Robert,
I don't think you quite understood what I am after. I find the basic
concept of how cue notes are included in the first place very short
sighted. Simply adding them to a free layer is always going to cause all
sorts of problems. What I want is a separate cue notes layer.
The reason I am asking for this now is the cue notes-dynamic score and
parts link. Cue notes will have to be dealt with when creating dynamic
score and parts. Ideally I'd like to see a completely new concept for
them, which would make cue notes much easier in the first place. And the
new concept would make much more sense when score and part linking is
there, too. The specifics of the design are debatable.
I know this is whishful thinking, but since we are debating
improvements, this is one which would save _me_ lots of hours.
The smart cue notes plugin doesn't cut it for me, it causes more trouble
than it is worth in my experience.
All that said, I actually believe that you are right, and that score and
part linking will not be all that easy to include in Finale.
However, I wonder whether a new concept of part updating will be
possible nonetheless. Even using plugins.
Johannes
Robert Patterson schrieb:
If a plugin has trouble doing cue notes, why would it be any easier
in the native program? If you care how the cue notes look, no
automation MM is likely to come up with is like to be good enough. If
you don't care, then TGTools is sufficient, although there are a few
tweaks that would be helpful. (So help me, I do care, so TGTools
provides only a starting point for me.)
When I said I thought dynamic parts would be possible within an
annual cycle, what I meant was:
* Separate Page and System records per part * Separate note spacing
per part * Separate "Special Part Extraction" bits to limit which
expressions appear where. * A UI to allow separate Page Views for
each part * (Marginally Possible) a way to hide a particular layer in
a particular page view (for, e.g., cue notes)
Off the table, I suspect, would be separate font settings for titles.
Also, if like me you combine parts in a score and split them out in
parts, you could not use dynamic parts. (I seriously doubt that
Sibelius's new feature provides this capability either.)
Of all those bullet points, the one would give me the most heartburn
is separate note spacing. It is essential, but I suspect it tears at
the heart of Finale and would be extremely risky and painful to
implement. The entire picture gives me heartburn as a plugin
developer, too.
Perhaps this is a case of "be careful what you ask for". The more I
think about it, the less useful I personally would find it. Automatic
vertical spacing seems much more attractive to me.
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list
[email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
