On Feb 22, 2009, at 6:35 PM, David Froom wrote:
I'm only now getting around to learning linked parts. I have run
into the standard limitations -- measure numbers is the HUGE one.
Why oh why would Finale want to force the same measure number sizes
and other choices on parts and scores? Anyone have a workaround
other than a separate score just for parts?
Yup it's a pain. Here's what I do (courtesy of jef chipewa!)
Use two different measure number regions, region 1 for the parts and
region 2 for the score. When you print the parts, set the range of
region 1 to be 1 to 999 and the range of region 2 to be 999 to 999.
Then when you print the score, switch the ranges manually.
If you have several regions already, this is not very good, but it is
good for most tunes with one region. You just have to remember to
make the switch!
And why oh why would Finale want to allow enharmonic changes NOT to
be linked as a standard behavior? Those of us who write transposed
scores ALWAYS want the conductor to see EXACTLY the notes that the
players see. And I notice what needs to be rethought
enharmonically usually when editing the part. I hate the idea that
I have to stop in those cases, flip to the score, and make the
change there also. Is there a work around?
I don't know what you mean here. The enharmonic that I enter in the
SCORE is the default that gets transferred to the parts, as
everything else is, by default. If you want something to be different
in the part, change it in the part only. If you want it to be
different BOTH places, change it in the score, where presumably you
do most of the work. THe only thing you don't have with enharmonics
(I think this is what you mean) is that you don't have the override
key like you do with most other items where you can have the change
you made in the part transfer back to the score as well.
I figured out, with two-parts-on-a-staff things in a score, that I
can put cues completely in layer one, use staff styles to replace
them with rests in the score. That way they show up in both
parts. It means those cues with whole rests in the measure (notes
in layer 4, rests in layer 1) won't extract properly, but I guess
it is still pretty clear without the whole rests . . . It is the
only way I can see getting cues to work, short of exploding the two-
on-a-part lines in a dedicated "parts" score. And, related to
that, I have to remember that any measures that use two layers have
to have the second part remain in layer 2 throughout the measure.
I haven't worked out cues perfectly yet. If anyone else has some
input here, I would like it, too.
However, I've bumped into serious problems with grace notes in
those broken-out parts. Grace notes look just fine in the combined
part, but when broken into two individual parts, the spacing of
those grace notes goes haywire -- with no way to fix it other than
extracting the part and editing it as a separate file.
Grace note spacing is a serious problem with linked voiced parts. It
has been acknowledged by the tech crew, but complain anyway to get
them working on it faster. This is a huge, monster bug that prevents
the linked parts from working properly.
Also, how do you guys handle those parts where they appear two-to-a-
staff through most of the score, but then get their own staff on a
few pages? You know, where the extra staff for, say, oboe 2 shows
up only on a few pages of the score, and oboe 2 otherwise is
together with oboe 1 (and all the other pages of score have oboe 2
optimized out)?
Create a part that has the oboe 1 staff AND the oboe 2 staff, and
optimise out the unused one. You need to plan this a bit.
There is also kind of a catch-all for odd staff solutions. Your score
can be treated as just another multi-staff part, only showing the
staves you want. You can then create a new staff that DOESN'T show up
in the printed score, only in the oboe 2 part, that has a composite
part that you pasted together.
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
