I've been thinking about this lately. I've been using a 95% staff
size reduction on large (9.5" x 12.5") parts paper, and it's more
than readable at a considerable distance. Sometimes I think it's
even slightly too large for nice proportions. Orchestral parts I've
seen are often smaller - something around 88-90% (and often far more
crowded), if I am estimating correctly. I can understand publishers
of orchestral parts wanting to conserve paper, and familiarity with
the music can make layout issues less critical. For new music, it
seems to me that saving paper and paying for that in increased
rehearsal time may be penny wise and pound foolish, so I strive for a
balance in the look of my music - one that puts things close enough
together that the eye can scan ahead efficiently but still clearly
delineates formal landmarks. Every part layout requires a little
time to be spent on this.
(When I used to print everything on letter size paper, I had settled
on an 82-85% page reduction as the smallest practical size.)
There are times that I think reducing the staff size and increasing
the amount of white space around staves and other objects actually
might make the music more legible.
I'd welcome hearing from others who have put thought into this.
My big band and combo scores are all on letter size - landscape
orientation and would not be useful to anyone who didn't know the
music, unless their eyes were better than mine. If I ever need
legible scores, I'll need to go to an 11 x 14 format, which seems
nicely proportioned in either orientation and should be large enough
for readability.
Interesting footnote to this and other Finale subjects: I offered to
teach a course in Finale music prep (with the help of Hal Owen's
Tutorial and a syllabus that Darcy had sent in preparation for
offering a similar class in NY) in our department, thinking that it
was sorely needed by students who routinely turn in assignments that
look ugly and amateurish - sometimes even unreadable. Not one
student signed up! Not sure what the explanation for that is.
Chuck
On Feb 19, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Feb 19, 2006, at 2:17 PM, John Howell wrote:
At 12:25 PM -0500 2/19/06, Christopher Smith wrote:
End quote. Now for interpretation.
8.5 mm (most readable) is Finale's 100% staff size.
The moral: Finale makes it much too easy to reduce size. Just
because you CAN do it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it!
I don't know how point size relates to mm or reductions, but in
working with Mosaic I have settled on 20 pt for parts, 18 or
sometimes 16 pt for choral scores, and 12 pt for cramming staves
onto a score page. One of the composers for our community band
uses Finale-out-of-the-box, and his parts are uniformly too small
for comfortable reading.
24 pts is 100%
20 pts (or .7 cm) is 83%, which is already smaller than Finale's
default of 85%, so your pal must have changed something else, like
page size reduction, to get it smaller.
18 and 16 points are 75% and 66% respectively, while 12
(predictably enough, since 24 is full size) is 50%.
Choral scores, since they are typically held inches from one's
face, can take smaller reductions than string parts, which are feet
away from the players, as I am sure you know.
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
