(07-07-2025, 10:33 AM)Skip Wrote: "Now it starts to get complicated. For example: if we have two THIRD CLARINETISTS in the band and one of them starts marking up their part with reminders and directions, that copy of the part is now personalised to that player. The other THIRD CLARINETIST should still be playing from an un-marked version of the file (and my indeed start putting their own mark-ups on their part). Is it possible to have multiple 'mark-up overlays' each given a personalised name of the player? "
A possible workaround for this [I have not done this, so no guaranty]:...
I know this solution. I'm trying to explain a simple fact: geeks don't need anything. For now, MS is geek-oriented and offers many options. Some even go so far as to add SQL, which is great, I know how to do it too. BRX explains that he's annoyed by criticism or different analytical points of view: it's a fan attitude, okay, he has the right.
My analysis explains that among musicians, many want a simple, "paper-oriented" screen, as simple as paper. Every time a computer scientist deviates from reality, it results in refusals or resistance. And I know that if you think you can "train" dozens of musicians, you create hundreds of questions.
Following the "paper process," which means "simply trying to replace paper with a PDF" and cardboard binders, should be the main process. I know Mike will open MS to help manage several bands. I brought a perspective and the fruit of 40 years of client-server application development, and here too, believe me, there was a lot of resistance.
Fair simple requires thought and, above all, structure. Here, we discussed the structure of libraries and the reason they exist, and especially the fact that several score providers work with several groups. The "you have to train them" argument is worthless; it guarantees failure and too much energy for a complicated result.
Regarding layers, a musician often doesn't understand them. You have to tell them that they're like a transparent plastic sheet placed on top. Asking them to manage several layers for four or five musical sections is like trying to do Everst with a group.
PS: Using "Collection" or "Type of sources" have the same diffulty : There's a problem with "Type of Sources" in the French version. Currently, the "preset" Type Of Sources in English appear even after deleting them. As for using them as an instrumental key denominator (transcriber), it's a solution that requires a setlist per instrument type. It's a complex but possible solution.