Re: [Finale] RE: Orchestral efficiency
Bravo, Linda! Well said and I agree with every word. Harold On Friday, July 12, 2002 11:38 AM, Linda Worsley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This whole subject of parts extraction has interested me greatly, and I can't resist throwing my 2 cents in. My view is that: * Scores should be as compact as possible, so that they don't have to be printed in ant-sized type for the conductor to try to read. In other words, I pair winds on the same staff, even when it requires two layers for very independent parts. The exception is when, say, two clarinet parts are SO independent that they become confusing or marginally legible when placed on the same staff... in which case I add an extra staff and optimize in order to keep the score consistently compact. BUT: * Parts should ALWAYS be individual. Every horn, every flute, etc. should have their own single line, one instrument part. Now, the problem is, I sometimes have to do a little WORK (gasp) to make this possible. Having spent the early years of my career copying everything by hand, I am amazed at the amount of kvetching about parts extraction from a few on this list. So it takes a little more work to create two parts from one It sure ain't the time and effort it used to take copying those parts by hand. There are a dozen different quite easy and usually rather quick ways in Finale to create two parts from one when you extract parts and get combined parts (two instruments on one staff). It's just not that hard. Or maybe my early years of having to hand extract have made me grateful for the fact that at least I'm not introducing new errors by doing it by hand. And I don't have to start over when I discover that something has been left out, or transposed incorrectly, or whatever. Those were the bad old days. Call me cranky, but I find all this whining just another example of technology causing otherwise exemplary people to become so dependent on push the button and voila that they can't stand the idea that they have to go to a little effort. Sure, it would be great if the machines could read our minds or automatically, somehow, understand that the flutes 1 and 2 part should be made into two individual pages, with the correct instrument label, all the a2s and solos etc. intact, perfect cues, and so on. Probably that will come as the programs get smarter. Will they also create perfect page turns? Space everything perfectly? Probably, someday. Meanwhile, I don't understand the problem of having to tweak a bit and make parts really readable, beautiful, and correct. I actually don't mind this process, and (probably because I am not a fanatic about every little spacing ratio and articulation position, as long as it's crystal clear for the player or singer) it just isn't that hard. While it's sometimes a challenge to get it just the way I want it, I grew up knowing that this was part of the work, so I might as well enjoy it. Linda Worsley -- Hear the music at: http://www.ganymuse.com/ ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] RE: Orchestral efficiency
I know that I'm not alone in this. . . From a clarinet player's perspective, in a fast moving, difficult piece with a lot of detail (rhythmic, dynamic, etc.), it is darned near impossible to read the second part when BOTH the first and second clarinet parts are on one staff. A third apart in the scoring is just way too close. Consider that a composer can write something which is difficult and that the players are sight-reading, and lucky to have run through the work once before the concert. As a composer, would you trust those tricky passages to a player's ability to read what is on the page, when you have the option to write it separately? As was often the joke, King and Sousa marches which were on those 6 x 4 pieces of paper were frequently hard to play. . .the smaller the page, the harder the music. Another thing which bugs me, is when a composer insists on writing for Bass clarinet in bass clef and in A. I believe that Wagner would have really gotten complaints about his scoring, if he were writing today. Modern instruments are in B-flat, and treble clef is preferable. The best parallel I can think of relates manuscript to office resumes. Would you ever apply for a job, sending a cover page and resume on weird paper, in a size 8 font, using a commercial script type font? It's hard to read, and human resources people will generally put it aside, rather than decipher it. Just my 2 cents, Chris ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] RE: Orchestral efficiency
This whole subject of parts extraction has interested me greatly, and I can't resist throwing my 2 cents in. My view is that: * Scores should be as compact as possible, so that they don't have to be printed in ant-sized type for the conductor to try to read. In other words, I pair winds on the same staff, even when it requires two layers for very independent parts. The exception is when, say, two clarinet parts are SO independent that they become confusing or marginally legible when placed on the same staff... in which case I add an extra staff and optimize in order to keep the score consistently compact. BUT: * Parts should ALWAYS be individual. Every horn, every flute, etc. should have their own single line, one instrument part. Now, the problem is, I sometimes have to do a little WORK (gasp) to make this possible. Having spent the early years of my career copying everything by hand, I am amazed at the amount of kvetching about parts extraction from a few on this list. So it takes a little more work to create two parts from one It sure ain't the time and effort it used to take copying those parts by hand. There are a dozen different quite easy and usually rather quick ways in Finale to create two parts from one when you extract parts and get combined parts (two instruments on one staff). It's just not that hard. Or maybe my early years of having to hand extract have made me grateful for the fact that at least I'm not introducing new errors by doing it by hand. And I don't have to start over when I discover that something has been left out, or transposed incorrectly, or whatever. Those were the bad old days. Call me cranky, but I find all this whining just another example of technology causing otherwise exemplary people to become so dependent on push the button and voila that they can't stand the idea that they have to go to a little effort. Sure, it would be great if the machines could read our minds or automatically, somehow, understand that the flutes 1 and 2 part should be made into two individual pages, with the correct instrument label, all the a2s and solos etc. intact, perfect cues, and so on. Probably that will come as the programs get smarter. Will they also create perfect page turns? Space everything perfectly? Probably, someday. Meanwhile, I don't understand the problem of having to tweak a bit and make parts really readable, beautiful, and correct. I actually don't mind this process, and (probably because I am not a fanatic about every little spacing ratio and articulation position, as long as it's crystal clear for the player or singer) it just isn't that hard. While it's sometimes a challenge to get it just the way I want it, I grew up knowing that this was part of the work, so I might as well enjoy it. Linda Worsley -- Hear the music at: http://www.ganymuse.com/ ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Orchestral efficiency
At 09:38 AM 7/12/02 -0700, Linda Worsley wrote: Sure, it would be great if the machines could read our minds or automatically, somehow, understand that the flutes 1 and 2 part should be made into two individual pages, with the correct instrument label, all the a2s and solos etc. intact, perfect cues, and so on. Yes it would. And if there were a true part feature in Finale, it could work effortlessly. Like a staff, a part would follow through the score. Something like show selected part would grey out everything else, and might even reveal missing 1. and 2. and a2. indications. A part could travel from layer to layer, staff to staff, and never be lost. I agree that we've already got great features, but in terms of things like creating proper extracted parts *and* proper Midi demos, a true part would work wonders! Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] RE: Orchestral efficiency
Dennis, it sounds like we have very similar goals for what we want out of Finale. For me, the part feature is absolutely solved by the TGTools Smart Explosion and Smart Distribution features. Perhaps it's improved. I just tried it -- the module of v1.88 does work in F2K3. But there seems to be no way to tag a part so it can find it if it's been split out under two names. I'll have to look at a later version to see if there are options to trace the movement of parts to other staves. And maybe I'm not making clear what I mean by part. One player's job during a performance -- which, in new music, might include switching instruments or places during a performance, changing to a vocal line, etc. One player, one part, whatever its purpose. That would, in more traditional scores, mean breaking out soli, creating short sections of divisi, or changing to an instrument in a range different from the staff it used to be on (Bb clarinets changing to Eb and contrabass respectively, for example). Something tagged as a part would always be kept together. The way I handle this is to make a group out of all staves (divisi, soli, etc.) pertaining to a single part, while instrument changes and the like are handled by staff styles. I think you may already have the tools to accomplish what you want. -Lee ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] RE: Orchestral efficiency
At 12:13 PM 7/12/02 -0700, Lee Actor wrote: The way I handle this is to make a group out of all staves (divisi, soli, etc.) pertaining to a single part, while instrument changes and the like are handled by staff styles. I think you may already have the tools to accomplish what you want. Yes, you're right that there's a way to do pretty much anything, and these methods of part production have gotten easier. I'm only discussing an option that I think would improve handling significantly, making it more logical and in keeping with how the music progresses in a performance situation. Such an option would define a new Finale level to be added to groups, staves, layers, and voices that represents a player's part, called whatever is useful - player or some such is good. (This was actually discussed a few years ago on rec.music.compose.) For example, parts could be extracted at the staff/group level (the way it's done now) or the player trail level. The player trail would extract to a separate player's part this entire trail, which would include any staff, layer, voice, style, clef, expression, articulation, division, Midi patch data, etc., that was assigned to that player during input or later editing. It would be a *pre*-extraction way of guaranteeing a proper result, as opposed to the time-of-extraction way it's done now. In other words, the idea of a player is really another way of producing the part, but one I would find far superior to collecting staves here and styles there to make sure everythind ends up in the proper player's basket. I don't expect this to happen soon (it hasn't in 10 years), but it certainly would make me salivate! Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] RE: Orchestral efficiency
... I'm only discussing an option that I think would improve handling significantly, making it more logical and in keeping with how the music progresses in a performance situation. Such an option would define a new Finale level to be added to groups, staves, layers, and voices that represents a player's part, called whatever is useful - player or some such is good. (This was actually discussed a few years ago on rec.music.compose.) For example, parts could be extracted at the staff/group level (the way it's done now) or the player trail level. The player trail would extract to a separate player's part this entire trail, which would include any staff, layer, voice, style, clef, expression, articulation, division, Midi patch data, etc., that was assigned to that player during input or later editing. It would be a *pre*-extraction way of guaranteeing a proper result, as opposed to the time-of-extraction way it's done now. In other words, the idea of a player is really another way of producing the part, but one I would find far superior to collecting staves here and styles there to make sure everythind ends up in the proper player's basket. I don't expect this to happen soon (it hasn't in 10 years), but it certainly would make me salivate! Dennis I like your idea of an additional sublevel of organization for the player. If I'm not mistaken, this is the way Igor Engraver forces you to set up a score, at the highest level of organization. Not that I would wish this software on my worst enemy; I found this feature confusing and inflexible, but over a period of 3 days I never got it to run more than 10 minutes at a time without crashing. I use Finale several hours per day every day, and it crashes about once every 3 or 4 weeks (almost always relating to MIDI playback). -Lee ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
