None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking is an ease-of-use feature and 2) Finale's output is still essentially equal to if not superior to Sib's. (Specifically, it is superior when the user wants a notation that Sib doesn't approve of.)
If you tell me that I can split a part in the score into multiple staves in the score and still have the linking work, then I'll be impressed. > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 04:01 PM > To: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Finale] Finale's output quality > > On 24 Jul 2005, at 17:10, Robert Patterson wrote: > > I remain skeptical that Sib's dynamic linking will be able to maintain > > your high standards when this amount of revision is required. > > (Specifically, an amount of revision that forces an entirely new page > > layout in the parts.) Nevertheless, I certainly can envision that it > > would have made life easier. > > I just had a look at the the Sibelius demo: it's no problem to change > all sorts of things in a part without affecting the score in any way. > You can change the paper size or page margins and redo the layout > (making new system breaks, page breaks...). You can apply a different > house style to each part, if you really want to. > > Michael Cook > > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
