Re: [Finale] MULTIMEASURE catastrophe
Has anyone on this list come up with any clear advantages to even having a Linked Parts feature? I understand if you make some revisions (accidentals, etc.) in the score it updates the parts behind the scenes, but if you insert or delete measures, change endings repeats, or make any extensive changes, how does that prevent you from having to open the parts and re-do the layouts? And if you do have to open all of them and revise, why not just create a new set of parts (via extraction)? I already missed one performance deadline (the first in failure to deliver in 30 years of copying) because of my confusion using 2K7 as far as the Parts Extraction/Linked Parts feature, and I still have yet to make the time to sit down and learn it, so that may be my loss. But, so far, it seems like the Linked Parts feature is causing more time consuming delays and mishaps than without. At least when I've done parts the old fashioned way, the task is predictable and reliable, even though it might be a little more time consuming. OK, here's another shortcoming for MacFin2007c, and this one almost completely sabotaged my rehearsal of my orchestra today. It's a good thing is wasn't a recording session. In going to tweak Linked Parts after placing all entries in the score, I discovered that some measures were left out with a group of number (like below an expanse of multimeasure rests) underneath one measure of music. I quickly learned that that meant there were measures filled with music not showing on the part. The solution was, on each part, with the Measure Tool selected, choose Create Multimeasure Rests. That reveals the hidden music. But it has to be done on every part. Doing it when viewing the score doesn't do it. Unfortunately, I hadn't done that with all 22 parts, and there was a lot of missing music in the parts today. It appears this 2007 version has a LOT of problems. All the best, KIM R ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MULTIMEASURE catastrophe
Yes, I've done several works using the linked-score/parts feature and it's been fine. It's not as easy as MakeMusic would have us believe, nor is it a feature which is right for everybody or every job yet. But it is a good first step, it does work well for some projects, and I can see it growing into something much more useful and easy. As with any new major feature, it requires practice, it requires a rethinking of working procedures, and as with ANY new application or major revision or major new feature, trying to use ANY such thing in a time critical project makes no sense to me whatsoever. That's why many of us don't uninstall previous versions. When I've got something I need to get right out the door with minimal fuss, I'll use Fin2006 or use Fin2007 and extract the parts to individual files. On projects for which I have more time (such as my own personal compositions/arrangements where the only deadline is that it be ready when it's finished) I use Fin2007 to learn better how to make use of the linked parts/score feature. And it's perfectly easy to use the new features of Fin2007 and still extract the parts to individual files in the old-fashioned method, with no slow-down in time or effort. As for any music sabotaging a rehearsal, that speaks more to poor proofreading than to any flaw in the program. Yes the program caused the problem, but it wasn't caught before the parts were handed out, and that's the proofreading end of things. I once purchased a score and parts for my band (way back around Finale 98 or so) and 2 whole staves were missing from one of the french horn parts. I knew in an instant that the engraver/publisher had simply forgotten to ctrl-u after moving some things around, and I told him. He was oblivious of the erroneous parts (guess we know how carefully he proof-read the music before printing it!) Sure enough, that was all he had to do, and he shipped me the correct french horn file via e-mail for me to print out within 20 minutes. Poor proofreading should never be blamed on the software, no matter what the software did to screw up the project. Any more than if the engraver were hand-copying and had inadvertently skipped a line in the manuscript. It's the responsibility of the project chief (usually the same person as the engraver for most of us on this list who don't have studios full of engravers working for us) to be sure the music is in usable form and error free before putting it on the musicians' stands. Don't abandon Finale2007, and don't give up on the linked score/parts feature. It has great potential, and provided MM's quality control doesn't get even worse, I am hopeful there will be great improvements for v2 when it comes in Finale2008. But do take some time to practice the linked score/parts stuff, read the manual on it, work slowly, and for heaven's sake don't try to use it on any time-critical mission. That's just plain suicide, as you've found out. David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone on this list come up with any clear advantages to even having a Linked Parts feature? I understand if you make some revisions (accidentals, etc.) in the score it updates the parts behind the scenes, but if you insert or delete measures, change endings repeats, or make any extensive changes, how does that prevent you from having to open the parts and re-do the layouts? And if you do have to open all of them and revise, why not just create a new set of parts (via extraction)? I already missed one performance deadline (the first in failure to deliver in 30 years of copying) because of my confusion using 2K7 as far as the Parts Extraction/Linked Parts feature, and I still have yet to make the time to sit down and learn it, so that may be my loss. But, so far, it seems like the Linked Parts feature is causing more time consuming delays and mishaps than without. At least when I've done parts the old fashioned way, the task is predictable and reliable, even though it might be a little more time consuming. OK, here's another shortcoming for MacFin2007c, and this one almost completely sabotaged my rehearsal of my orchestra today. It's a good thing is wasn't a recording session. In going to tweak Linked Parts after placing all entries in the score, I discovered that some measures were left out with a group of number (like below an expanse of multimeasure rests) underneath one measure of music. I quickly learned that that meant there were measures filled with music not showing on the part. The solution was, on each part, with the Measure Tool selected, choose Create Multimeasure Rests. That reveals the hidden music. But it has to be done on every part. Doing it when viewing the score doesn't do it. Unfortunately, I hadn't done that with all 22 parts, and there was a lot of missing music in the parts today. It appears this 2007 version has a LOT of problems. All the best, KIM R
Re: [Finale] MULTIMEASURE catastrophe
On 26.02.2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone on this list come up with any clear advantages to even having a Linked Parts feature? I understand if you make some revisions (accidentals, etc.) in the score it updates the parts behind the scenes, but if you insert or delete measures, change endings repeats, or make any extensive changes, how does that prevent you from having to open the parts and re-do the layouts? And if you do have to open all of them and revise, why not just create a new set of parts (via extraction)? I already missed one performance deadline (the first in failure to deliver in 30 years of copying) because of my confusion using 2K7 as far as the Parts Extraction/Linked Parts feature, and I still have yet to make the time to sit down and learn it, so that may be my loss. But, so far, it seems like the Linked Parts feature is causing more time consuming delays and mishaps than without. At least when I've done parts the old fashioned way, the task is predictable and reliable, even though it might be a little more time consuming. Dear Vern or Graham, or whatever your name is (since you never sign your posts), first of all, any chance you could put some structure into your emails? This one wasn't too bad, but you have sent others which were easily several pages long, yet all in one paragraph. I simply refuse to read such mails, I find them un-managable. Now concerning linked parts: I do find linked parts useful, even with all the limitations. I use them typically for two things: 1) simple music, without hairpins. Typically baroque music. They work well as long as one doesn't touch the limitations. 2) pre-publication parts: I typically still work on the score when I need a preliminary set of parts printed, for a quick run through or similar. Before linked parts I had to extract, do some basic layout. Then, when work on the score went on, these preliminary parts became useless, all my work on the layout lost. I had to trash them and redo them. Now with linked parts I can do some work on the layout, then go back to the score, yet the work on the layout is not lost when I later return to the parts. That's a great time saver. As soon as hairpins are present linked parts don't work so well any more. I will then prepare a score-score and a parts-score. This is still miles better than separate files for each part, though. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MULTIMEASURE catastrophe
Has anyone on this list come up with any clear advantages to even having a Linked Parts feature? i consider this feature to be a **major** improvement to the programme. I understand if you make some revisions (accidentals, etc.) in the score it updates the parts behind the scenes this is a major part of the the answer to your question. there are still a large number of issues to resolve, but for many people not all of the issues are troublesome. At least when I've done parts the old fashioned way, the task is predictable and reliable, even though it might be a little more time consuming. i don't see the problem, linked parts is totally predictable and reliable once you wrap your head around the inherently different working methods. and once the feature is properly mastered, i don't believe anyone could claim linked parts are **only** a little less time consuming than extracting to separate files. for (one obvious) example, imagine and compare the time involved in correcting the score + 22 parts in kim's situation below: - linked parts: checking/adjusting layout in one open file and printing the entire batch of parts in one go; - extracted parts: inserting measures and checking/adjusting layout in 23 separate open documents. kim wrote: Create Multimeasure Rests has to be done on every part. Doing it when viewing the score doesn't do it. Unfortunately, I hadn't done that with all 22 parts, and there was a lot of missing music in the parts today. It appears this 2007 version has a LOT of problems. there is nonetheless an advantage to finale NOT auto-updating inserted measures: when these fall within existing MM rests in parts, i would assume that you would go through and check the thing in all the parts anyways, i would never assume that inserting an extra measure in the piece would work without any adjustments whatsoever with the layout of 22 parts, and would therefore go through them one by one to correct it as needed. again, once the user understands ALL aspects of how it works it is a very powerful tool. this is not a feature that any user should simply use out of the box, it is not intuitive and because of its inherent complexity, everyone should read the manual very carefully before using linked parts. this has been mentioned here many times, linked parts are not something to be taken lightly! one thing that can save a lot of aggravation is generating the parts and doing the layout as late in the game as possible (i realise this is not always possible, but is something to keep in mind). if vern and kim had done this, much of the problems they encountered would not have occured. -- shirling neueweise ... new music publishers mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] MULTIMEASURE catastrophe
Has anyone on this list come up with any clear advantages to even having a Linked Parts feature? Yes, it saves a lot of your time. It just takes a little patience to learn the ropes. Going back to part extraction will seem like the dark ages. Jonathan P.S. Any chance of breaking down your posts into paragraphs a little as they are very difficult to read. P.P.S. And signing off would be polite, especially if you expect to receive replies to your problems.;-) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MULTIMEASURE catastrophe
Jonathan Smith wrote: Has anyone on this list come up with any clear advantages to even having a Linked Parts feature? Yes, it saves a lot of your time. It just takes a little patience to learn the ropes. Going back to part extraction will seem like the dark ages. Jonathan P.S. Any chance of breaking down your posts into paragraphs a little as they are very difficult to read. P.P.S. And signing off would be polite, especially if you expect to receive replies to your problems.;-) What, you expect proper paragraphs from one who so loudly complained about people not being able to communicate in their native language? From one who decried his coworkers as not being able to use their language? Next thing we know, you'll be expecting him to stop with the run-on sentences, and make sure each sentence has a proper subject! Lord love a duck, what will you be wanting next? For Finale to actually work properly? ;-) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MULTIMEASURE catastrophe
Thanks Aaron. On Feb 24, 2007, at 10:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:30:06 -0500 From: Aaron Sherber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Finale] MULTIMEASURE catastrophe To: finale@shsu.edu, FINALE FINALE LIST finale@shsu.edu Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed At 09:48 PM 2/23/2007, Kim Richmond wrote: I quickly learned that that meant there were measures filled with music not showing on the part. The solution was, on each part, with the Measure Tool selected, choose Create Multimeasure Rests. That reveals the hidden music. But it has to be done on every part. Doing it when viewing the score doesn't do it. You can also do Measure | Multimeasure Rest | Create for Parts/Score and do all the parts in one go. Or you can go to Document Options | Multimeasure Rests and check Update Automatically. Then as you add music, MM rests in the part should break themselves as needed. I think the downside to this is that Finale actually recalculates each MM rest when you switch to the part, and you will lose any manual edits. For example, if you have adjusted the endpoint of an MM rest to avoid a clef change, you will lose that edit. It appears this 2007 version has a LOT of problems. Maybe, but this is actually working as designed. Take a look at 37-23 in the manual, which spells most of this out. I'm not saying this is the best approach, but it's not a bug either. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] MULTIMEASURE catastrophe
OK, here's another shortcoming for MacFin2007c, and this one almost completely sabotaged my rehearsal of my orchestra today. It's a good thing is wasn't a recording session. In going to tweak Linked Parts after placing all entries in the score, I discovered that some measures were left out with a group of number (like below an expanse of multimeasure rests) underneath one measure of music. I quickly learned that that meant there were measures filled with music not showing on the part. The solution was, on each part, with the Measure Tool selected, choose Create Multimeasure Rests. That reveals the hidden music. But it has to be done on every part. Doing it when viewing the score doesn't do it. Unfortunately, I hadn't done that with all 22 parts, and there was a lot of missing music in the parts today. It appears this 2007 version has a LOT of problems. All the best, KIM R ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] MULTIMEASURE catastrophe
At 09:48 PM 2/23/2007, Kim Richmond wrote: I quickly learned that that meant there were measures filled with music not showing on the part. The solution was, on each part, with the Measure Tool selected, choose Create Multimeasure Rests. That reveals the hidden music. But it has to be done on every part. Doing it when viewing the score doesn't do it. You can also do Measure | Multimeasure Rest | Create for Parts/Score and do all the parts in one go. Or you can go to Document Options | Multimeasure Rests and check Update Automatically. Then as you add music, MM rests in the part should break themselves as needed. I think the downside to this is that Finale actually recalculates each MM rest when you switch to the part, and you will lose any manual edits. For example, if you have adjusted the endpoint of an MM rest to avoid a clef change, you will lose that edit. It appears this 2007 version has a LOT of problems. Maybe, but this is actually working as designed. Take a look at 37-23 in the manual, which spells most of this out. I'm not saying this is the best approach, but it's not a bug either. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
