Bravo, Linda! Well said and I agree with every word.
Harold
On Friday, July 12, 2002 11:38 AM, Linda Worsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>This whole subject of parts extraction has interested me greatly,
and
>I can't resist throwing my 2 cents in.
>
>My view is that:
>
>* Scores should be as c
Bravo, Linda! Well said and I agree with every word.
Harold
On Friday, July 12, 2002 11:38 AM, Linda Worsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>This whole subject of parts extraction has interested me greatly,
and
>I can't resist throwing my 2 cents in.
>
>My view is that:
>
>* Scores should be as c
...
> I'm only discussing an option that I think would improve handling
> significantly, making it more logical and in keeping with how the music
> progresses in a performance situation.
>
> Such an option would define a new Finale level to be added to groups,
> staves, layers, and voices that rep
At 9:38 AM -0700 7/12/02, Linda Worsley wrote:
>
>Sure, it would be great if the machines could read our minds or
>automatically, somehow, understand that the "flutes 1 and 2" part
>should be made into two individual pages, with the correct
>instrument label, all the "a2"s and "solo"s etc. inta
At 12:13 PM 7/12/02 -0700, Lee Actor wrote:
>The way I handle this is to make a group out of all staves (divisi, soli,
>etc.) pertaining to a single part, while instrument changes and the like are
>handled by staff styles. I think you may already have the tools to
>accomplish what you want.
Yes,
> >Dennis, it sounds like we have very similar goals for what we want out of
> >Finale. For me, the "part" feature is absolutely solved by the TGTools
> >"Smart Explosion" and "Smart Distribution" features.
>
> Perhaps it's improved. I just tried it -- the module of v1.88 does work in
> F2K3. But
At 10:47 AM 7/12/02 -0700, Lee Actor wrote:
>Dennis, it sounds like we have very similar goals for what we want out of
>Finale. For me, the "part" feature is absolutely solved by the TGTools
>"Smart Explosion" and "Smart Distribution" features.
Perhaps it's improved. I just tried it -- the modul
> >Sure, it would be great if the machines could read our minds or
> >automatically, somehow, understand that the "flutes 1 and 2" part
> >should be made into two individual pages, with the correct instrument
> >label, all the "a2"s and "solo"s etc. intact, perfect cues, and so
> >on.
>
> Yes it w
At 09:38 AM 7/12/02 -0700, Linda Worsley wrote:
>Sure, it would be great if the machines could read our minds or
>automatically, somehow, understand that the "flutes 1 and 2" part
>should be made into two individual pages, with the correct instrument
>label, all the "a2"s and "solo"s etc. intac
This whole subject of parts extraction has interested me greatly, and
I can't resist throwing my 2 cents in.
My view is that:
* Scores should be as compact as possible, so that they don't have
to be printed in ant-sized type for the conductor to try to read. In
other words, I pair winds on
I know that I'm not alone in this. . .
>From a clarinet player's perspective, in a fast moving, difficult piece with
a lot of detail (rhythmic, dynamic, etc.), it is darned near impossible to
read the second part when BOTH the first and second clarinet parts are on
one staff. A third apart in the
11 matches
Mail list logo
