Christopher Smith wrote:
But you lose the essential (for me) feature of being able to make corrections and changes in ONE place only and have them apply to the parts and score simultaneously.
I have to say I find this claim to be somewhat disingenuous. While it is true that some corrections and changes need only be made in one place, such corrections and changes are the very easiest to do twice. If you do any major revisions (removing or adding measures, for example) you will likely find yourself still making changes to the page layout for every part individually, and these are the most tedious, time-consuming changes associated with revisions. Neither approach avoids those.
Balance that limitation against the extraordinary number of extra steps required to keep the parts in the same file with the score. Adding cues is a *major* pain as are clef changes that occur in either or score or part but not the other. Also consider the compromises you must make in the quality of output. Hairpins can only be positioned correctly in either the score or the part but not both. Same goes for special tools mods. (And don't even ask about splitting parts that appear on a single score staff!) Given all that, I can't see any sense in it.
A separate file containing all the parts is definitely the best way to go in my book. You give up very little with respect to making revisions, and you gain tremendously in time saved creating the score and parts and also in quality of output for all.
Of course, diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks applies. Both approaches exploit the linked parts feature, and both are superior in almost every way to the old extracted parts method.
-- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
