I don't have the book in question, so I have no idea what the spacing looks like, but I have always considered my spacing pretty tight. I have arrived at tight spacing after having copied some scores or parts that I myself considered to look good and readable. This tought me that the spacing tables that Finale came with were on the wider side. Now that Finale allows to adjust the spacing parameters with direct proportions these spacing tables have become obsolete in my opinion.
To make clear what I mean: For most music (mostly 18th century) I have to space I use a Reference Duration of 1024, a reference width of 84 and a scaling factor of 1.4. There are situations where I even have to squeeze more measures into one line then this would naturally come to. I have just been editing a virtuoso violin piece with a very long last movement, where there are no rests in the violin part, and just fit the last movement on 3 pages, which is really the maximum you can fit on a music stand. Although this was done for myself I am pretty sure most violinists would prefer how I have done it to a wider spacing which would have meant 5 pages, ie two impossible page turns. Johannes On 30.06.2002 21:20 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote > On 29 Jun 2002, at 22:10, �ric Dussault wrote: > >> � Good engraving is almost always tight engraving. It may be tempting, when >> you are getting paid per page (the method most publishers use) to space >> music generously to create extra pages, but you should resist the urge. >> Tighly spaced music is easier to read, as more information is readily >> available for the eye (...) � >> >> What about people who just want their music to look good. Most of my clients >> are billed on an hourly rate, which I think is a lot more fair. I do >> whatever I think is good for the music. Before reading this I was already >> noticing that the examples in the book were often damn tight (sometimes a >> couple of measures too many for a system) for my own taste, which may be >> discutable. But the problem with Finale spacing is that it becomes uglier as >> the music is becoming tighter. Am I silly or what? > > I used to space my music very tightly because when I started out with > Finale I was using a slow bubble-jet printer and needed to conserver > paper. Now I have a fast laser and plenty of paper and I've realized that > the music looks *larger* when space generously. That is, take music > that's, for example, laid out with 8 measures per system, on average, and > change it to 6 per system, and it makes the music look *bigger*, as well > as enhancing readability in general. -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
