On 1 Aug 2008 at 8:22, Tyler Turner wrote: > Having 50 different expression categories for dynamics so that they could > each have a different staff list would slow those publishers down. Having > any staff list at all for dynamics would make them unpredictable when > positioning or deleting, and would thus also slow them down.
The problem is a real one for these publishers, no doubt, but the solution that MM has provided for it seems to me to make no sense. Why not make the number of staff lists a template-based item? That is, when you create a template, you set the number of staff lists permanently for that file. Then the publishers could control this (I assume they are already using predefined template files, of course), while it leaves the rest of us the alternative to use as many staff lists as we choose. In short, it seems to me that a problem the publishers have in managing their engravers (a people problem) has become a problem for *all* Finale users. While it's important that publishers use Finale (it's one of the main things keeping it afloat), I don't see why such a Draconian solution to their very real engraver management problem should have been chosen. It really doesn't make any sense to me as either a Finale user or as a programmer. Of course, given that it is introduced at the same time as expression grouping and seems to have some kind of interaction with that feature, I fear that the restriction can't be removed or simply extended. *sigh* -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
