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
