At 12:07 AM 06/10/03, Darcy James Argue wrote: [answering me] >> I move staves within a system using the "Staff Usage" box. > >Why that instead of TGTools Staff LIst Manager.
1. I'm used to the Staff Usage way and I never had any complaints with it. I don't even know what TG would do that I would like any better. Maybe I have a pleasant surprise waiting for me? 2. On my archaic Mac, I had a problem loading the full TGTools, due to some OS component I'm missing. I was told it's a free download from Apple, but when I couldn't find it easily I didn't follow up. Thus, I only use the TG Lite. (On a side note, my budgetary situation has changed, so I'm finally anticipating tossing out this old piece of junk and getting a new Mac. I'm not even going to install Finale on the new one until 2k4 comes out, so that I can skip the whole OS 9 Classic rigamarole.) >On a related note, what's the best way to get consistent placement for >apreggio marks in piano or harp parts? Some time last year I had a piece with a lot of them so I finally sat down and worked out a good procedure -- and then once I had it I wondered why I didn't do it years ago! I've now got two separate metatools, and between the two of them I can cover everything. The reason for two is for two different possible vertical alignments. I *think* the key to which one to choose is whether the top note of the chord is a line or a space, but I can never remember for sure. Usually I just try one and if it's wrong I delete and try the other. (If there are several of them in a piece, after a while I recognize the pattern again.) When entering the articulation, it's essential to use the metatool key while lassoing around the chord you're attaching to (or with Apply Articulation from the Mass Mover menu). Otherwise the placement depends on where you click the mouse, which defeats the purpose. This method always puts the top of the squiggle in the right place, but I always need to shrink it by one segment. (You'd think Finale could do a better job of defaulting to the right length. It obviously is looking at the chord to pick a length accordingly, but it consistently errs on the side of too long.) I do this by nudging the bottom handle up. The top handle moves the entire squiggle, so I don't do any vertical adjustments on it. For horizontal placement, the key is to define the articulation for "centered" and then put a big number into the H handle offset to have it place on the left. I've got mine set up to be nicely placed on a plain chord. If there are accidentals or displaced noteheads, I nudge the whole thing left. If anyone is interested I can call up a file and specify all the numbers. [me] >> [...] I like to >> have the bottom system in the same position on every page [Darcy] >I wish Finale made this easier. I don't do this mainly because while >do I think it would be theoretically desirable to have the bottom >system in the same position on every page, it's such a monumental, >time-consuming pain in the ass to do (especially for orchestral scores) >that I generally just go for "ah, that looks close enough." Well, in my templates I don't find it such a hassle. If you're used to punching numbers into the Edit Systems Margin dialog, it's just basic arithmetic. Figure out how much extra space you've got (from the "Required for add'l system" value). Divide that by the number of systems on the page minus one, and add that much space to "distance between systems" for each system. That's a generic model calling for some math. On my usual templates I already know all my values by heart, so with a little practice it's fairly routine for me. That said, I agree that it would be nicer if this could be more automatic, but I wouldn't call it a "time-consuming pain in the ass" either. Of course, I'm talking about pages with four or more systems per page, so that the space can be comfortably distributed between systems. For an orchestra score with one system per page it would be an entirely different procedure, which I have no direct experience with. (Though it seems that wouldn't be so hard either....) I suppose this is one of those things where my background as a pre-wysiwyg typesetter is helpful. I'm used to working out layout math myself without discomfort. (Indeed, I tend to be uncomfortable if I *don't* have all the layout positions in my head, which is why I hate dragging.) [me] >> Oh, and I still use page reduction rather than system reduction. [...] [Darcy] >Well, it's very useful in orchestral scores, where your system >reduction can change dramatically from page to page, but you want page >numbers, headers and footers, etc, to remain a consistent size, and you >don't want to check the "Fixed Size" box for those text elements. Could be. I rarely do orchestra scores, and I can't remember ever doing a score where I wanted a different reduction for different pages. mdl _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
