On 24 Jul 2005, at 18:42, Robert Patterson wrote:
None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking
is an ease-of-use feature
Certainly. But it is evident that Finale needs more ease of use to
continue to exist next to Sibelius.
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.)
Finale's output _can_ be superior to Sibelius's. It depends on who is
doing the engraving. I think that someone with
- (1) an expert knowledge of musical engraving,
- (2) an expert knowledge of the particular software he or she uses and
- (3) enough computer know-how and inventiveness to find clever
workarounds for things the software apparently can't do
will be able to produce a first class score with the engraving program
they use, be it Finale or Sibelius. The problem for me is that Finale's
output is very often inferior to Sibelius's, simply because Sibelius
has better defaults.
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.
I can't see a way to do this: I'll let you know if it's possible, but I
rather think it isn't.
Michael Cook
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
