Thank you for the suggestions Robert,

Splitting parts in the score should make it possible to accomplish most of what I need to do. For some reason, that had not occurred to me, obvious as it is in retrospect.

I can certainly understand the value of one document as opposed to many. That's why I am struggling to change established work habits in order to accommodate the inherent advantages, but I continue to stumble on difficulties that seem to be more trouble than I used to have when I had to duplicate edits in the score and extracted parts. I remain stubborn in my effort to convert to this system, but I am not convinced it is saving me time. If the end result is the same, and the new method simply takes longer, I'm not sure it is helping my workflow.

I can understand circumstances in which the necessity of making many edits would tip the balance in favor of the linked parts, but I'm not convinced that it is helping my work. Certain kinds of music make the use of one part serving as a template for other parts a real time saver in the layout process, and that is lost with the linked parts system. Still, I hang on stubbornly.

Thanks,

Chuck


On Nov 26, 2006, at 6:38 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:

On 11/25/06, Chuck Israels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Me too, and it is frustrating.  Seems to me there are two choices:
wait for a maintenance update in the hope that these matters are
addressed, or extract parts the old way and lose the advantages of
the linked parts (not so much of an advantage to me, at this point).


On the contrary, I'm finding many shades of gray between these two options. Two that come to mind are: making a separate parts-only file that contains all the parts. This is distinctly preferable to a separate file per part, and there is zero chance of losing your current work. Freed from the need to worry about score view, you can edit the beam angles (and anything else you need to) in the part. It is probably better to split the combined staves
into separate staves first though.

Another option that I sometimes use is to make duplicate staves rather
duplicating an entire file. This is effective if only a few staves need to be different in score and part. An example is for transposing instruments with a C score. If, e.g., only 2 out of 5 staves transpose, I think it is better to make duplicates of the 2 transposing staves. The parts reference the transposed staves while those staves are optimized out of the score. In the case of combined parts, if only a few parts share a staff in the score, might it not make sense to add duplicate staves for those exceptions and
have the rest of the parts benefit from true linking?

I do not share David Bailey's pessimism about future enhancements to linked parts. Without knowing much specifially about how Finale implements them, I think his speculation about what they need to do coincides fairly closely with what they in fact did do. If MM decides it is a priority, I believe
they are in a position to provide (fairly painlessly) unlinkable beam
angles, note positoning, and accidental placement, all of which are
essential for achieving anything close to the real goal. I would be quite
surprised if these were added in a Fin07 maintenance release, however.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com

_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Reply via email to