>Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:16:36 -0400 >From: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Yes. This is one of the great failures of all notation programs ... someone >correct me if I'm wrong and this has changed, but I do not believe any >notation program has the true concept of a part.
Mosaic. Sort of. Mosaic has a hierarchy of View -> Staves -> Voices, where '->' denotes a "contains" relationship. A 'View' can be either a score (containing all or almost all staves), an instrumental part (containing only one staff, or a few staves) or short scores (containing some subset of staves). Views can be either page-oriented or scroll-oriented. Staves often contain only one voice, but they may contain multiple voices (e.g., two flutes, a contrapuntal piano part, etc.). Voices are where the notes (and dynamics, articulations, etc.) go. The idea works pretty well, allowing an easy and flexible way to link parts with score, and changes in the one automatically reflected in the other. And it's been around for over a decade. The implementation, as it stands, is not perfect: staves need to be labeled manually; one may need to tweak the parts differently from the scores (e.g., slurs & hairpins across line breaks; etc.). Also, the "Staff/Voice" concept does not exactly fulfill Dennis' notion of part; what it does is to make parts a bit easier to manage. It is a great shame that MotU has orphaned the product (picking the bones for the QuickScribe functions in DP). But no use crying over spilt milk. I rather wish Coda would peak a bit in the direction of Mosaic when looking for ideas to adopt. There are a number of very nice ones to be found. Cheers, Peter ---------------- <http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/> ---------------- Peter Castine | From the Litter Power Thesaurus: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "T" distribution: lp.stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] | _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
