I am in total agreement with Darcy's suggestions and my experience
with MM is that they will listen, if enough of us communicate.
I am forwarding this to one of the folks there who consistently
responds to my communiques.
Chuck
On Jul 5, 2005, at 11:58 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 06 Jul 2005, at 1:43 AM, Tyler Turner wrote:
At this point, I think it would
be good to make suggestions to MakeMusic for which
parts of that feature you actually need most. What
would be the minimum implementation for the feature
that would give you most of the usefulness? Sibelius'
method is pretty flashy, complete with instantaneous
update. If something like that isn't necessary, it
would be good to mention that. I'm pretty sure that
MakeMusic will at least be looking at this feature
again now that Sibelius has included it. They have a
lot of other stuff on their plate though, so the less
work they'd have to spend on it, the better chance
they'd be able to do it.
Okay, that's a good idea. Let's see if we can flesh something out
on-list before submitting.
First off, though, I think the goal should be to *surpass* Sibelius
in this area. I would hate to see Finale add half-assed Dynamic
Parts (and Video Sync) options that were only pale imitations of
Sibelius features. I think the way to go is the way Finale went
with Human Playback (which had a rocky start but which I now find
indispensable) -- Finale should try to out-do Sibelius's
implementation, at least eventually.
But first, the bare-bones version:
• First, Special Part Extraction would need to be revamped to be
able to save independent an layout for each staff. That's the
obvious starting point. For now, let's call this new version of
Special Part Extraction "Dynamic Parts" (same as the Sibelius
version of the feature).
• We need to be able to apply all of the current part extraction
options to the Dynamic Parts. There should be a menu item, called
something like "Extract Dynamic Parts," that is identical to the
current "Extract Parts" dialog and enables all of the functionality
of regular part extraction.
[Actually, to be honest, it would be nice if the Extract Parts
dialog were smart enough to recognize multi-staff parts -- like
harp and piano -- automatically.]
• After Extracting Dynamic Parts, there should be a new addition to
the View menu -- in addition to Scroll View and Page View (and, in
Fin2k6, Studio View) there should be a "Parts View" menu, opening
to a submenu of all dynamically extracted parts. There should be
keyboard shortcuts to advance or retreat through dynamically
extracted parts, and keyboard shortcuts to switch between Score
View (i.e., Scroll/Page/Studio) and Parts View. (IMO, only Page
View is necessary for Parts view -- same as the way Special Part
Extraction already works. We don't need to be able to see
dynamically extracted parts in Scroll View.)
• Finale should ask what the default Page Setup for extracted parts
should be -- it's a good assumption that it will *not* be the same
as the score. However, this should not affect the Page Setup for
the score, and you should still be able to set the Page Setup for
each dynamically extracted part independently, if you wish.
• Obviously, each dynamically extracted part should have
independent note spacing and layout.
• The split-screen feature in Sibelius is desirable but not
absolutely necessary. The important thing is, after doing a
dynamic part extraction, note changes in Dynamic Parts should
affect the score, and vice versa.
• After doing a dynamic extraction, changes in expression
*positioning* in the part should not affect the score, and vice
versa. However, adding a new expression in the part *should*
affect the score, and vice versa. Same with articulations, smart
shapes, etc -- changes in *positioning* should not cross the part-
score barrier. But *deleting* these elements, or *creating new
ones*, should affect both score and parts.
[Maybe we could also exploit the difference between note-attached
and measure attached expressions? Like, all note-attached
expressions show in Parts + Score, but Measure-Attached expressions
can be set to show up in either Score view or Parts view? This
should be easy, since it's almost identical to the way Measure-
Attached expressions already work.]
• If this feature is to work, Finale will have to (finally) fix
chord symbols in "Open Key/Atonal" scores (to use Sibelius's
terminology). Chord symbols should *always* transpose when
attached to transposing staves, even in pieces with no key signature.
• Note spelling will be tricky, especially if your score is set to
display in concert pitch. I guess the bare-bones approach would be
to leave note spelling linked, always -- so if you have a concert
A# in a Bb clarinet part in your score, you will have a B# in your
part; and if you flip it to a C nat. in your part, it will become a
Bb in your (concert) score. I don't know how Sibelius handles this
issue, but that would be the simplest solution and also -- in most
cases -- the most desirable solution.
• For cue notes to work properly using Dynamic Parts, it would be
*very* useful -- probably obligatory, in fact -- to add a new layer
option -- "Show only in parts".
• We need to be able to set up text blocks that display in the
score only, or in extracted parts only. It would also be nice if
there were independent options for "Score Positioning" and "Parts
Positioning."
• Like Sibelius, there should be a separate color (selectable in
View Options) for elements whose *positioning* differs in Parts
View and Score View. But there should also be a *different* color
for expressions, etc, that display *only* in Parts View (not Score
View) or *only* in Score View.
• It would be *really* nice if Finale could implement Sibelius's
ability to copy the layout from one part to the next. I mean,
*really really really* nice. I don't know if it should be part of
this bare-bones proposal, but seriously, that's the best part of
Sibelius's implementation of this feature and I think Finale really
needs to figure out how to make that work.
• It would also be *really* nice if staff name headers dynamically
updated -- for instance, if you change the staff name from
"Clarinet in Bb" to "Clarinet (Bb)" in the score, the staff name
header in the part should change too.
Looking over this list, I guess what it comes down to is that
almost every aspect of Sibelius's implementation of this feature is
either absolutely necessary or (like "copy layout") extraordinarily
desirable. The only thing aspect that's a bit of a frill is the
split-screen Part-Score view. That's a bit of a frill, and I could
live without it. Everything else is integral to the usefulness of
the feature.
Your thoughts?
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
