I couldn't tell a whole lot from your example so I thought I'd point it out. - Don
on 10/2/05 11:11 PM, Brad Beyenhof at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Well, this isn't a vocal staff. It's actually for a method book, and > it's a duet, and the author is putting in lyrics on the exercises > whose songs have them. So I'm treating them as instrumental staves > (which they are), and throwing in the lyrics as "something extra" > (which, in a sense, they are). > > I do agree that vocal staves shouldn't have connected barlines, though. > > -- > Brad Beyenhof > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com > Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also > deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky > > > On 10/2/05, Don Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Brad, >> >> I'm a little late jumping in on this, but isn't the notational standard to >> break the barlines around vocal staves? Aren't you running into a lot of >> lyric/extension collisions with barlines? I always understood that the >> purpose of this practice was to prevent collisions with the lyric and >> extension traffic. >> >> I'm not sure the reason(s) you might have to not break the barlines in this >> situation, but breaking them would eliminate this collision, as well as >> others, globally. >> >> Don Hart >> >> >> on 9/29/05 3:26 PM, Brad Beyenhof at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> So I've got a word extension that looks a little wierd. The lyric it's >>> attached to is pretty close to the measure's right barline, and the >>> barline is stretching across staves so that the extension line just >>> barely intersects the group barline. >>> >>> I'd like to be able to move the left side of the word extensionto the >>> right, because a) the editor of this project has asked me to and b) >>> the collision looks absurd, even if I hadn't been instructed to fix >>> it. >>> >>> I tried exporting a tiny blank EPS to re-import and cover up a bit of >>> the word extension on either side of the barline. Unfortunately, the >>> word extension seems to be one of those "foreground" elements that >>> shows through anything you put on it (yes, I tried an empty opaque >>> expression too). >>> >>> Does anybody know how Finale can sensibly resolve this collision? I >>> put a screengrab here if you need a visual: >>> http://augmentedfourth.cjb.net/word_ext.tif > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
