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 compact
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
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
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 a2s and solos etc. intact,
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 there seems
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,
...
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
