anyone clarify? Brian
Jeff
G4 Powerbook, OSX 10.4.2, 1.67 GHz, 1.5 GB ram | | Back to Top | |
|
Erling Kroner
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 408
| Posted 12/6/2006 2:18 PM (GMT -6) | | 2007, bugs apart, is to this composer/arranger the first version since 2002c that I can live with/work with. Once the pending maintenance update cleans out some major bugs (one hopes), I'll be a happy customer once again. All the bells and whistles don't interest me, I just need a fast, snappy, music notation program that workflow-wise and graphically lives up to my needs as a professional composer, arranger, engraver. I jumped straight into 2007 for a major project . . . . held my breath . . . . and never regretted it. Had to work around some very dumb bugs, but that aside, 2007 gave me what I wanted, for the first time since the Mac OS 9 days of 2002c.
erling
erling
Quicksilver G4, 867 Mhz, 1,25 GB SDRAM, 2007 | | Back to Top | |
|
Slandrom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 1999
Total Posts : 1792
| Posted 12/7/2006 2:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Jetcopy said...Ebony Ivory said...Jetcopy said...
I never liked 2004, way too sluggish. 2005 much better. 2006 still lagged on my computer. I thought 2006 contained the speed improvements (graphics redraws, etc), and was supposed to be lots faster than 2005? Or is that just on the PC? I didn't think I'd seen that the graphics were rewritten again for 2007! Can anyone clarify? Brian I used to use a PC, but not anymore, so I can't comment on any speed changes with the PC version of 2007. My experience on the Mac with 2006 was that it slowed things down so much, that it affected my productivity. Given the choice between 2005 & 2006, I'll choose 2005. But there are substancial speed improvements on the Mac with 2007, plus it has a"good feel" to it. I know that's not something tangible. But from someone who uses Finale 50+ hours a week for their livelihood, it's important. Jeff
I have exactly the same opinion. 2005 was the best of the OSX versions but none of them were enough speedy to work with. I had to wait for the program to make the actions. So I used 2002 instead that was faster to use with and to me has been 100% reliable concerning postscript handling.
But with 2007 I at last have a version with the enquired speed again so it seems that I will continue working with that version (some eps problems though). It has been written about so many bugs so one can think it´s the end of the world. Yes there are bugs as always, but I´m working 10 hours/day and have seen very little of it and no bugs that have given me any problems. Regarding linked parts I use the old extract parts. You still have to do the "same old edits" in linked parts so extracting parts give me more freedom. And it has been no problems there.
Regarding playback the project I´m working with now holds lots of playback and it has worked almost perfect (using gpo & jabb). No crashes, only one hang since I began 11/2 month ago. Only thing is that Finale sometimes not caches the expressions (I don´t mean keyswitches but regular expressions). So overall I am very pleased with 2007 and can´t understand the disaster people are talking about.
This said, off course we have to "kill all bugs". I have myself bugs I am angry over since the 90ths. And certain bugs can off course affect others more depending on what they are working on, but to me 2007 is the best version since 2002 (didn´t buy 2003).
Björn
2000, 2002b, 2004c, 2005b, 2006c, 2007 MacOSX 10.4.6 and classic, sometimes Win XP, TgTools (always the latest) QuicKeys X3, 2.0.2 GPO full, JABB, Stradivari 2, PowerMac G5 Quad 2.5GHz. 2,5 Gb ram, Apple Cinema Display 23"
Real Time Finale Discussion - FinaleIRC.Com | | Back to Top | |
|
diz
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 626
| Posted 12/7/2006 4:52 PM (GMT -6) | | | I'm not finding 2006 slow on my Mac at all, really, and I work on some fairly large scores (Apline Symphony sized orchestra and hundreds of bars long). | | Back to Top | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Tuesday, December 19, 2023 8:02 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 |
|
|