David W. Fenton wrote:
On 4 Jun 2004 at 18:55, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
I suppose this amounts to a different philosophy about what I want my notation program to do.
You seem to assume a number of things:
1. layout in the linked part would not be as fully adjustable as layout in an extracted part.
2. the implementation of such a feature would be accompanied by the removal of the current part extraction capability.
Why is it that whenever someone proposes what are obvious changes to Finale that would make it much, much easier to use that so many people argue against the change on the grounds that it would be implemented in the most stupid fashion imaginable?
Because of features such as MicNotator and MidiScan and Hyperscribe and the Tempo Tool you were just complaining about, and on and on and on.
It seems nothing gets implemented these days in Finale without being totally backwards or inefficient. Human Playback where we can edit LOTS of stuff EXCEPT the important things such as trills and other ornaments.
The only thing which has been implemented properly, recently, in my opinion, has been staff styles. THEY were/are a stroke of genius and are implemented properly. I suppose if MakeMusic were to reconstruct the development team that produced staff styles they might have a shot at a logical and actually helpful implementation of part/score linking.
But we are several versions away from the introduction of staff styles and each new version has produced bloat without productivity increases.
-- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
