At 10:45 AM 7/18/2007 -0700, Michael Good wrote: >Do the flute and violin parts have to have different sets of measures >on each system, or can you make them the same between parts (even >though that means extra space at the end of the flute part)? As it is >now, they are the same for the first two systems but then they start >to diverge.
Though this might be possible, it wouldn't match the manuscript. And for now, that's the idea, so that it can be proofread and go to the conductor asap. (The composer just finished it, and I got the last pages in the mail yesterday.) >I don't know how you are doing this now, but if the measure layout >could be the same between the two parts, I think you could do the >right hand side by using a series of 6 overlapping 2-staff optimized >systems. The left hand side would be its own separate 16-staff system, >which it probably already is at this point. This would probably get >the playback correct without the after-the-fact editing, and might >help get part extraction to work. This is simlar to what jef chippewa suggested. I think it's probably a better idea than kludging around, but I would have had to work out whether the layout was acceptable to the composer, who wanted to have the parts as separate segments of score (this layout method appears again later), and then figure out how to make it work without the layout suggesting a performance solution. The violin part says "start any time after flute starts" -- actually showing where it happens might be too suggestive. Now if I had you and jef as consultants ten days ago... But yes, this is a workable idea ... though I do like the layout the composer has created. It very elegantly shows the separatet solos and their isolation from each other. Dennis _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
