On 6 Jul 2005 at 5:22, Jim wrote:
> David, I have not experienced linked parts yet. The descriptions i see
> here, however, leave me wondering what I'm missing. Can you enlighten
> me as to their benefit? I'm not sure I see the benefit of having an
> ex-post change made to a PART be reflected in the SCORE. Some changes
> in parts I would NOT want reflected in a score. Is this feature
> intelligent enough to sort that out?
Well, maybe *you* wouldn't benefit from it, but I *definitely* would.
Part extraction is horridly complex and takes way too much time. It
really ought to be something that takes a lot less time than it does.
Linked parts would do that.
I doubt, though, that if MakeMusic implemented linked parts that they
would then *eliminate* traditional part extraction. That means, then,
that you could still use your preferred methods, while those of us
who need the time-saving aspects of linked parts could use them.
And it would also be nice, if, for instance, you could format your
linked parts, then save a single part out to a separate file, which
would no longer be connected to the score, so you could then make
changes to that part (like Darcy's change to the flute part of
printing the part at pitch and the score with an 8va transposition).
Also, back when *I* was making suggestions for how to implement this,
I always said that it should be possible to *break* the link between
the part and score, if you wanted to. What if you could do that with
a staff style, selectively applied to the measures you wanted to
change in the part but not in the score? That would be pretty cool.
. . .
Now for a rant:
Where in the world do people get the idea that the addition of a new
way of doing things into Finale necessitates the complete elimination
of the old method of accomplishing the same task? I've many times
made suggestions for changes to the way Finale does some task, and
frequently encounter objections from members of this list that they
like the *old* way of doing it. That's a complete non-sequitur.
Now, it might be that implementing linked parts via special part
extraction (as seems to me to make the most sense) would break the
old ways that people used special part extraction. And that may be
so, but there's no necessity that it be implemented in a manner that
breaks the old special part extraction, or traditional part
extraction. Why assume the worst when the benefit from the change
could be so great?
I, for one, can't see how anyone who has ever extracted parts for
even one score could not see the benefit for linked parts!
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
