I find nothing clear about having things collide with accidentals, and would personally hesitate to do it. But Bartok was a meticulous composer and one would imagine he checked the proofs and agreed to the engraving appearance of his music. On the other hand, Boosey&Hawkes music (I know they published at least his Mikrokosmos, so I imagine they published others of his works) engraving is so loaded with mistakes that perhaps that publishing house has/had the attitude, "Trust us, we'll be sure your music looks great, don't worry about it." and composers don't get the chance to disagree.
But ultimately what matters is that Robert and others of even bigger import in the music engraving field engage in the practice.
That is not to say that you should engage in it, if in your opinion it obscures the music.
It doesn't really matter what others think -- what matters is what you and your engraving clients and the musicians who have to read the music think.
Personally, in the long run, I don't think it really matters either way -- as long as the accidental is clear it will be read by good musicians and missed by bad musicians, and even if the accidental is run through by the smart-shape, it will be played by good musicians and missed by bad musicians.
Make your music appear the way you think is most clear. For all the arpeggios that run through accidentals I am sure you can find just as many from other published examples which don't.
Fiskum, Steve wrote:
Hello Robert,
I was just trying to find out the advantage of this practice and not start a feud. Sorry if I offended you.
I would like to hear what people have to say about this practice. David Horne gave his opinion...what do other people think?
And also: What is the advantage of this practice to the end user? Is there no advantage but just "house style?"
Thank you, Steve Fiskum
---------- From: Robert Patterson Finale Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 12:42 PM
First of all, check out the examples I cited before you knock it. (Bartok's 3rd Quartet is chock full of nearly every situation you can imagine.) Just because the lines pierce the noteheads does not mean they obscure the accis.
Secondly, I find (for myself) that my intuitive sense of what ought to be right has often led me astray. Therefore, if I can find authoritative examples from standard rep. (as I think the Bartoks clearly are), I imitate those examples, unless I have a specific and compelling reason not to. (If a certain example were hard to do in Finale, that would be neither a specific nor a compelling reason not to do it. But I hope this audience would offer little disagreement on that point.)
Ymmv.
�ric Dussault wrote:
Le 29/09/03 12:04, "Fiskum, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit:
What is the advantage of this to the end user? Why muddy an accidental with a line when placing the line before the accidental gets the point accross and (IMHO) retains a clean page? I can see where this would just clutter the page and make it more difficult for the conductor or player to decifer.
my 2 cents,
Steve Fiskum
With all my respect to Robert, I must agree with Steve. Some may not...
�ric Dussault
Original post: On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:29:38 +0000, "Robert Patterson Finale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
This conversation begs the question of whether glisses even *should* avoid accis. In my editions of Bartok String Quartets, the glisses always pierce the noteheads, acci or no. I have actually added extensions to my custom lines to force them to do this, accis be damned.
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
.
-- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
