Hiding cues in the score

[motet]

Cues in layer 4. How do you handle this? A staff style? How does that affect "hide empty staves"? Is it worth the trouble, or should I make a separate copy of the score? I'd of course prefer not to have to resort to this.

[zuill]

Staff Style is how I do it. Hide empty staves with the staff tool is not the way. Hide and Collapse with a Staff Style is what to use.

Zuill

[motet]

Hiding the cues and hiding the staves are two separate things, though. Sometimes (often) a cue in in a system I want preserved in the score. Other times I indeed want to hide the staff itself of a system. From what you're saying it sounds like I have to address every situation on an individual basis. I was hoping to hide layer 4 in the score and have "hide empty staves" in the staff tool work as if layer 4 weren't there.

[motet]

So, I tried using "Blank notation with rests"--no rests! Also, the cue is in treble clef for a bass clef instrument. I don't want to see the treble clef in the score. How do I accomplish that?

[motet]

I thought I'd try a staff style with a "transposition" "set to clef" and I get this.

0065.png (40.04 KiB) Viewed 5761 times

What am I missing? Surely putting cues in parts is a very common thing. Can someone save me before I punt and make a separate file?

[zuill]

Maybe we need to see a sample file to experiment with.

Zuill

[motet]

I gave up and reverted to a separate file as I usually do, but I will post something.

[motet]

Meanwhile, next question:

I'm creating two versions of a trumpet part, one in A and one in C, from a single staff. I apply staff styles to effect the proper transpositions. When I put cues in this staff, the whole rests in layer 1 are shifted up or down according to the transposition. I would like them to be at the same level in both parts. Is there any hope?

[motet]

Here's a sample file with the cue-hiding dilemma. The goal is for flute cue in the bassoon part to be absent from the score, with blank measures with rests instead, and for there to be no clef changes in the score. No fair using measure attributes to suppress clefs, since that could conceivably be a problem in a real-world score.

[zuill]

I'm not sure this works for you, but in order to have the whole rests in the cues be independent of the default position needed for the score, I put the whole rests in Layer 4, voice 2. I've used this technique quite often.

Zuill

[motet]

Ah, most clever--bravo! More evidence you can do anything you want with Finale despite it's shortcomings. Who knew "blank notation with rests" would be influenced by real rests underneath, or that blanking something out nevertheless could leave clefs behind.

[zuill]

Default rests only show when there is nothing in the measure. Real rests is something in the measure, so that explains that. As far as the clefs, it might just be part of the way things are programmed. Unchecking them takes care of the first clef in your sample. Extending the style by one measure takes care of the second. Thank goodness for Voices. One of Finale's most powerful and underused (by many users, anyway) tool.

Zuill

[motet]

I guess what's really needed is "blank notation with rests - all layers", that it, cover up anything that's there, as if the measures are empty.

With your solution, I guess putting the rests in voice 2 could be automated: apostrophe 7 ] apostrophe 7 ] ...

It looks like you then adjusted both horizontal and vertical positions of the rests. Vertical is straight-forward with JW Change; Horizontal, I'm not so sure.

But of course this is much, much harder than it should be. This is very common for orchestral music, and a big piece has enough cues that it needs to be automated. Do Sibelius and Dorico handle this better? If Daniel Spreadbury is reading, take note, Daniel!