Dear Christopher et al,
I used Composer's Mosaic by Mark of The Unicorn for 10+ years and it has dynamically linked score to parts.
And with out a doubt is the one feature I miss most in Finale and Sibelius. Unfortunately Mosaic is not being
rewritten for OSX on Mac and because so many of my clients were working in Finale and Sibelius, I've had
to get my skills up on Finale and Sibelius. And there are many wonderful features in Finale and Sibelius that
I enjoy using that are not in Mosaic.
Re: dynamic linking,
Yes there are some issues with placement of objects in score vs. parts but there are ways to anticipate these issues.
Yes, you do have to re tweak the parts some after you've made changes. If you make large form changes, of course
there is major reformatting of parts.
But a situation that comes up much more frequently for me is. The client loves the chart but needs to have a few bars
with repeats added for a vamp, or you forget to put "Swing" at bar 60 in all the parts or, it's great redo the tempo markings
at bar 80 etc. Or very often, it's great but can you transpose the whole chart down one step. In Mosaic with dynamic linking
of score to parts, I can take a 200 bar big band chart transpose it down 1 step, tweak the few things in the parts that moved
and be printing parts in less than 30 minutes. The same procedure in Finale or Sibelius, well you've got your choice, transpose
the score and re-extract all of the parts, or transpose the score and transpose each part. I'm looking at at least a couple of hours
of work, at least. And consider the situation where you have just got to replace a fermarta, a couple instances of system text. In Mosaic you
revise it once in the score and then print all of your parts and score, 5 minutes vs. several hours in Finale. I find the advantages
far out weigh any disadvantages.
The other plus, the entire chart score and parts are in one file, not a folder full. With dynamic linking you can have several different
formate of scores (say, a condensed conductor/vocal, transposed orch, concert orch etc) all in the same file, all reflecting the same
changes.
If I could have dynamic linking of score to parts and Finale 2004 Mac OSX to run as fast as Finale 2003 Mac OS9, I'd be one happy camper.
Best regards to all,
John Hinchey Nashville, TN
Message: 19 Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 07:51:15 -0400 From: Christopher BJ Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Finale] Finale vs. Sibelius - Review in Macworld July 2004 Issue At 10:42 PM -0700 6/03/04, Eric Dannewitz wrote:The thing they should work on is linking parts to a score. It's a
pain in the ass to work on something, and have to remember to change
the score and other parts. It would be great to have them linked (if
you wanted) to a score, so, a change in a part would be reflected in
the score, and vice versa.This issue has come up before on this list, and there were a wholebunch of things discussed that I couldn't understand because I have little programming experience, but here is my main objection:
What would happen to the layout of the parts when you made a change to the score, if parts inherited changes automatically?.......
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
