Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 16.10.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
It would be nice, though, if some professional engraving standards
were somehow built into Finale so that it could tell you if you've
exceeded standard modern engraving density.
I don't think there is such a thing. I have a Henle part here, where one
page is extremely tightly spaced, tighter than anything I have ever done...
I think this is another case where good engraving always needs a good
eye, too, and a computer can only go some of the way...
Johannes
I agree with Johannes on this. That's where an experienced eye which
has seen many different sorts of engraving jobs which still proved
legible for musicians, coupled with a performer's eye which can pick up
the difference between legible and useful, are the most important tools
for engraving density.
I've seen some horrible engraving in G. Schirmer editions and I've seen
some very elegant engraving in G. Schirmer editions, both with about the
same density but that's where the similarity ended. There's just too
many variables to take into account for a computer to be allowed to be
the final arbiter of what will result in the best engraving, as far as
performability goes. Note-head font size, for instance. Leaving it
full size makes tight spacing hard to read but reducing it just a few
percent can make an illegible spacing into a much better spacing,
without changing the spacing at all. Then there's the rhythmic density
-- music with very few beams can look great at a certain spacing, but
change the note values by cutting them in half or quarter (increasing
the number of beams) and that same spacing becomes much harder to read.
And I think it's the combination of all these factors and their control
by experienced eyes which make some publishers music easy to read and
makes other publishers music much harder to read.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
