With linked parts, there is, still, always the option to extract.    One
can learn to use the advantages of both for the situation needed.  For a
fairly complex orchestral score, I typically end up with:

>A score for printing
>[sometimes, a score for demo playback, if the hoops required to get the
printing score to play correctly get too high and frequent.]
>A score for parts - for which linked parts work well for many of the
parts.
>Some extracted parts - usually the more complicated 2-to-a-staff parts,
now extracted, edited, and extracted again or linked.
> One folder full of backup versions of the scores, extracted part files,
etc., just because I'm too chicken to delete them.   But I have to put
anything I'm probably never going to use there or it gets hard to figure
out what is current, later on.

BUT, for a simple score for a 10 to 14 piece ensemble, the kind I arrange a
lot of, very quickly, for Christmas and Easter and other special services
at my church, I use one part to a staff, linked parts all the way, put the
cues in the score, etc.    Huge time-saver.

Raymond Horton
Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra
Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) UMC
Composer, Arranger
VISIT US AT rayhortonmusic.com


On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Lee Actor <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for your comments.  I'm sure many of the issues I've seen have to do
> with auto-spacing being on.  Still, the concept that I can make an
> admittedly stupid error in one place, and not catch it for some time
> because
> the effect is another place entirely, makes me queasy.
>
> I have no doubt that one can, with enough workarounds and tiptoeing about,
> make linked parts work.  My question remains, what compelling reasons are
> there for doing so?  It still seems to me that using linked parts is more
> work, not less.
>
> -Lee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of
> SN jef chippewa
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 5:33 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Finale] Linked parts
>
>
> >if something goes wrong, EVERYTHING goes wrong.
>
> despite my well known dissastisfaction with linked parts, i have to
> say this is a gross exaggeration.
>
> >inability to have different music spacing factors in score and parts).
>
> this is indeed stupid, but i have resolved the problem simply by
> doing EVERYTHING in the score layout first before spacing parts.
> also used JW plugin space empty rests recently that was great help in
> the parts once i found my ideal settings for it.
>
> i have a sheet on the wall in front of me with my settings for the SC
> / PTs spacing so can change back and forth quickly if needed.  and
> another sheet nearby with the H pos. settings for individual measures
> / notes where running music spacing will change them (so after i run
> spacing in the PTs i can "correct" what has been undone in the SC).
>
> using linked parts is all about deciding how much compromise you can
> accept -- in the output and/or workflow -- and where you can accept
> compromises are not terribly compromising.
>
> in any case, you mention having a seperate score for editing of the
> parts, you are in effect not really using linked parts as they are
> "meant".  so none of the stupidities of the current disastrous
> implementation of finale's linked parts should be of any both to you
> anyways...?
>
> >easy to inadvertently mess up a carefully laid-out part while
> >working on another part of the score (mostly while adding and
> >adjusting cues).
>
> not clear what problems you are running into, but if you make sure
> many of the auto features are off you might avoid many problems:
> - auto-update MM rests
> - auto-spacing
> - etc.
>
>
> >inadvertently mess up the flute part while you're editing the oboe part.
>
> this should not normally happen, unless you forget to uncheck certain
> instruments in the "select parts to affect" dialogue when doing
> certain operations (layout: systems or freeze measures in x systems.
>
> --
>
> if you can point out some specific things that are getting "messed
> up", there could possibly be some simple solutions to at least some
> of them.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Finale mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
> _______________________________________________
> Finale mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Reply via email to