Accidentals in Finale

[Kristofer Emerig]

My present project is only the second I've really worked on in earnest in Finale, so apologies if this is really thick. Why, after an accidental is designated in one layer, is it required again in the same measure for the same note following in a different layer. The convention in notation of keyboard music, and all to my knowledge, is that once an accidental is called out on a staff, it applies for all notes on that diatonic step which follow in that measure, whether in the same contrapuntal "voice" or not. Perhaps there's a setting or option governing this behavior?

[Bob Morabito]

Hi Kristofer--

As I understand it each layer in Finale is independent of every other layer--each staff in Finale has four transparent layers of music, and each layer can play back over a different MIDI channel and synthesizer patch, and each can have its own dynamics, etc.

So keyboard convention as applying to all the layers will be affected by this, though in each layer, theyd hold true--there wouldnt be the same repeated accidentals in that layer itself, in the same measure.

The BEST Finale forum Ive seen is an email forum at:

http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Bob Morabito

[Kristofer Emerig]

Thanks for the link Bob. I can work around it for the interim, simply by assigning the needed accidentals to the second layer. I suppose my real problem is that the resulting score looks a bit awkward, with redundant accidentals on the same staff and all.

Not that it's my purpose, but if one were using Finale with the intent of producing a polished "engraved" score, let's say for piano, with multiple voices on one staff, it's certainly a reasonable expectation, given the cost of the software, that it would have the capability to deliver such. I'm not blaming Finale yet, by the way, and assume it's ignorance on my part with regard to the use of the application. I'd hoped someone here might know the quick and easy answer.

I'll look into the link provided though, and thanks again.

Bob Morabito said:

Hi Kristofer--

As I understand it each layer in Finale is independent of every other layer--each staff in Finale has four transparent layers of music, and each layer can play back over a different MIDI channel and synthesizer patch, and each can have its own dynamics, etc.

So keyboard convention as applying to all the layers will be affected by this, though in each layer, theyd hold true--there wouldnt be the same repeated accidentals in that layer itself, in the same measure.

The BEST Finale forum Ive seen is an email forum at:

http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Bob Morabito

[Bob Morabito]

Im sure you'll get differing thoughts on this, and apologies if you know this already--

but if you're much more proficient in using your sequencer/DAW, (as a lot of people are), and not really well versed in Fin, it might be much faster and easier to enter the notes (step record), or however you want) in your sequencer, and then import that midi file into Fin, adding dynamics, artics, editing, etc in Fin itself.

(And if youre especially brave, and have a wide range of dynamics throughout the piece, try using the The Auto-Dynamic Placement plug-in to get a jump on adding the dynamics--it has its problems tho.)

Just a thought, Kristofer--
Good luck with your project.

Bob

PS Id try a very short piece using this method,with your sequencer, and seeing how Finale's Quantization settings work for you, in getting the style of music your doing into FInale.. it can be a real PITA.

Also If your sequencer DOES allow adding all that stuff (dynamics artics, etc) in it, and its notation is really accurate, and not crappy you can save it as xml, if you're able and import that into Fin-

I've also heard of people using PDF to Music Pro to get your sequencer's notation into Fin, again using xml import--though Ive never tried it myself.

But It'll only work as good as your notation in your sequencer is accurate, which in my experience isnt really accurate at all.

[Simon Godden]

I had that problem and wrote to Finale about it, because the trouble is with a flat accidental, another one makes it look like a double flat, and you can't leave it out because the sound will make it clash. So they gave me a solution and that is to press the 'hammer' tool and zoom right in and place one of them on top of the other one so it looks like one flat instead of a double flat.

[Kristofer Emerig]

Hey Bob,

Yes, that's been my main method so far, ie, midi keyboard into Cubase, but I've only had both applications a few months now, so I'm hardly proficient in either. The mass is the first project I've tried directly from paper score to Finale, mainly because the textures are in simple note values and I felt they don't need "human" playing to convey what I want. In fact, if I get more accustomed to the application, I feel I could skip the paper score at keyboard step and just sit at keyboard and lay out thoughts and planning in Finale directly. It's just a bit awkward right now, because on paper, I can directly work on measure 57 for instance, and 203 simultaneously (very beneficial for mirrored forms, latter variations, etc) and the narrow window view in Finale and scrolling combined with manning the keyboard still feel a bit awkward.

I'm not sure that it would solve the dilemma of how accidentals are displayed across layers though, without trying. Still one has to question it. What if, for instance, you are an engraver without midi keyboard, and just trying to lay out a piano score from my manuscript? Surely there's a way to notate multiple voices on the same staff in conformance with standard notation conventions.

It ultimately does not matter in the specific case of the mass, because the final score will be 8 separate staves with a single melodic line on each (a human singer can't double stop), but I'm a harpsichord player, and tend to work from that approach, so as I'm drafting music, it's much easier to work from 2-4 staves (I really prefer 4 open than conventional 2 staff piano, for voice leading clarity) than 8. My eyes just can't scan that much vertically. Anyway, I hope that helps to explain my process.

Bob Morabito said:

Im sure you'll get differing thoughts on this, and apologies if you know this already--

but if you're much more proficient in using your sequencer/DAW, (as a lot of people are), and not really well versed in Fin, it might be much faster and easier to enter the notes (step record), or however you want) in the sequencer, and then import that midi file into Fin, adding dynamics, artics, editing, etc in Fin itself.

(And if youre especially brave, and have a wide range of dynamics throughout the piece, try using the The Auto-Dynamic Placement plug-in to get a jump on adding the dynamics--it has its problems tho.)

Just a thought, Kristofer--
Good luck with your project.

Bob

PS Id try a very short piece using this method,with your sequencer, and seeing how Finale's Quantization settings work for you, in getting the style of music your doing into FInale.. it can be a real PITA.

Also If your sequencer DOES allows adding all that stuff (dynamics artics, etc) in it, and its notation is really accurate, and not crappy you can save it as xml, if you're able and import that into Fin-

I've also heard of people using PDF to Music Pro to get your sequencer's notation into Fin, again using xml import--though Ive never tried it myself.

But It'll only work as good as your notation in your sequencer is accurate, which in my experience isnt really accurate.

[Kristofer Emerig]

Good, but if the first flat occurs on beat 1 in voice (layer) one, and the second on beat 4 in voice two (unison but not simultaneous), what then? By the norms of notation, the second flat need not be called up unless the first was canceled. Is it technically "wrong" to repeat the accidental? I'm not sure. But it certainly seems unorthodox if one were trying to present a professional looking score (not that I am). Half-assed workarounds are fine when improvised by amateur users, but when they're given as the only solution by the software developer themselves, it seems a little questionable to me, particularly when their product is not exactly inexpensive.

That seems to me a bit like calling up Toyota, telling them when you turn your ignition key your coil bursts into flames, and they tell you to take a cab.

Simon Godden said:

I had that problem and wrote to Finale about it, because the trouble is with a flat accidental, another one makes it look like a double flat, and you can't leave it out because the sound will make it clash. So they gave me a solution and that is to press the 'hammer' tool and zoom right in and place one of them on top of the other one so it looks like one flat instead of a double flat.

[Bob Morabito]

Hi Kristofer-- In addition to the Tools/Advanced Tools/Special Tools/Accidental Mover to drag one accidental over the other, try this to hide the accidental (see attached file) This is from Fin 2008:

also:
Half-assed workarounds are fine when improvised by amateur users, but when they're given as the only solution by the software developer themselves, it seems a little questionable to me, particularly when their product is not exactly inexpensive

THAT to me is EXACTLY what FInale is...TONS of workarounds.

[Kristofer Emerig]

Thanks again Bob. Now that looks like a legitimate answer with which one can live. I admit I haven't messed with speedy entry yet, just been using simple entry, thus why I probably missed that.

Bob Morabito said:

Hi Kristofer-- In addition to the Tools/Advanced Tools/Special Tools/Accidental Mover to drag one accidental over the other, try this to hide the accidental (see attached file) This is from Fin 2008:

also:
Half-assed workarounds are fine when improvised by amateur users, but when they're given as the only solution by the software developer themselves, it seems a little questionable to me, particularly when their product is not exactly inexpensive

THAT to me is EXACTLY what FInale is...TONS of workarounds.

[Bob Morabito]

Thanks for sharing your process, Kristofer:)

Still one has to question it. What if, for instance, you are an engraver without midi keyboard, and just trying to lay out a piano score from my manuscript? Surely there's a way to notate multiple voices on the same staff in conformance with standard notation conventions.

Please see the attached file from Fin 2008 on "multiple voices".its an html file, missing some images--that, plus my previous post on Hiding accidentals would be the way, I believe.

Thanks Bob



Kristofer Emerig said:

Hey Bob,
Yes, that's been my main method so far, ie, midi keyboard into Cubase, but I've only had both applications a few months now, so I'm hardly proficient in either. The mass is the first project I've tried directly from paper score to Finale, mainly because the textures are in simple note values and I felt they don't need "human" playing to convey what I want. In fact, if I get more accustomed to the application, I feel I could skip the paper score at keyboard step and just sit at keyboard and lay out thoughts and planning in Finale directly. It's just a bit awkward right now, because on paper, I can directly work on measure 57 for instance, and 203 simultaneously (very beneficial for mirrored forms, latter variations, etc) and the narrow window view in Finale and scrolling combined with manning the keyboard still feel a bit awkward. I'm not sure that it would solve the dilemma of how accidentals are displayed across layers though, without trying. Still one has to question it. What if, for instance, you are an engraver without midi keyboard, and just trying to lay out a piano score from my manuscript? Surely there's a way to notate multiple voices on the same staff in conformance with standard notation conventions.

It ultimately does not matter in the specific case of the mass, because the final score will be 8 separate staves with a single melodic line on each (a human singer can't double stop), but I'm a harpsichord player, and tend to work from that approach, so as I'm drafting music, it's much easier to work from 2-4 staves (I really prefer 4 open than conventional 2 staff piano, for voice leading clarity) than 8. My eyes just can't scan that much vertically. Anyway, I hope that helps to explain my process.

[Kristofer Emerig]

Looks like we're suffering from server lag, by the order of responses. I think I've got it now with your last post though, and thanks again Bob.


Bob Morabito said:

Thanks for sharing your process, Kristofer:)

Still one has to question it. What if, for instance, you are an engraver without midi keyboard, and just trying to lay out a piano score from my manuscript? Surely there's a way to notate multiple voices on the same staff in conformance with standard notation conventions.

Please see the attached file from Fin 2008 on "multiple voices".its an html file, missing some images--that, plus my previous post on Hiding accidentals would be the way, I believe.

Thanks Bob



Kristofer Emerig said:

Hey Bob,
Yes, that's been my main method so far, ie, midi keyboard into Cubase, but I've only had both applications a few months now, so I'm hardly proficient in either. The mass is the first project I've tried directly from paper score to Finale, mainly because the textures are in simple note values and I felt they don't need "human" playing to convey what I want. In fact, if I get more accustomed to the application, I feel I could skip the paper score at keyboard step and just sit at keyboard and lay out thoughts and planning in Finale directly. It's just a bit awkward right now, because on paper, I can directly work on measure 57 for instance, and 203 simultaneously (very beneficial for mirrored forms, latter variations, etc) and the narrow window view in Finale and scrolling combined with manning the keyboard still feel a bit awkward. I'm not sure that it would solve the dilemma of how accidentals are displayed across layers though, without trying. Still one has to question it. What if, for instance, you are an engraver without midi keyboard, and just trying to lay out a piano score from my manuscript? Surely there's a way to notate multiple voices on the same staff in conformance with standard notation conventions.

It ultimately does not matter in the specific case of the mass, because the final score will be 8 separate staves with a single melodic line on each (a human singer can't double stop), but I'm a harpsichord player, and tend to work from that approach, so as I'm drafting music, it's much easier to work from 2-4 staves (I really prefer 4 open than conventional 2 staff piano, for voice leading clarity) than 8. My eyes just can't scan that much vertically. Anyway, I hope that helps to explain my process.

[Bob Morabito]

yes, they're out of sequence--- and you're welcome, I'm glad its solved:)

Bob