Robert Patterson wrote:
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.
[snip]
I'm not sure you can say the output is superior -- the ability to work
in modes that Sibelius doesn't approve of is superior in Finale, but the
output to paper can look gorgeous with either program, and can look
awful with either program, depending on the engraver's eye of the user.
Ease of use in certain engraving areas is far superior in Finale, but
Siblius is rapidly closing that gap, as the program has loosened its
"Why would you want to do that? Don't you even think about it!" attitude.
The ability to split a multi-part staff into separate parts isn't part
of Sibelius' dynamic parts capability yet, but I'm sure they will figure
out a way. There have already been several workarounds discussed on the
Sibelius list, one that one of the Finn brothers (can't remember,
Jonathan or Ben) suggests, and one that Daniel Spreadbury suggests, and
another that an end-user suggested. It involves using voices (Sibelius'
version of Finale's layers) and filtering (sort of Sibelius' version of
Show Active Layer Only). So, apparently, if you organize your workflow
and the parts entry in a certain way, you will be able to accomplish
something similar to, but not quite equal to, a built-in ability to have
separate parts for multi-part staves.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
