Hi David,
Just adding 2c (and a greeting). Linked parts in one file with the
score sometimes works for me, when hairpin lengths and a few other
things are not too different in score and parts but, I find the
missing spacing handles in the parts to be an annoying limitation.
Nevertheless, when it works for the music I am writing, it's a
timesaver.
One caveat for 2010: Tobias' Modify/Transfer Layout plugin does not
work yet, and this is an essential tool for me. I believe he is
working on an update.
Chuck
On Jul 26, 2009, at 4:00 PM, David Froom wrote:
Hi,
I just completed a short project in which, for the first time, I
really tried to take the linked parts completely seriously.
This is FinMac2009.
I know about the measure number problem, so I chose a small and
straightforward piece (trumpet and string orchestra) where the
measure numbers could remain the same size across score and parts.
Also this is a piece without grace notes, as I know that those
create serious spacing issues in the parts (unless extracted).
I wanted to see if it is possible, in such a piece, with clever
workarounds, to have one file with all the details of score and parts.
I managed to work around the cue problems. I like my cues at 75%
with all stems in a single direction (layer 4), and a whole rest in
layer 1 on either the bottom or top line (depending on which way the
stems are pointing). With staff styles, I could hide rests or be
forced to have them in the default position in the same place in
score and parts. I chose to hide the rests completely, and then put
them in twice graphically as expressions, once in default position
for the score, and once in the place I want them to appear in the
part -- and then hiding one of those in the score, the other in the
parts. With cues that needed changed clefs, I chose, after some
frustrating struggles, to hide those in the staff style as well, and
put them in graphically as needed in the score as expressions
(removing the staff style in the parts works great). It was all
working fine, and I managed to get this part to work.
However . . . I was defeated by smart shapes. Even when they are
unlinked, changing the length of hairpins or wavy trill lines in a
part changes them in the score! This is completely unacceptable,
as, of course, spacing in parts is quite different than it is in
scores, and readjusting hairpin lengths is always a proofreading
part of working with parts in Finale. Oddly, this doesn't happen
with slurs.
I figured out a way around this -- but it entails hiding all wavy
trill lines and hairpins in the parts, re-entering them in the
parts, going back to the score and hiding the new ones there, going
back to the parts and un-hiding them there. Way too much work -- a
good deal more than _just_ entering all hairpins twice -- so I
tossed in the towel.
So I guess the recommendation many have made of having a parts file
and a score file is the only way to go. It really is too bad,
because this is pretty close to being really good. All MM needs to
do to fix this is (this is all I can think of):
Allow unlinking of measure number font sizes
Fix grace-note spacing in parts (that is, allow these to be spaced
properly)
Allow true unlinking of all smart-shape items
Allow the user to control whether enharmonic changes are linked or
unlinked by default (I know some want this unlinked, but EVERY
conductor I know, when working from a transposed score, wants to
know that what he/she sees in the score is exactly what the player
is seeing).
I did have some problems with spacing, where I couldn't bring up the
spacing handles in the parts -- but this was not a huge issue. It
would be nice is the parts had ALL the spacing flexibility of the
score, unlinked, of course.
I was waiting excitedly for 2010 to include an announcement that
Finale had completed the linked parts, addressing all the problems.
But there was no mention of this. I guess they figure that sort-of
OK, unfinished but close, is good enough.
So for those of you who have used linked parts a lot, can any of you
give me work-arounds for the problems I encountered, or tell me how
I have done this incorrectly?
And can anyone tell me about Sibelius's linked parts? Are there
similar issues? I downloaded the latest demo, and though it is
quite different from Finale, I can imagine getting used to the look
and feel of it -- though I know that my 21 years as a Finale user
makes me much faster with Finale than I will be with Sibelius for
many years. I keep asking myself if I really want to invest that
much time, or just stay with Finale, whatever the warts.
David Froom
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
