On 24 Jul 2005 at 15:00, Lee Actor wrote: > > > If you tell me that I can split a part in the score into multiple > > > staves in the score and still have the linking work, then I'll be > > > impressed. > > > > It may be that the kind of work you do would make that really > > valuable, but I've never had a single project where I'd have had any > > need for that. > > Apparently you've never done any work with full orchestra, or concert > band, or any large ensemble where it is SOP for multiple wind parts to > appear on a single staff in the score, but extracted into single > parts. . . .
No, all my work is chamber music, early music and vocal music with parts -- no doubling parts at all. > . . . This fits the description of 95% of the work I do with > Finale. Well, to reiterate a point I've made before, I don't think anyone is suggesting that MakeMusic implement linked parts in a fashion that would make it impossible to continue to extract doubling parts in the same fashion as you've always done it. [] > One other thing: whether the parts and the score are linked or not, I > still have to add cues (the most time-consuming factor for me in doing > parts), and lay out decent page turns (I've tried Finale's automated > page turn plug-in, but I don't think it's adequate). Using TGTool's > Smart Explosion of Multi-part Staves, the remaining cleanup I > currently do on parts in Finale is relatively minor compared to those > two other items, so having linked score/parts would only be a minor > time savings for me, even if it did handle multi-part staves. I'm not > saying I wouldn't prefer it, or that it wouldn't come in handy for > those inevitable changes after everything is 100% "done", just that I > don't see it as the 2nd coming that some apparently do. Well, for me, extracting parts is the most painful thing I have to do. The worst part of it is when I learn new things about Finale that I have to go back and re-apply to existing scores and parts that were prepared and extracted some time ago. Maybe everyone else is so brilliant that they know everything about Finale already, but I'm not -- I'm constantly learning things that I need to go back and incorporate to make my Finale scores better. Or maybe people don't go back and incorporate improvements of this nature in "finished" projects. Or maybe it's the nature of my work, which is of three types: 1. work for my dissertation, which can't be said to be "finished" until, well, who knows when. 2. my own compositions, which get revised after run-throughs and performances. 3. works I've edited/scored up for use with the NYU Collegium, where I often come back and make changes to fix problems found in using the parts. For all of these, linked parts would cut down massively on the amount of work it takes to go back and tweak the parts based on new information. And right now, part preparation is taking about the same amount of time as the whole layout of the score process. If that could be reduced even by half, it would be a huge time savings for me. And I can't imagine that it wouldn't be a large time savings for the non-doubled parts for large ensembles, either (assuming it handles cues at least the way Sibelius does, by allowing you to enter music in the score that appears only in the 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
