RE: [Finale] Strategy for scores
On Behalf Of Craig Parmerlee I think what I would like to do is to combine the same-family instruments (all the trumpets on one staff, e.g.). But I insist that each trumpeter (e.g.) gets only his/her own part. If I'm understanding you correctly, you'll want to check the *leave original staves untouched* box in TGTools smart explosion which will meet both of your requirements. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Strategy for scores
I typically do the score doubling up parts on staves as needed. If there are solos or unisons, I use note-attached exps to denote them. I used to use meas-attached, but since Tobias introduced Smart Part Extraction I use note-attached because SPE works so well with them. To extract the parts, I first make a copy of the score. Before extracting anything I add cue notes as needed. Then I extract the parts in a two step process. I typically extract parts in an orch. piece one instrument section at a time. So, e.g., I extract the horns into a 4-part score. Then I run SPE on that. Once I am satisfied with the result, I extract these again into individual parts and do any necessary page layout. It sounds complicated but it actually goes fairly quickly. -- Robert Patterson http://www.robertgpatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Strategy for scores
At 02:26 PM 8/13/2003 -0500, Richard Huggins wrote: Maybe I'm not getting something, but ... You mentioned that you have everything on separate staves at the moment--why wouldn't you extract those into parts before combining them? If you did, then you're only dealing with the implosion issue (making a more-handy conductors score), not trying to figure out how to extract separate parts from an already-imploded stave. Yes, I guess I could do that. I prefer to have a one-way pipeline, where there is one score where I do all the composition/editing, and then I extract parts from there. Ideally my composition would all be done into the score as the conductor would see it, and then I issue a single extract command that will give me all my parts broken out. I'm prepared to do the necessary editing to produce the final individual parts. I'd rather not have to also do a major editing job to produce a consolidated score. In addition, this more consolidated score would be useful during the compositional process because I'd see more useful staves on the screen at any time. Thinking out loud -- brainstorming... Wouldn't it be neat if Finale one day replaced all that 2-voice and 4-layer stuff with a more generic outlining capability, analogous to the outlining feature you see in Word and Excel? With such a capability, you could group related instruments just like you group related line items in a spreadsheet. Click on the plus button and you would see each voice in its own staff. Click on the minus button and all those voices would be rolled up to one staff or one grand staff as needed. In part extraction, you could choose to extract the individual staves or the rolled-up levels. With such a feature, there would be little need for the program staff sets feature either. It would obviously be a very sophisticated feature, but that could be extremely intuitive and powerful. I now return you to 2003, which is already in progress. :) ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Strategy for scores
Craig Parmerlee: I want to know how others approach organizing the instruments on their scores. I have done mainly small ensembles in the past. ... Right now I'm working on an orchestration for full symphony orchestra + jazz combo + several other instruments not normally in an orchestral score. I set this up as usual, with each instrument having its own staff. I did that so I could easily do an extraction where each player gets his or her own music without any confusing divisi bits. As a musician, I absolutely abhor those combined parts, and I vow never to put any other musicians through that unless the divisi is a very small percentage of the part. As somebody else pointed out, there are two different issues here. Combined parts on orchestral score staves is virtually universal practice because single staves for 35-50 parts is impractical. I completely agree with you, however, RE the advisability of totally separate extracted parts, and I require this of all composers and editors who submit material to me. In the score, I would strongly suggest that only identical instruments share a staff. The common practice of, for example, combining tuba and bass trombone on one staff is not, IMO, a good idea. Sometimes it may be preferable to give a player their own staff in the score even though other instruments of the same type are also present. This would be done when the two parts are so different that they would tangle up with each other visually. ... As I understand the standard Finale extraction, the best Finale will do is extract a part with all three trumpets on the same staff. It looks like TGTools Smart Explosion could then split that combined trumpet part into three separate staffs. And then I could do another Finale extraction to break that apart into three separate trumpet parts. Is that correct? And is that the best way to accomplish the task? Yes and yes. Is there any way to avoid that extra editing/extraction step? No, but it should be fairly painless if you prepare properly. See below. And if I go the two-step approach with TGTools, would I be smart to enter each trumpet part to a separate layer, or is that not really necessary? It's not necessary, but you need to be strict in your procedure. If there are two parts on a staff, and some passages have only one line of music, that line must *always* be marked either 1. solo, 2. solo, or a2 so that TGTools knows what to do with it. Wherever the second parts crosses above the first, that must be indicated either by using layers, with opposed stemming, or by writing : 2. 1. like that. BTW, these are good practices even without considering TGTools at all. A good score contains *all* the information needed to produce a performance of the piece according to the composer's desires. That said, I enter the notes on multi-instrument staves just as if it were a keyboard staff: homophonic passages are entered as chords in one layer, brief polyphonic excursions are done with Voice 1 2, and true counterpoint is done with layers. TGTools is very good at sorting all this out properly, and even Finale's own explosion algorithm ain't half bad. OK, now for bonus points. I already have this humungous score with everything on its own staff. Is there a good way to go about combining the family-related staves? I can use the piano reduction plug-in. That might work OK as long as all the parts are moving together (vertically), but with moving voices, it seems like I really need each voice to go to its own layer, otherwise the TGTools Smart Explosion may never put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Use Finale's regular Implode Music utility. Or try this: edit each part the way you will want it to look when combined with other parts on one staff (incl. all stem directions, etc.), then *drag one staff on top of the other.* This is an old Finale trick that was essential for certain effects in Finale 2.X and earler, but it's still worth remembering. -- Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Strategy for scores
Well, maybe I'm STILL not getting something, but I'd rather not have to also do a major editing job to produce a consolidated score. I thought in your original message you said you had chosen to do it the way you did. In this case, you have to consolidate the score anyway, since you've already done it with more staves than you care to work with or than the conductor can. Seems to me that in the future if you don't want to do the consolidation process after the fact, you have to start out with consolidated scores. Ideally my composition would all be done into the score as the conductor would see it, and then I issue a single extract command that will give me all my parts broken out. Well, we're quibbling here a little how the conductor sees something on his score is a matter that pertains only to his score, not the parts. There are layout issues on one and different layout issues on the other. For example, do you want the conductor to be able to tell when Trumpets 1 and 2, but not 3, are playing? You'd possibly use stems to indicate that or maybe even text on the score (or rests). But if the players each have their own part, they don't need that help. So I don't quite see what difference it makes that first (on the conductor's score) you work in a conductor's perspective manner when it comes to parts that eventually will be extracted for the players. I also don't understand your comment about a single extract command as if somehow you can't use that on your score as it is. That hasn't been lost. In fact, it would be easier when dealing with separate staves then with staves tha have to be exploded before parts can be created. If you have a conductor's score with 8 staves or 28 staves, Finale's extract command will make parts for you. --Richard ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Strategy for scores
Yes, I was thinking mainly of wind parts. I've seen so many horrendous combined parts that I cringe when I see them. I understand that a string section is managed differently, and when there are divisi parts in cello, e.g., that is almost always vertical i.e. same rhythms, harmonized notes. That's not so objectionable on a combined part -- as long as the intervals are separate enough so that there is absolutely no difficulty in reading accidentals. In other cases, I think I'd be inclined to use Smart Explosion on the difficult passage to break that into two separate staves on the same cello part -- only using two staves for the difficult-to-read passages. I guess my point is that the musicians have enough to worry about without the copyist doing a cop-out. IMHO, music should be as easy to sight-read as possible. Cheers, Craig At 05:21 PM 8/13/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Craig wrote: So far so good. Right now I'm working on an orchestration for full symphony orchestra + jazz combo + several other instruments not normally in an orchestral score. I set this up as usual, with each instrument having its own staff. I did that so I could easily do an extraction where each player gets his or her own music without any confusing divisi bits. As a musician, I absolutely abhor those combined parts, and I vow never to put any other musicians through that unless the divisi is a very small percentage of the part. As an orchestral string player, I would have to disagree rather strongly. Do you really mean that if, at one point, the violas divide in 3, you would provide parts for Viola 1, Viola 2 and Viola 3? If I were the section leader I would take one look and tell the conductor that your piece is more trouble than it's worth. We know how to handle divisi, and standard engraving practice is just fine. I wrote a band piece in which the euphoniums divide a2, a3, and a4. All the divisi parts appear on the extracted page, each on a separate line, and there is no ambiguity or potential for confusion. If you're just talking about orchestral wind parts, then I agree with you in MOST cases, but possibly not all. If you're talking about percussion parts, I don't agree at all. The parts have to be such that the section leader can distribute them no matter what the size of the section is. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Strategy for scores
Maybe I'm not getting something, but ... You mentioned that you have everything on separate staves at the moment--why wouldn't you extract those into parts before combining them? If you did, then you're only dealing with the implosion issue (making a more-handy conductors score), not trying to figure out how to extract separate parts from an already-imploded stave. --Richard ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Strategy for scores
On Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 12:45 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: At 02:26 PM 8/13/2003 -0500, Richard Huggins wrote: Maybe I'm not getting something, but ... You mentioned that you have everything on separate staves at the moment--why wouldn't you extract those into parts before combining them? If you did, then you're only dealing with the implosion issue (making a more-handy conductors score), not trying to figure out how to extract separate parts from an already-imploded stave. Yes, I guess I could do that. I prefer to have a one-way pipeline, where there is one score where I do all the composition/editing, and then I extract parts from there. Ideally my composition would all be done into the score as the conductor would see it, and then I issue a single extract command that will give me all my parts broken out. I'm prepared to do the necessary editing to produce the final individual parts. I'd rather not have to also do a major editing job to produce a consolidated score. In addition, this more consolidated score would be useful during the compositional process because I'd see more useful staves on the screen at any time. The way I do it is to use a consolidated score: all in one layer for homophonic sections, and separate layers when the two parts have different rhythms. Another thing: I *never* put more than two parts on the same staff. Trying to deal with three layers when there are only two directions stems can go is just more headache than it's worth. Every once in a while I have 1. div. on a flute part or something, but that's the only reason to ever put three lines of music on one staff at the same time (in my own estimation). Usually I group the woodwinds (for example) like this: Picc. Fl. 12 Ob. (possibly 12) Cl. 1 Cl. 23 B. Cl. Bsn. (possibly 12, but rarely) A.Sx. 12 T.Sx. Br.Sx. Then I extract all parts, just as they exist in the Finale file (but not after creating a separate parts score on which I have tweaked fixed font sizes, staves showing measure numbers, etc). I use TGTools to separate the Fl. 12 part (and other multi-part staves), but I leave original staff untouched. I proof the two parts to make sure they have separated properly, removing a2, 1., and the like as I check. Unfortunately, running TGTools' Smart Explosion removes all beam adjustments, so I run Patterson Beams on the three-staff part (12, 1, 2) and then extract parts 1 and 2 from that. - Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Strategy for scores
I too am keenly interested to hear responses to these questions, while we are all waiting for Finale to incorporate some sort of smart part management system. Tim On Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 03:02 PM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: This may be a message mainly for Tobias, as part of it seems to relate to TGTools Smart Explosion. But I'd appreciate hearing ideas from across the board. I want to know how others approach organizing the instruments on their scores. I have done mainly small ensembles in the past. In that case, it isn't bad to give each instrument its own staff in the score. When I'm done, I simply do a full extraction and then do any necessary final editing on the extracted parts. I assume this is a very typical practice. (I used to fiddle around with Special Part Extraction, but rarely use that these days.) So far so good. Right now I'm working on an orchestration for full symphony orchestra + jazz combo + several other instruments not normally in an orchestral score. I set this up as usual, with each instrument having its own staff. I did that so I could easily do an extraction where each player gets his or her own music without any confusing divisi bits. As a musician, I absolutely abhor those combined parts, and I vow never to put any other musicians through that unless the divisi is a very small percentage of the part. This is all fine except for one problem. The score is enormous. I can blow it up to make it legible enough for the conductor, or I could invest in a large format printer. But still, there are too many lines to make the score really useful. I think what I would like to do is to combine the same-family instruments (all the trumpets on one staff, e.g.). But I insist that each trumpeter (e.g.) gets only his/her own part. I'm looking for the best practices here. As I understand the standard Finale extraction, the best Finale will do is extract a part with all three trumpets on the same staff. It looks like TGTools Smart Explosion could then split that combined trumpet part into three separate staffs. And then I could do another Finale extraction to break that apart into three separate trumpet parts. Is that correct? And is that the best way to accomplish the task? Is there any way to avoid that extra editing/extraction step? And if I go the two-step approach with TGTools, would I be smart to enter each trumpet part to a separate layer, or is that not really necessary? (I'd rather just lay everything onto layer 1 if there is no reason to do otherwise.) OK, now for bonus points. I already have this humungous score with everything on its own staff. Is there a good way to go about combining the family-related staves? I can use the piano reduction plug-in. That might work OK as long as all the parts are moving together (vertically), but with moving voices, it seems like I really need each voice to go to its own layer, otherwise the TGTools Smart Explosion may never put Humpty Dumpty back together again. It seems like what I really need is a smart implosion that is the reverse of TGTools Smart Explosion. I'd appreciate any advice here. Thanks, Craig ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Strategy for scores
Craig wrote: So far so good. Right now I'm working on an orchestration for full symphony orchestra + jazz combo + several other instruments not normally in an orchestral score. I set this up as usual, with each instrument having its own staff. I did that so I could easily do an extraction where each player gets his or her own music without any confusing divisi bits. As a musician, I absolutely abhor those combined parts, and I vow never to put any other musicians through that unless the divisi is a very small percentage of the part. As an orchestral string player, I would have to disagree rather strongly. Do you really mean that if, at one point, the violas divide in 3, you would provide parts for Viola 1, Viola 2 and Viola 3? If I were the section leader I would take one look and tell the conductor that your piece is more trouble than it's worth. We know how to handle divisi, and standard engraving practice is just fine. I wrote a band piece in which the euphoniums divide a2, a3, and a4. All the divisi parts appear on the extracted page, each on a separate line, and there is no ambiguity or potential for confusion. If you're just talking about orchestral wind parts, then I agree with you in MOST cases, but possibly not all. If you're talking about percussion parts, I don't agree at all. The parts have to be such that the section leader can distribute them no matter what the size of the section is. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
