On 27-Sep-07, at 4:29 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Christopher Smith / 07.9.27 / 3:24 PM wrote:
How are you putting in the text?
Yeah, I missed that crucial info to post. Sorry about that. I _want
to_ use Lyric Tool because that is the quickest I can run on this.
Hmm, yeah, you don't have the ability to superscript individual
characters in the Lyric tool. The items are there in the Text menu,
but greyed out.
May I suggest just the same that you use the Expression Tool? It has
so much more flexibility, and it doesn't add in lyric extensions and
re-align the word when the following note doesn't have an analysis,
as if it were a lyric starting a melisma. The Autopositioning really
helps, as does Metatool assignment.
BTW, you didn't ask, but it is much more conventional to put the
Roman analysis BELOW the staff. That's where most theory guys put it,
and expect to see it, at any rate.
I know that is the standard but I never liked it. The roman numeral
should be close to the chord names. To me, it doesn't make sense to
have chord symbols above the stuff and roman numeral bellow the stuff.
Besides I need clear space for note numbers bellow the stuff.
I know there is no set method for indicating chord members, aside
from Berklee's method but, in most of the educational literature I
see (like Ted Pease's excellent book, Jazz Composition, Theory and
Practice) the chord members in melodies are noted like articulations,
close to the notehead opposite the stem. This still leaves plenty of
room for chord symbols above the staff and Roman numerals below,
which ARE in the standard position in that book. When Pease spells
chords, he puts the chord member numbers BESIDE each note of the
chord, which is very clear as well.
Careful when you mess with established practice, especially when it
is among the few conventions that are respected between classical and
jazz theory. You have to think of what the students are going to do
with this afterwards, and are they going to have re-learn EVERY
convention they were taught when they go on to another school.
Speaking of convention, Hiro, I know you went through the whole
Boston scene and I have a question about analysis over there. When
showing a descending-perfect-fifth resolution of a dominant, an
upward curving arrow from the dominant to the resolution is standard
practice. Do the schools you learned and taught at allow the arrow
when it is a resolution of a diminished chord up a semitone, like
C#dim7 to Dm7 in the key of C? In my classical training, we were told
to call those "inc. V7(b9)/II" or incomplete V7(b9) of two, since
they have all the same important functional notes as A7(b9). I would
consider that to be a tonicisation, and thus arrowable, but I don't
think the standard analysis allows the arrow except for actual
dominant chord resolutions. I would LOVE to be able to put arrows on
all those diminished chords in my jazz theory classes! But I fear
that the students would be marked wrong if they did it at their next
school, so I haven't been doing that.
What do you think? (And anyone else who would care to weigh in!)
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
