On Dec 10, 2008, at 2:59 AM, Dan Tillberg wrote:
When looking at a part where there are for example full bar rests
in both
first and second ending, it makes sense in a way but it looks a
bit...unnecessary...or even a bit funny perhaps.
I know Darcy got to you within minutes (he must smell these questions
coming from the computer while he's asleep!) but I just wanted to add
my weight to his answer. I assure you, experienced readers don't find
it funny at all to have empty 1st and 2nd endings. They are
completely normal.
Would it be advicable to make the parts so that only instruments with
differences have these different endings, while others don't?
Not only not advisable, but a bit kludgy to accomplish.
Or would it
be better to anyway, for rehearsal simplicity, make all parts equal in
this aspects?
The last thing you want is to say in rehearsal "Take it at the second
ending" and have half the band say, "What?" The aspect of Finale that
forces you to have the same roadmap between all parts and the score
has probably saved more rehearsal time worldwide than any other
single thing I can point to.
Now, I don't honestly even know if Finale 2007 supports to have
different
ending setup for different parts. Does it?
You need to preserve measure numbering so that it is the same, which
involves editing measure regions, you have to do this on extracted
parts, not linked parts, etc., etc. My advice is don't bother.
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
