At 1/21/2013 12:05 PM, Mark D Lew wrote: >On Jan 21, 2013, at 5:35 AM, dc wrote: > >> Many thanks to all for the sound advice. I'm still wondering if the >> reduction is absolutely necessary or not - i.e. whether it makes things >> clearer or not. I have three verses, but never more than two different >> configurations. I'm not quite sure either whether most of you are >> recommending reduction in the case of flagged 8th-notes with beams in >> another layer. >> >> Would you object to something like this (bearing in mind the old >> fashioned beaming style): >> >> <https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15830163/2013-01-21_143346.jpg> > >I still think reducing the downstem alternates is an improvement, but I have >no objection to it how it is. > >The reason I think reducing the notes is an improvement is that even if it >does nothing to clarify the actual notes, for singers experienced in the >style the very existence of reduced downstem notes immediately communicates >the idea "this is alternate scansion for another verse" whereas two voices >the same size prompts a brief reaction of "huh? what is going on here?".
I don't get it at all. Where is the alto line? What it the bottom clef? Tenor or bass? It doesn't have any help for any verse. For 4 part hymns, this would be way too confusing to do stuff like that on all 4 parts. _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
