At 07:16 AM 7/14/02 -0400, David H. Bailey wrote: >Here is a situation that might throw a monkey-wrench into the concept of >parts-anchored-to-score-file -- What would happen to the parts if you >write out a full score only to get all the parts just as you wish, but >then you don't want a full score anymore so you collaps it into a >condensed score?
Johannes has addressed this one. >I can see lots of room for nightmare situations while we all learn how >to be sure to set such internal switches before we dare enter a single >thing in the score file. You bet. But that's true for a lot of things in Finale which cannot be updated globally. This could be a really bad one if implemented unenthusiastically. :) For example, I save every major change to a score under a new name. And that includes later edits of a score which is essentially complete. >What would happen if a part file were missing, when the score went to >update changes to the parts? Warning box with Browse/find, Create new part, and cancel options. That would mean part creation would first have to be a much more integrated task than it is now. >What would happen to the UNDO function if you initiate some killer >change and later decide it wasn't so great after all? Would it be able >to Undo all the changes to the parts as well? There has not been a kind of journalling undo available, at least in the Windows versions. Any changes are committed when the file is closed. That's in fact why I save under a new filename every few minutes -- these are my 'journalled' versions of Undo. And I don't know how to accomplish this without a re-think of Undo in its entirety. >What would happen to text blocks if you decide you want to add a comment >to the conductor that you don't want in the parts? How would that be >indicated if you enter that block before you extract parts? Each text >block would need to have a switch somewhere for "update in parts? I think that's not a hard one in concept. The option to show stuff in parts is presently poorly implemented. I know each of these options starts to create file bloat, but every item in a score could have along with it information about whether it's to appear in a part. These would be available from context menus, dialog boxes and frame edits. All of your questions would be part of any serious part/score linkage. In fact, at creation time, one could identify if the material being entered was a score or a part (or a "player", to return to another concept I hope to see implemented). I have written several pieces in such a rush that only instrumental parts were written, and there was no full score except in my head for conducting the players. (This was notably for the nearly 60 cues for recorded incidental music to a play called "On the Verge" some 15 years ago. I had one week to compose, orchestrate, and record everything, so I just skipped the score and went write to parts.) Folks creating modern editions of scores from part-songs might find this very useful as well. I've been thinking about this for years, and waiting to see CPU speed and disk storage space catch up with the demands of such a process. It would require a common database from which all elements are constructed -- score, condensed score, parts, players, clipboards, etc.-- and a darn good history system to keep them all intact. I wouldn't expect this to be implemented in stages. It would have to be a complete rewrite of Finale's data structures, which at the same time one would hope would get rid of the measure-orientation, allowing hundreds of activities that now demand workarounds, kluges, and after-market plug-ins to achieve. Dennis _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
