Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
On 22.12.2005 Robert Patterson wrote: But that is precisely its power. The ability to provide extra margins combined with the "take existing gaps into account" option saves eons of time over what I've tried with the built in tool. Suppose a particular page has a couple of systems that need extra vertical space. You evenly space the systems, leaving a gap at the bottom. Then you add the extra space for the couple of systems. Then you respace them with the "Take existing gaps into account" option checked, leaving a minimal margin. For laying out single-staff parts, it is simply fantastic. I do this by changing the bottom margin of the system itself. Works for me, I actually find this much quicker than using JWSS. YMMV I agree, for scores and multi-staff parts, that some way to automatically spread out staves within a system would be useful. That is not JW Space Systems, however. There are some tools (Finale's Respace Staves and TGTools has something as well), but nothing that is nearly as automatic as one might wish. Ideally this could be done in one Space Systems and Staves plugin. Hint, hint. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
Hi, Brad. Recheck show mesaure number would not be needed if you check "always show in top staff" when you define the measure region. Javier. The 21/12/05 21:53, Brad Beyenhof escribió/wrote: > way. Most of the work I do requires all measure numbers to be > displayed on the parts, so I change the Staff Attributes to display > measure numbers on all staves of the Parts score before I extract. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
Hi, In some rare cases is better to make a super-score with all the parts in separated staves. Then extract the parts, layout them and print them and after that mix the parts creating staves with several instruments to make a nice conductor's score. Javier Ruiz ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
Johannes Gebauer > (About JW Space Systems) > The > only difference is the extra options for extra page margins, which can > avoid rounding errors which still happen occasionally (with both JW and > the built int tool). But that is precisely its power. The ability to provide extra margins combined with the "take existing gaps into account" option saves eons of time over what I've tried with the built in tool. Suppose a particular page has a couple of systems that need extra vertical space. You evenly space the systems, leaving a gap at the bottom. Then you add the extra space for the couple of systems. Then you respace them with the "Take existing gaps into account" option checked, leaving a minimal margin. For laying out single-staff parts, it is simply fantastic. I agree, for scores and multi-staff parts, that some way to automatically spread out staves within a system would be useful. That is not JW Space Systems, however. There are some tools (Finale's Respace Staves and TGTools has something as well), but nothing that is nearly as automatic as one might wish. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
On 22.12.2005 Robert Patterson wrote: BTW: an absolutely essential tool for laying out parts is the free plugin, JW Space Systems. It is vastly superior to the built-in system spacing tools, which I have never been able to figure out how to use. (Why bother, when JW Space Systems works so well.) And did I mention, IT'S FREE. Actually, I don't see all that much between the system spacing tool. The only difference is the extra options for extra page margins, which can avoid rounding errors which still happen occasionally (with both JW and the built int tool). What I could do with for scores is an enhanced version which can also space between staves, if the white space exceeds a certain percentage. That would really save me lots of time. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
At 10:50 AM 12/22/2005, Robert Patterson wrote: >Once I have extracted a part, I still have to invest a huge amount of >time in it, mainly for page layout, page turns, and tweaking the music >spacing. > It is >nearly inconceivable that I would ever undertake that work twice. Interesting. I generally do this stuff very quickly--in fact, I don't bother making a special score before extracting. What I find most onerous and time-consuming is the necessary proofreading of each part after all the formatting's done--a step that I imagine will not be significantly mitigated even by dynamic linkage. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
Johannes Gebauer > > Wouldn't it be easier to do this in the Parts-Score, ie once, instead of > for every part? In theory, perhaps. In practice, I don't trust Copy/Insert well enough. (It has many bugs and omissions, even in Fin06 which I still don't use.) There are some other obstacles as well, like differences in the numbers and types of staves between different score files. For example, sometimes I concatenate all but the percussion part. I may leave the percussion part in separate files if the instrumentation varies widely from movement to movement. There might in fact be some economies in doing it all at once, but the amount of spinning cursor time involved is just too large. I tend to complete each individual part before extracting the next. This often allows me to find and correct errors before extracting subsequent parts, as well as tweaking the settings in the parts-score based on changes I had to make after extracting the early parts. BTW: an absolutely essential tool for laying out parts is the free plugin, JW Space Systems. It is vastly superior to the built-in system spacing tools, which I have never been able to figure out how to use. (Why bother, when JW Space Systems works so well.) And did I mention, IT'S FREE. RP ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
On 22.12.2005 Robert Patterson wrote: (Another big item is that I often concatenate extracted results from several score files into a single part file.) Wouldn't it be easier to do this in the Parts-Score, ie once, instead of for every part? Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
At 10:50 AM 12/22/2005, Robert Patterson wrote: >Once I have extracted a part, I still have to invest a huge amount of >time in it, mainly for page layout, page turns, and tweaking the music >spacing. Yes, I do the same. > It is >nearly inconceivable that I would ever undertake that work twice. > >YMMV, Right, well that last bit is the important part. I don't *enjoy* re-extracting parts, but there have been times when that course of action makes the most sense for me. But I'm always (well, usually) open to rethinking my work methods. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
> every now and then I find it beneficial to > re-extract the parts. Once I have extracted a part, I still have to invest a huge amount of time in it, mainly for page layout, page turns, and tweaking the music spacing. (Another big item is that I often concatenate extracted results from several score files into a single part file.) It is nearly inconceivable that I would ever undertake that work twice. YMMV, Robert ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
At 11:08 PM 12/21/2005, Robert Patterson wrote: >Either you enter it once in the score and once in the part, >or you enter once in the score and once in the "parts score" and then >copy from the "parts score" to the part. In this case, the "parts score" >seems like an unnecessary extra step. Yes and no. I see what you're saying, and I don't disagree with you, but in my case I guess it is a small extra step. The things I do generally don't have large-scale revisions, just accumulations of small corrections, and every now and then I find it beneficial to re-extract the parts. When this happens, it's nice to still have an up-to-date parts score so that I don't need to recreate cues, etc. before extracting. I could probably change my pattern so that I don't keep the parts score around, but for now this works for me. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
On 21.12.2005 Robert Patterson wrote: The examples Brad and I have given for using an intermediate (and temporary) copy of the score for part extraction seem to call into question the value of linked scores and parts. I think they would make it much easier - if implemented well. In theory I think linked scores and parts is a great idea. In practice I worry that no implementation (esp. within a single annual cycle) will be complete or flexible enough to be useful, other than as a hack. If that is the case, I hate to see MM neglect other kinds of enhancements that might be more immediately usable for a linked parts feature of dubious usefulness. I also have my doubts whether MM will spend enough time on designing this well enough. However, my personal hope for linked parts is not so much that we will never have to extract parts. There may perhaps be a limit to how much can be done in the linked parts without destroying the score. However, certainly for my way oof working I am hoping that at least I will be able to: - do the basics of part formatting without having to extract, - save the intermediate Parts-Score and extract directly from the main score, and only at the very end before publication. Ideally no part extraction will be necessary at all, but I foresee some limitations in what this can do. If I have a chance to print out rough drafts of parts in an earlier stage of the score, while still being able to adjust page turns, and not lose that work, I'll be a little happier. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
On 21.12.2005 David W. Fenton wrote: Please explain to me why you need to do this. I don't get it, since the settings for most things in parts are controllable simply by setting them in the default parts page layout or at the time that you extract parts. What aspects of layout are fixed by forking the file before you extract parts? I have to admit that I mainly do this for cue notes, but also for placing of titles. There are a few things that are unnecessarily complicated, eg when extracting parts Finale loses "Empty" pages, ie title pages, while it retains the title page text blocks, but on the first page of music. This is what takes a lot time repairing. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
Aaron Sherber wrote: Really? I keep my "parts score" around, in case I need to make revisions. Copying and pasting changes from the main score to the parts score is, for me, much faster than re-creating the parts score from the main score, with all the cues, etc. Eh? I agree with David if you are treating the "parts score" as anything but a temporary working file. The parts are already one forked copy. Keeping another strikes me as wasted extra effort and just a big opportunity for error. Think about it. Suppose revision X is such that you cannot directly copy it from the score to the part. This means you have to enter it twice no matter what. Either you enter it once in the score and once in the part, or you enter once in the score and once in the "parts score" and then copy from the "parts score" to the part. In this case, the "parts score" seems like an unnecessary extra step. I am aware that my needs are utterly different than those of some, esp. in New York theatre circles. I undertand from my contacts in that circle that often there never really is a score as I am accustomed to thinking about it. In that case, perhaps the "parts score" has some value. But for my work I can't see it. I always delete my "parts score" as soon as I have extracted the last part, to avoid any confusion that I might need to keep it up to date. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
Thank you gentlemen. Dean On Dec 21, 2005, at 4:11 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 06:21 PM 12/21/2005, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: >BTW, I've looked all over in my Mac2k6, and have not been able to >find Smart Explosion, of which you speak. What is it, and where is it? It's part of the full TGTools, available from www.tgtools.com The TGTools Lite included with Fin2006 includes part of this functionality, called Process Extracted Parts. If you have combined, for example, trumpet 1 and 2 on one staff, you can run Process Extracted Parts over the extracted part to create just a trumpet 1 part (and then run it on a copy to create trumpet 2). Smart Explosion lets you do this *before* you extract the parts, which has some advantages, especially if you have many of these staves. See http://tgtools.com/parts.htm and http://tgtools.com/parproc.htm for more info. Aaron. ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
At 09:54 PM 12/21/2005, Robert Patterson wrote: >First, you seem to have missed the point of forking. The forked score >has a very short lifespan. It lives only from the time the score is >finished until the time the parts have been extracted. Then it goes into >the bit bucket. Really? I keep my "parts score" around, in case I need to make revisions. Copying and pasting changes from the main score to the parts score is, for me, much faster than re-creating the parts score from the main score, with all the cues, etc. And David Fenton said, about cues: >> Why can't it be done in the score, and placed in, say, a layer that >> is not visible in the score? Well, cues usually *are* put into a different layer. But I find quite often that the "real" whole rest which is also put into layer 1 of a cue measure needs to be shifted vertically by more than the default amount in order to avoid the cue notes. So if I put cue notes into my main score, before printing I would need to hide the layer with the cue notes *and* go back and unshift the various whole rests. (Or I could leave the rests unshifted in the score and fix them in the parts, I suppose, though this feels odd to me.) Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
This is how I do it. I make a score that extracts parts correctly and extract them. When that's done, I make a few changes (saving the new file as "score") - some text blocks, page formatting, page set up, measure numbers - things like that. It usually takes me a while. I keep that as the score and use the other one if I need to make changes, copying those changes into the one that's formatted for "score" as well as in the appropriate parts. I know this is not a way that David Fenton would work, but it seems Ok to me. If anyone has constructive suggestions that would save steps, I'm happy to listen. 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
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
I don't know why I bother answering the comments of such a committed contrarian, but for the sake of other list members I will address some of these questions. First, you seem to have missed the point of forking. The forked score has a very short lifespan. It lives only from the time the score is finished until the time the parts have been extracted. Then it goes into the bit bucket. In the event of Finale providing a linked score/parts feature, there may be better ways. But absent such a feature, forking the score for the purpose of extracting parts is a quite elegant procedure. As to your specific questions: David W. Fenton wrote: Why not extract to a part, then explode from that? Because of all the other stuff you have to do afterwards, specifically, cues. This suggestion is rather nonsensical. You are advocating eschewing a single intermediate score file while suggesting that I create a different intermediate file for (potentially) every section of the orchestra. How does that make sense? Why can't it be done in the score, and placed in, say, a layer that is not visible in the score? Well, perhaps it could. But it's alot more trouble than just doing it directly on a copy of the score. In a world with linked parts this suggestion might make sense. Absent that feature, I see no point in it. This one I simply don't understand. If you want to understand it, visit the Copyist Helper page on my website. I ain't gonna retype it here. Can't this be controlled by *not* setting up separate text blocks for parts and scores? No. If MM would just implement layout independence in Special Part Extraction, they'd be more than 75% of the way to having linked parts Perhaps, but this would have to include separate placement for text titles, among other features well beyond its current scope (notably, separate music spacings: a non-trivial enhancement). All that labor has to be discarded if you end up perform any significant edits on the score after the forking. Say what? The forked score only lives during the preparation of the parts. Then it dies. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
On 21 Dec 2005 at 21:51, Robert Patterson wrote: > > -Original Message- > > > > What aspects of layout are fixed by forking the file before you > > extract parts? > > It allows you to edit the score for extraction without affecting your > clean score. These edits are likely to be > > 1. Preprocessing (e.g., TGTools Smart Explosion). > 2. Cues. > 3. Headers (as for staff names). > 4. Miscellanous Edits. > > Item #1 generally only applies for large band and orchestra scores, > where it is necessary, e.g., to break the 4 horn parts out onto > separate staves before extracting. (In many scores, they are combined > on staves in the score to reduce the vertical footprint of each > system.) Judicious application of TGTools Smart Explosion helps reduce > the pain in this process to a surprising extent, even with quite > convoluted changes in the distribution of parts on staves from one > system to the next. Why not extract to a part, then explode from that? > Item #2 is obvious. It is much easier to create cues before > extracting, especially with the help of tools like TGTools Add Cue > Notes. Why can't it be done in the score, and placed in, say, a layer that is not visible in the score? > Item #3 is less obvious, unless you happen to use my Copyist Helper > plugin. Then what you do is create headers with staff-name > placeholders. After extraction, the plugin can convert the > placeholders to actual staff names. This is far more flexible than the > limited features for staffname headers built into Finale's part > extraction. These added flexibilities include This one I simply don't understand. > 1. Precise placement of a header on page 1. Precise placement of a > different header on the rest of the pages. > > 2. The ability to embed the staffname inside other text. > > 3. For doubling parts, the ability to show the current instrument name > in addition to (or instead of) the staff name, e.g. "Reed 1--Soprano > Sax". > > For more info, see the Copyist Helper page at my website. Is this one such a huge problem? I understand now, though I only encounter in a very primitive form, since my requirements for parts are, apparently, substandard, in comparison to yours, but this is hardly a valid reason for completely forking the file, seems to me. > Item #4 (Miscellaneous) may include stuff like moving the titles on > page 1 (and/or global titles) to match what you want in each part. For > me, quite often, the placement of page 1 titles in the score bears > only passing resemblance to that for parts. It's a nuisance to move > them around separately in each part. Can't this be controlled by *not* setting up separate text blocks for parts and scores? I forget all the available settings, but you do have some control over which things appear in the score and which in the parts. If MM would just implement layout independence in Special Part Extraction, they'd be more than 75% of the way to having linked parts and solving these problems you've outlined, none of which seems to me to be significant enough to require such drastic action as forking your score files. All that labor has to be discarded if you end up perform any significant edits on the score after the forking. The amount of work then seems to me to be vastly more than what's minimally required to extract from an independent file. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
At 06:21 PM 12/21/2005, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: >BTW, I've looked all over in my Mac2k6, and have not been able to >find Smart Explosion, of which you speak. What is it, and where is it? It's part of the full TGTools, available from www.tgtools.com The TGTools Lite included with Fin2006 includes part of this functionality, called Process Extracted Parts. If you have combined, for example, trumpet 1 and 2 on one staff, you can run Process Extracted Parts over the extracted part to create just a trumpet 1 part (and then run it on a copy to create trumpet 2). Smart Explosion lets you do this *before* you extract the parts, which has some advantages, especially if you have many of these staves. See http://tgtools.com/parts.htm and http://tgtools.com/parproc.htm for more info. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
It's part of TGTools: http://tgtools.com This, and the Patterson Plug-ins, are (in my opinion) necessary for serious engraving work. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky On 12/21/05, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BTW, I've looked all over in my Mac2k6, and have not been able to > find Smart Explosion, of which you speak. What is it, and where is it? > > Dean > > On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Lee Actor wrote: > > > In addition to Brad's and Robert's examples, I'll add the following > > items which are much easier to deal with in an intermediate "parts" > > score: > > 1) font and position of measure numbers > > 2) position and format of page numbers > > 3) music spacing > > > > For me these are all different in the parts than they are in the > > score, and it's a lot less work to do these once in the > > "extraction" score than for each individual part. But by far the > > biggest factors for me in favor of an intermediate score are the > > TGTools Smart Explosion, and adding cues (I work mostly with large > > orchestral scores). > > > > Lee Actor > > Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic > > http://www.leeactor.com > > > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Behalf > >> Of Robert Patterson > >> > >>> > >>> In my earlier reply I neglected to mention this, which is a big > >>> issue > >>> for me as well. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> The examples Brad and I have given for using an intermediate (and > >> temporary) copy of the score for part extraction seem to call > >> into question the value of linked scores and parts. In theory I > >> think linked scores and parts is a great idea. In practice I > >> worry that no implementation (esp. within a single annual cycle) > >> will be complete or flexible enough to be useful, other than as a > >> hack. If that is the case, I hate to see MM neglect other kinds > >> of enhancements that might be more immediately usable for a > >> linked parts feature of dubious usefulness. > >> > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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 > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
BTW, I've looked all over in my Mac2k6, and have not been able to find Smart Explosion, of which you speak. What is it, and where is it? Dean On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Lee Actor wrote: In addition to Brad's and Robert's examples, I'll add the following items which are much easier to deal with in an intermediate "parts" score: 1) font and position of measure numbers 2) position and format of page numbers 3) music spacing For me these are all different in the parts than they are in the score, and it's a lot less work to do these once in the "extraction" score than for each individual part. But by far the biggest factors for me in favor of an intermediate score are the TGTools Smart Explosion, and adding cues (I work mostly with large orchestral scores). Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Patterson In my earlier reply I neglected to mention this, which is a big issue for me as well. The examples Brad and I have given for using an intermediate (and temporary) copy of the score for part extraction seem to call into question the value of linked scores and parts. In theory I think linked scores and parts is a great idea. In practice I worry that no implementation (esp. within a single annual cycle) will be complete or flexible enough to be useful, other than as a hack. If that is the case, I hate to see MM neglect other kinds of enhancements that might be more immediately usable for a linked parts feature of dubious usefulness. ___ 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
RE: [Finale] Dealing with parts
In addition to Brad's and Robert's examples, I'll add the following items which are much easier to deal with in an intermediate "parts" score: 1) font and position of measure numbers 2) position and format of page numbers 3) music spacing For me these are all different in the parts than they are in the score, and it's a lot less work to do these once in the "extraction" score than for each individual part. But by far the biggest factors for me in favor of an intermediate score are the TGTools Smart Explosion, and adding cues (I work mostly with large orchestral scores). Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of Robert Patterson > > > > In my earlier reply I neglected to mention this, which is a big issue > > for me as well. > > > > The examples Brad and I have given for using an intermediate (and > temporary) copy of the score for part extraction seem to call > into question the value of linked scores and parts. In theory I > think linked scores and parts is a great idea. In practice I > worry that no implementation (esp. within a single annual cycle) > will be complete or flexible enough to be useful, other than as a > hack. If that is the case, I hate to see MM neglect other kinds > of enhancements that might be more immediately usable for a > linked parts feature of dubious usefulness. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
Brad: No, I haven't done much work yet, so that sounds as if may make the most sense. I appreciate the wisdom of the list ... Thanks, Dean On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: Actually, Dean, if you haven't done much work on the files since extraction I would very much recommend creating a separate Parts score as Johannes suggested. I was under the impression that you had already done some work on the files individually and didn't want to have to re-extract. If this is not an issue, a new Parts score is what I always use to change sizes and such for the parts. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky On 12/21/05, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Many Thanks. Dean On Dec 21, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: On 12/21/05, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:35 AM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: On 12/21/05, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Question: do I have to do all of these operations individually to each part (file), or is there a way to do it to one and carry the changes across to all the others? Using Mac 2006b. The easiest way to do this is to use Robert Patterson's Settings Scrapbook plug-in. Thanks Brad. Where does one access the Settings Scrapbook? Robert's plug-ins are available at http://robertgpatterson.com. They are free to try, but they are worth every penny of the $59 price. Mass Copy alone has saved me enough time to make this a good investment. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
On Dec 21, 2005, at 4:24 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 21 Dec 2005 at 10:54, Brad Beyenhof wrote: Actually, Dean, if you haven't done much work on the files since extraction I would very much recommend creating a separate Parts score as Johannes suggested. I was under the impression that you had already done some work on the files individually and didn't want to have to re-extract. If this is not an issue, a new Parts score is what I always use to change sizes and such for the parts. Please explain to me why you need to do this. I don't get it, since the settings for most things in parts are controllable simply by setting them in the default parts page layout or at the time that you extract parts. What aspects of layout are fixed by forking the file before you extract parts? Well, allow me to jump in. Keep in mind that I am trying to reduce this list as much as possible, and in fact, have succeeded in some instances. Measure number assignments, positioning and font size. Now that I can set the measure numbers to a fixed size, setting font size differently is not always necessary, but if I do, then I have to edit the positioning as well. Sometimes in some styles of music I need measure numbers in all measures in the score, but only at the start of the system in the parts. Title positioning and size. Try as I might, I can't always get a position that works well in the score AND the parts. Usually it's the score position I change. Measure expressions. The spacing that goes on in the score is different than the parts, and that usually creates some places where I have to nudge an expression. If a client wants a concert score (I try to avoid that) then part transposition ends up creating situations that need to be changed, too. I usually extract one part, move stuff around, duplicate it in the score, and extract the rest. When I use Special Part Extraction, I only have to do this once. Smart shape wedges. Ditto. Optimum score placement is not always the same as optimum part placement. I can't think of any more, but some things tend to crop up when I do it, and I just adjust them and don't worry, because it's only a copy of the score! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
Well, I can only speak to my present case, but I found that after I extracted the parts from the score, which was in legal size format, and wished to print the parts in 8.5x11, when the parts opened up, they needed a lot of adjusting from the default presentation. Hairpins needed moving, measure numbers needed adjusting as to size and position ... etc. Dean On Dec 21, 2005, at 1:24 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 21 Dec 2005 at 10:54, Brad Beyenhof wrote: Actually, Dean, if you haven't done much work on the files since extraction I would very much recommend creating a separate Parts score as Johannes suggested. I was under the impression that you had already done some work on the files individually and didn't want to have to re-extract. If this is not an issue, a new Parts score is what I always use to change sizes and such for the parts. Please explain to me why you need to do this. I don't get it, since the settings for most things in parts are controllable simply by setting them in the default parts page layout or at the time that you extract parts. What aspects of layout are fixed by forking the file before you extract parts? -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
> -Original Message- > From: Brad Beyenhof [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In my earlier reply I neglected to mention this, which is a big issue > for me as well. > The examples Brad and I have given for using an intermediate (and temporary) copy of the score for part extraction seem to call into question the value of linked scores and parts. In theory I think linked scores and parts is a great idea. In practice I worry that no implementation (esp. within a single annual cycle) will be complete or flexible enough to be useful, other than as a hack. If that is the case, I hate to see MM neglect other kinds of enhancements that might be more immediately usable for a linked parts feature of dubious usefulness. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
On 12/21/05, Robert Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What aspects of layout are fixed by forking the file before you > > extract parts? > > Item #4 (Miscellaneous) may include stuff like moving the titles > on page 1 (and/or global titles) to match what you want in each > part. For me, quite often, the placement of page 1 titles in the > score bears only passing resemblance to that for parts. It's a > nuisance to move them around separately in each part. In my earlier reply I neglected to mention this, which is a big issue for me as well. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
On 12/21/05, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What aspects of layout are fixed by forking the file before you > extract parts? Not layout per se, but certain things like the size of measure numbers (or measure-expression rehearsal letters/numbers) or the inclusion of measure number regions to be displayed on staves can be solved this way. Most of the work I do requires all measure numbers to be displayed on the parts, so I change the Staff Attributes to display measure numbers on all staves of the Parts score before I extract. This same work also calls for fixed point sizes for rehearsal numbers, so I have to manually enlarge them instead of allowing them to be proportionally resized in the extraction process. Once I extract the parts I can safely ignore the Parts score and work from then on with just the original score when making corrections and changes. However, creating a separate score just for extraction has always made things much easier. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
> -Original Message- > > What aspects of layout are fixed by forking the file before you > extract parts? > It allows you to edit the score for extraction without affecting your clean score. These edits are likely to be 1. Preprocessing (e.g., TGTools Smart Explosion). 2. Cues. 3. Headers (as for staff names). 4. Miscellanous Edits. Item #1 generally only applies for large band and orchestra scores, where it is necessary, e.g., to break the 4 horn parts out onto separate staves before extracting. (In many scores, they are combined on staves in the score to reduce the vertical footprint of each system.) Judicious application of TGTools Smart Explosion helps reduce the pain in this process to a surprising extent, even with quite convoluted changes in the distribution of parts on staves from one system to the next. Item #2 is obvious. It is much easier to create cues before extracting, especially with the help of tools like TGTools Add Cue Notes. Item #3 is less obvious, unless you happen to use my Copyist Helper plugin. Then what you do is create headers with staff-name placeholders. After extraction, the plugin can convert the placeholders to actual staff names. This is far more flexible than the limited features for staffname headers built into Finale's part extraction. These added flexibilities include 1. Precise placement of a header on page 1. Precise placement of a different header on the rest of the pages. 2. The ability to embed the staffname inside other text. 3. For doubling parts, the ability to show the current instrument name in addition to (or instead of) the staff name, e.g. "Reed 1--Soprano Sax". For more info, see the Copyist Helper page at my website. Item #4 (Miscellaneous) may include stuff like moving the titles on page 1 (and/or global titles) to match what you want in each part. For me, quite often, the placement of page 1 titles in the score bears only passing resemblance to that for parts. It's a nuisance to move them around separately in each part. Robert ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
On 21 Dec 2005 at 10:54, Brad Beyenhof wrote: > Actually, Dean, if you haven't done much work on the files since > extraction I would very much recommend creating a separate Parts score > as Johannes suggested. I was under the impression that you had already > done some work on the files individually and didn't want to have to > re-extract. If this is not an issue, a new Parts score is what I > always use to change sizes and such for the parts. Please explain to me why you need to do this. I don't get it, since the settings for most things in parts are controllable simply by setting them in the default parts page layout or at the time that you extract parts. What aspects of layout are fixed by forking the file before you extract parts? -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
Actually, Dean, if you haven't done much work on the files since extraction I would very much recommend creating a separate Parts score as Johannes suggested. I was under the impression that you had already done some work on the files individually and didn't want to have to re-extract. If this is not an issue, a new Parts score is what I always use to change sizes and such for the parts. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky On 12/21/05, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Many Thanks. > > Dean > > On Dec 21, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: > > > On 12/21/05, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:35 AM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: > >> > >>> On 12/21/05, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Question: do I have > to do all of these operations individually to each part (file), > or is > there a way to do it to one and carry the changes across to all the > others? Using Mac 2006b. > > >>> > >>> The easiest way to do this is to use Robert Patterson's Settings > >>> Scrapbook plug-in. > >>> > >> > >> Thanks Brad. Where does one access the Settings Scrapbook? > >> > > > > Robert's plug-ins are available at http://robertgpatterson.com. They > > are free to try, but they are worth every penny of the $59 price. Mass > > Copy alone has saved me enough time to make this a good investment. > > > > -- > > Brad Beyenhof > > Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com > > my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com > > Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also > > deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky > > > > ___ > > 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 > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
Many Thanks. Dean On Dec 21, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: On 12/21/05, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:35 AM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: On 12/21/05, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Question: do I have to do all of these operations individually to each part (file), or is there a way to do it to one and carry the changes across to all the others? Using Mac 2006b. The easiest way to do this is to use Robert Patterson's Settings Scrapbook plug-in. Thanks Brad. Where does one access the Settings Scrapbook? Robert's plug-ins are available at http://robertgpatterson.com. They are free to try, but they are worth every penny of the $59 price. Mass Copy alone has saved me enough time to make this a good investment. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
On 12/21/05, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:35 AM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: >> On 12/21/05, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Question: do I have >>> to do all of these operations individually to each part (file), or is >>> there a way to do it to one and carry the changes across to all the >>> others? Using Mac 2006b. >> >> The easiest way to do this is to use Robert Patterson's Settings >> Scrapbook plug-in. > > Thanks Brad. Where does one access the Settings Scrapbook? Robert's plug-ins are available at http://robertgpatterson.com. They are free to try, but they are worth every penny of the $59 price. Mass Copy alone has saved me enough time to make this a good investment. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
On 21.12.2005 Brad Beyenhof wrote: >Question: do I have >> to do all of these operations individually to each part (file), or is >> there a way to do it to one and carry the changes across to all the >> others? Using Mac 2006b. The easiest way to do this is to use Robert Patterson's Settings Scrapbook plug-in. Just perform the necessary changes to one part and it should be able to propagate them to all the others. Or else you could write a FinaleScript to perform the necessary changes, but this is more difficult and there's no guarantee that all of the operations you need to perform are scriptable. I would prepare a "Parts" score file, where you change all these parameters, then extract. Remember to change the Page Format for parts. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
Thanks Brad. Where does one access the Settings Scrapbook? Dean On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:35 AM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: On 12/21/05, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Question: do I have to do all of these operations individually to each part (file), or is there a way to do it to one and carry the changes across to all the others? Using Mac 2006b. The easiest way to do this is to use Robert Patterson's Settings Scrapbook plug-in. Just perform the necessary changes to one part and it should be able to propagate them to all the others. Or else you could write a FinaleScript to perform the necessary changes, but this is more difficult and there's no guarantee that all of the operations you need to perform are scriptable. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
On 12/21/05, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Question: do I have > to do all of these operations individually to each part (file), or is > there a way to do it to one and carry the changes across to all the > others? Using Mac 2006b. The easiest way to do this is to use Robert Patterson's Settings Scrapbook plug-in. Just perform the necessary changes to one part and it should be able to propagate them to all the others. Or else you could write a FinaleScript to perform the necessary changes, but this is more difficult and there's no guarantee that all of the operations you need to perform are scriptable. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dealing with parts
You can adjust the part settings globally in the score file. See options > page format > parts You'll need to re-extract the parts to have the settings affect the parts. -Carolyn On 12/21/05, Dean M. Estabrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey Guys: > > I'm dealing with a large (28 Stave) band score. I've extracted the > parts, and need to edit several things, e.g., reducing the size of > the measure number boxes and their positioning, reducing the > percentage, etc. The score is in a legal size format, but I need the > parts to be in 8.5 by 11 in. So, I have to do some adjusting of > distance between staffs and that sort of thing. Question: do I have > to do all of these operations individually to each part (file), or is > there a way to do it to one and carry the changes across to all the > others? Using Mac 2006b. > > Thanks, > > Dean > ___ > 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
[Finale] Dealing with parts
Hey Guys: I'm dealing with a large (28 Stave) band score. I've extracted the parts, and need to edit several things, e.g., reducing the size of the measure number boxes and their positioning, reducing the percentage, etc. The score is in a legal size format, but I need the parts to be in 8.5 by 11 in. So, I have to do some adjusting of distance between staffs and that sort of thing. Question: do I have to do all of these operations individually to each part (file), or is there a way to do it to one and carry the changes across to all the others? Using Mac 2006b. Thanks, Dean ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
