I agree totally. Parts should- nay- *must* be done for the convenience of the players. If a conductor is not experienced enough to read the score in transposed parts then work needs to be done - by them. After many years of arranging I automatically- and unconsciously, transpose all parts, as seen, to concert. eg I see G written for French horn and its a C. I see G for Alto Sax, it's Bb, D for Alto flute it's A, etc.The only time it gets me in trouble is when for example, I say to a horn player,something like- "Your E is a misprint- change it to Eb"- horn player looks at me and says but I haven't got E, I've got B. Do advocates of non-transposed scores enjoy 6 or 7 leger lines in Picc, Glock, Bass Tuba, or ContraBassoon? are these 'acceptable' exceptions? Regards, Keith in OZ ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Durling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Finale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:45 AM Subject: Re: [Finale] Transposed vs. concert pitch.
> The main argument against this for me, as someone who has done a fair > amount of conducting, is that after you have studied all the > instruments and their characteristic sound in different parts of their > range, I would much rather see what the player sees, and have therby a > very clear sense of what the player is confronting sonically and > technically. Characteristic or problematic note combinations, > extremes of range, idiomatic figures, all stand out more clearly in a > transposed score. The transposing to sounding pitch just takes > practice, and should be a part of a conductor's or a composer's > training. > > > Ken > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
