In the past I used to use 100% page scale of Finale's default 85% system scaling for parts, but recently I've been using 90% page scale, which even to this aging string player's eyes is quite easy to read. I use a music spacing scaling factor of 1.4 for parts (1.6179 for scores). My parts are 8.5x11 (folded/stapled booklets on 11x17), but I cheat on the margins and push things to within 3/8" inch from the page edge (sorry, MOLA). I keep meaning to get a supply of 12x18 paper one of these days for parts, but inertia reigns.
I think a lot of the readability factor has to do with making a clean layout, and keeping elements that don't belong together away from one another. I spend a great deal of time on parts, as much as 3-4 hours or more each for a lengthy piece of say, 10-15 pages. It is very time consuming to do a good job of adding useful cues, making decent page turns, carefully tweaking the layout for maximum readability, and doing multiple rounds of meticulous proofreading. But the musicians always love playing from my parts -- no errors, easy to read, good cues -- probably moreso compared to some of the garbage orchestral parts they are sometimes forced to play from (I'm also an orchestral librarian). The main goal, as always, is to remove from the parts every possible obstacle to a good reading, and avoid wasting precious rehearsal time. For large size conductor's orchestral scores, I've settled on 11x14 as a useful standard. I avoid 11x17 unless absolutely necessary (unusually large number of staves), because it doesn't fit in standard size briefcases, and tends to be a little too "floppy". Smaller than 11x14 might be ok for scores with say, 12 or fewer staves, but otherwise would be too small to read comfortably at "conducting" distance. Note: I used to print scores on 11x17 and take them in to be trimmed to 11x14 as needed, until it struck me that it was a lot more convenient (and cheaper) to have an entire ream of 11x17 cut to 11x14 at once. Now I hardly ever have to go to Kinko's (that's a good thing). Lee Actor Composer-in-Residence and Assistant Conductor, Palo Alto Philharmonic http://www.leeactor.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of Chuck Israels > > 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 _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
