On Friday 12 Mar 2004 3:36 pm, Joerg Anders wrote: Yes, of course it does -- as well as all the notation you referred to in your previous email. Why don't you just download the demo? You seem to have a bit of a misconception about what Finale is for. It's a program for typesetting scores. It can do pretty nearly everything anyone ever put on a classical score, and it can be adjusted to end up with pretty much any layout. I don't _like_ it very much -- in fact purely as a question of personal taste I think it's a horrible program -- but it's certainly got a lot in it, and there's absolutely no question that it supports a great deal more of the field of score typesetting than editing software like NoteWorthy or NoteEdit, neither of which is a WYSIWYG score typesetter at all. As to whether Finale plays 8ve sections, dynamics etc: I have no idea. It might, it might not. My guess is it probably does, but either way, that's not really what it's for. (Incidentally, it may be true that a lot of Finale or Sibelius users might actually find they could do the same or better with other software on Linux, depending on what they actually need. But the fact remains that there is no program on Linux similar to either, and neither is there any mature project aiming to produce one.) Chris

[ Re: Finale ] On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:04:21 +0000 Chris Cannam <cannam(a)all-day-breakfast.com> wrote: [ snip ] > (Incidentally, it may be true that a lot of Finale or Sibelius users > might actually find they could do the same or better with other > software on Linux, depending on what they actually need. But the > fact remains that there is no program on Linux similar to either, and > neither is there any mature project aiming to produce one.) Is there any chance that some of that typesetting capability -- in particular, the ability to print clean, organized sheet music for distribution to others and performance use, with the ability to adjust measures per line and mark repeats and alternate end bars and so on -- will find its way into Rosegarden's notation editor and printing facility? I love Rosegarden, and I know you folks feel that getting the stuff it was made to do correct before jumping into huge new areas, and that seems like absolutely the right approach to me. It's more of a "long-range intentions" kind of question -- do you have in mind jazzing up the notation editor somewhere down the road? Or is that something that you see as so ancillary to Rosegarden's main purpose that you can't imagine it getting much developer time? -c -- Chris Metzler cmetzler(a)speakeasy.snip-me.net (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear

Hello, Chris Cannam wrote: Actually, there seems to be a general contention among many Linux developers that non-WYSIWYG solutions produce better results (notably Lilypond). The big problem I see here is that many of these developers (with the notable exception of Joerg Anders who is present here) are more of the "programmer" type and do not understand traditional musicians. I'm not a musician at all, and if I had to enter scorelines myself I'd probably be better off with Lilypond; but my wife *is* a musician with a traditional higher musical education, and abhors the very idea of representing notation as letters. We may have different reasons for sticking to Finale, actually. I'm not that interested in 100% WYSIWYG; I could do with visual notation editing and tweaking the layout in a Lilypond file. Notepad is actually close to the target, and got much closer when it learned about braces (thanks Joerg!). But I would need line wrapping (so that more than one line of previously entered notes would be visible) and certain neat automation (notably beams) before I could try switching my wife to it from Finale. And unfortunately I'm not a good enough coder to just grab NoteEdit source and hack it. In all this note entry, playing is *not* the big issue. It's nice to have, as it's a way to check what was entered (especially useful when one imports a MIDI file). But if it plays imprefectly - never mind. I'm afraid that NoteEdit is aimed differently. From what I unedrstand, it's more of a score-based composing software. Well, Finale tries to be both a typesetter and a composing thing at once - but then it *is* bloated, and finding a reature is sometimes a long process. Come to think of it... if there are coders interested in starting a project on notation editing/typesetting, I could involve a really professional psychologist, and work on design specs (I'm a tech writer so I know how to do those). But as for coding itself, I'm not even trying, two-screen Python scripts is my top coding achievement these days. (Or should I subscripe to LAD for this discussion? After all, Jamin was born in LAD/LAU before my eyes, and now it's a usable thing as I understand, so perhaps trying to get some development running is not that bad an idea?) Some lack "this" thing, some lack "that" thing... I tend to think that the best Finale replacement would not be a sole program but a modular suite, as there are different features out there. Yours, Mikhail Ramendik

Hello, Jack O'Quin wrote: But some JAMin discussion went on around here on LAU as well. I'll probably try getting an initial proposal together in like a week, and start a discussion on both lists on what we should want. I'm also not a native speaker of English, but you won't notice it from my writing :) in fact I make a living writing in English for native speakers . It certainly is, agreed. It's not just about getting started. It's about a different way of working with notation. A way that may be very good for programmers, but does not lie wel with traditional musicians. However, I agree that Lilypond is an excellent tool for preparing a final layout for printing. Entry and editing are the problem, as well as tuning the layout. Doing it through programming - and Lilypond is somewhat of a programming language - is not acceptable for many musicians. Yours, Mikhail Ramendik

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 01:22:46AM +0300, Mikhail Ramendik wrote: I found the article fascinating. I never realised that music engravers went to so much trouble over such minute detail. I am particularly surprised as in over 40 years of playing music I have seen some quite dreadful examples of printed music. Some were handwritten and photocopied, but some of the typeset or otherwise mechanically produced (pre computer, almost certainly) were almost unreadable too, because of badly designed symbols and layout. It has made me reconsider learning Lilypond. My current favourite music printing utility is abcm2ps which does a very good job for what I need, and I have always thought looked as professional as typical purcahsed sheet music. I'll have to try a side-by side comparison to see what I'm missing :-) My experience of WYSIWYG music input a few years ago is that I got mouse RSI and it was slower that typing abc. No doubt with practice I could learn to type Lilypond alost as quick. There's a newsgroup uk.music.notation which discusses issues like this. Might be worth at least posting a poll for interest in such a project, and you might get some useful discussion or input. -- Anahata anahata(a)treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

On Friday 12 Mar 2004 10:22 pm, Mikhail Ramendik wrote: That seems a peculiar statement, unless you're just commenting that a programmer is unlikely to be a "traditional" musician. If you read the interview I just posted at linuxmusician.com with the Lilypond developers, it's pretty clear that they not only think about what musicians and composers need, but are themselves active classical musicians. And also they do appear to acknowledge that Lilypond is not a program that's intended to be directly usable for composition. The difficulty with something like Finale is that it tries to blur the line: it's a score typesetting tool, but it looks like a compositional tool. That makes it rather suboptimal for both, but if you are a composer who wants to edit score as score and then be able to typeset it, and you want to do that in a single program, then you do seem to need something rather like it. fwiw, Rosegarden-4 does continuous page (one infinitely tall screen-width page) and multiple page (WYSIWYG) score editing as well as its linear left-right scrolling layout. It doesn't support as many notational bits and bobs as NoteEdit though. What do you mean by automation? Chris

R Parker <rtp405(a)yahoo.com> writes: Yes, I see ;-) At least I can ping 66.33.221.124 now, but that's all... No, I do not know any and don't know how to do that, but it should not be to difficult to find out... But tell me, is this normal that I would have to change name server to reach a site like ardour? I'm surprised. Or should I complain at my ISP? Is it likely to be their fault? Still trying... Robert

Anahata <anahata(a)treewind.co.uk> writes: Yes that works :-) So I need the IP for lists-ardour.org now... I'm still wondering why my ISPs nameserver cannot resolve these names. Especially as I'm not the only one that cannot reach ardours web page. Thank you, Robert Epprecht

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 08:09:55AM +0100, Robert Epprecht wrote: The prblem's gone away for me now. I took the entry out of /etc/hosts and it all works, including lists.ardour.org. (66.33.216.120 if you're still having problems) FYI - the way to find out what's going on when a domain doesn't work is: first whois ardour.org or gwhois ardour.org (my Debian system prefers "gwhois") That will tell you the nameservers for the domain. (in this case ns1.deramhost.com, ns2..., ns3...) You should be able to get the IP addres from them: host ardour.org ns1.dreamhost.com If either of those steps doesn't work the domain is broken (fsvo "broken"). This can happen temporarily if the domain gets moved from one registrar or primary nameserver to another. -- Anahata anahata(a)treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 12:15:48 +0100 Robert Epprecht <epprecht(a)solnet.ch> wrote: So that means it can't resolve the name when using your default nameserver, but can when using others. If some nameservers work, then the problem isn't with ardour.org, but with the nameservers that *don't* work. If you've had this problem for a long time, then you should tell your ISP that the nameservice they're providing you isn't functioning properly. -c -- Chris Metzler cmetzler(a)speakeasy.snip-me.net (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear