Honestly, I think linked parts are very close to be good enough. What's
lacking is
1. Unlinkable mid-measure clef positioning
2. Unlinkable vertical rest positioning
3. Special Tools for voice parts
I haven't used voice parts enough (at all) to know what else may be lacking
there. Cues are still
Robert,
Thank you!! This really solves my problems (as this score is large chamber
music piece, no staves with two to a part). This note is a keeper!!! I KNEW
there had to be a way!
Sure would be nice if, after all these years of linked parts, Finale would fix
this. The Dorico competition
An alternative to changing clefs for cues is to transpose the cue into a
range that will fit in the clef of the part and label it "clarinet 1 (8va)"
or whatever.
Raymond Horton
Composer, Arranger
Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) United Methodist Church
Retired Bass Trombonist, Louisville
David,
I switched to having a single document for score and parts several years
ago. It requires a little more time, but I think it is worth it. To address
the issues you raised:
1. Do not use "Blank notation with rests: Layer 4". This staff style can
occasionally be useful for partial measures
Hi David,
Short answer: no.
These are all valid problems with having the same parts and score file. It gets
even worse if you ever have two instruments on the same score staff, but
separated (voiced) linked parts. Cues break completely in that case, along with
some other things. The amount of
Hello all,
I’m hoping for some wisdom from the group.
I’ve been in the habit of having a score file separate from a parts file —
basically, to get the score looking great, then make a copy of it to make parts
so as not to have to deal with things that conflict. The downside is that
errors I
