On 06 Jul 2005, at 1:43 AM, Tyler Turner wrote:
At this point, I think it would
be good to make suggestions to MakeMusic for which
parts of that feature you actually need most. What
would be the minimum implementation for the feature
that would give you most of the usefulness? Sibelius'
method is pretty flashy, complete with instantaneous
update. If something like that isn't necessary, it
would be good to mention that. I'm pretty sure that
MakeMusic will at least be looking at this feature
again now that Sibelius has included it. They have a
lot of other stuff on their plate though, so the less
work they'd have to spend on it, the better chance
they'd be able to do it.
Okay, that's a good idea. Let's see if we can flesh something out
on-list before submitting.
First off, though, I think the goal should be to *surpass* Sibelius in
this area. I would hate to see Finale add half-assed Dynamic Parts
(and Video Sync) options that were only pale imitations of Sibelius
features. I think the way to go is the way Finale went with Human
Playback (which had a rocky start but which I now find indispensable)
-- Finale should try to out-do Sibelius's implementation, at least
eventually.
But first, the bare-bones version:
• First, Special Part Extraction would need to be revamped to be able
to save independent an layout for each staff. That's the obvious
starting point. For now, let's call this new version of Special Part
Extraction "Dynamic Parts" (same as the Sibelius version of the
feature).
• We need to be able to apply all of the current part extraction
options to the Dynamic Parts. There should be a menu item, called
something like "Extract Dynamic Parts," that is identical to the
current "Extract Parts" dialog and enables all of the functionality of
regular part extraction.
[Actually, to be honest, it would be nice if the Extract Parts dialog
were smart enough to recognize multi-staff parts -- like harp and piano
-- automatically.]
• After Extracting Dynamic Parts, there should be a new addition to the
View menu -- in addition to Scroll View and Page View (and, in Fin2k6,
Studio View) there should be a "Parts View" menu, opening to a submenu
of all dynamically extracted parts. There should be keyboard shortcuts
to advance or retreat through dynamically extracted parts, and keyboard
shortcuts to switch between Score View (i.e., Scroll/Page/Studio) and
Parts View. (IMO, only Page View is necessary for Parts view -- same
as the way Special Part Extraction already works. We don't need to be
able to see dynamically extracted parts in Scroll View.)
• Finale should ask what the default Page Setup for extracted parts
should be -- it's a good assumption that it will *not* be the same as
the score. However, this should not affect the Page Setup for the
score, and you should still be able to set the Page Setup for each
dynamically extracted part independently, if you wish.
• Obviously, each dynamically extracted part should have independent
note spacing and layout.
• The split-screen feature in Sibelius is desirable but not absolutely
necessary. The important thing is, after doing a dynamic part
extraction, note changes in Dynamic Parts should affect the score, and
vice versa.
• After doing a dynamic extraction, changes in expression
*positioning* in the part should not affect the score, and vice versa.
However, adding a new expression in the part *should* affect the score,
and vice versa. Same with articulations, smart shapes, etc -- changes
in *positioning* should not cross the part-score barrier. But
*deleting* these elements, or *creating new ones*, should affect both
score and parts.
[Maybe we could also exploit the difference between note-attached and
measure attached expressions? Like, all note-attached expressions show
in Parts + Score, but Measure-Attached expressions can be set to show
up in either Score view or Parts view? This should be easy, since it's
almost identical to the way Measure-Attached expressions already work.]
• If this feature is to work, Finale will have to (finally) fix chord
symbols in "Open Key/Atonal" scores (to use Sibelius's terminology).
Chord symbols should *always* transpose when attached to transposing
staves, even in pieces with no key signature.
• Note spelling will be tricky, especially if your score is set to
display in concert pitch. I guess the bare-bones approach would be to
leave note spelling linked, always -- so if you have a concert A# in a
Bb clarinet part in your score, you will have a B# in your part; and if
you flip it to a C nat. in your part, it will become a Bb in your
(concert) score. I don't know how Sibelius handles this issue, but
that would be the simplest solution and also -- in most cases -- the
most desirable solution.
• For cue notes to work properly using Dynamic Parts, it would be
*very* useful -- probably obligatory, in fact -- to add a new layer
option -- "Show only in parts".
• We need to be able to set up text blocks that display in the score
only, or in extracted parts only. It would also be nice if there were
independent options for "Score Positioning" and "Parts Positioning."
• Like Sibelius, there should be a separate color (selectable in View
Options) for elements whose *positioning* differs in Parts View and
Score View. But there should also be a *different* color for
expressions, etc, that display *only* in Parts View (not Score View) or
*only* in Score View.
• It would be *really* nice if Finale could implement Sibelius's
ability to copy the layout from one part to the next. I mean, *really
really really* nice. I don't know if it should be part of this
bare-bones proposal, but seriously, that's the best part of Sibelius's
implementation of this feature and I think Finale really needs to
figure out how to make that work.
• It would also be *really* nice if staff name headers dynamically
updated -- for instance, if you change the staff name from "Clarinet in
Bb" to "Clarinet (Bb)" in the score, the staff name header in the part
should change too.
Looking over this list, I guess what it comes down to is that almost
every aspect of Sibelius's implementation of this feature is either
absolutely necessary or (like "copy layout") extraordinarily desirable.
The only thing aspect that's a bit of a frill is the split-screen
Part-Score view. That's a bit of a frill, and I could live without it.
Everything else is integral to the usefulness of the feature.
Your thoughts?
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
