I'm sorry but I don't have the time to bring up specific examples of the many file I did last year but when I get a moment I will send them to you privately. It has a lot to do with bracketing and groups names but mainly bracketing. Basically it gets down to, the old system and optimized systems allowed flexibility and the current system is very rigid especially when it comes to bracketing especially after the initial input and then editors or composer have their time with the proof and then I have to rework these groups. If everything was perfect when I initially put everything then YES, the new systems works well. But after that I have to whip out paper and a pencil and copy measure numbers down and track all the different edits, when before I would just make them without a care.
Cheers, Steve ________________________________________ From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf Of Jari Williamsson [jari.williams...@mailbox.swipnet.se] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:46 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Staff Groups (Fin11+) On 2012-02-15 22:44, Fiskum, Steve wrote: > That's interesting to note since this new way of > working has forced me to create more groups than I ever had to do with > previous versions of Finale. Can you give an example where you need all these groups? Unless there are lots of named groups in a score, I can't personally think many other reasons. And if so, why are those numbers expanding compared to the older method? Best regards, Jari Williamsson _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
