On Sep 8, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:31 PM, Williams, Jim wrote:
As I get my feet wetter and wetter with linked parts, I'm finding
it less to my liking...I've had to do the "score for score" and
"score for parts" thing...I'm used to that, but the finagling that
has to be done to get voiced parts from combined staves, euphonium
TC and BC, piccolo in and out, etc is a boatload of trouble.
Perhaps linked parts are not optimal for band/wind ensemble work.
Maybe some combination of linked parts and extracted parts is the
least-labor strategy. If a part has to be processed in any way, the
optimal strategy seems to be to extract, for Horn in Eb/F, euph TC/
BC, flute & picc on same staff w/picc in & out, euph to baritone
(these are mix & match internationsl parts), and, yes, even the
DREADED Bb BASS CLEF TRANSPOSITION for euphs and tubas.
What's with flute/picc? What's the problem exactly? If a player
switches between the two, a staff style in the score is all that's
needed, and those can even be different between score and linked
parts.
I don't extract any more for any reason. If I need an extra part
that transposes differently without it appearing on the score, I
create a new part called, say, "Eb horn (replaces F horn)", I
include the F horn staff, and I change the transposition with a
staff style, which can be different between score and parts, you
understand, so nothing changes in the score or in the "real" F horn
part. It's all very neat.
You can even make composite parts that have a few staves of Clarinet
1 then a few staves of Clarinet 2. Just make a part that includes
both staves and hide the ones you don't want. You can even have this
part transpose differently (say, alto sax or something.)
Hi Christopher,
These are all clever solutions to problems that are endemic to the
system of linked parts (to which I am a convert), but it took me quite
a while to get a grip on the system and to be able to control it. I
am surely far less expert than you, but I do manage, and I am even
intriguingly challenged by the occasional new problem I encounter.
All that said, I get Jim's fear and unwillingness to pursue this. The
things you have to think about are Finale/computer things, not music
things and, in some ways, they have little in common with how one does
things with pencil and paper. You have to spend time thinking about
how the program works rather than how to produce music. I find that
relatively interesting (and you seem to find it not only interesting
but to be a challenge you are determined to overcome to the point of
being quite comfortable with it), but I understand how some people can
find it distracting from the path of getting the music done and in
front of the players. I don't know whether or not it's worth it to
people like Jim to convert to the new system. I don't even know if
it's any more efficient for me. I just took the challenge and jumped
in to the point that I hardly remember how I did things before.
So I accept the new ways of doing things, and mostly find myself
pretty happy as I learn them. On that subject, I am not sure that the
new system of expressions has turned out well for me. There are some
things about it to like, but there are kinks that interfere with the
way I am used to controlling things, and some things now take more
time than they used to. I am waiting for Tobias to catch up so that
Align/Move works in 2009.
Chuck
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
