Re: [Finale] Page numbers in linked parts
You could leave the whole page numbering business to the PDF creation proces. I do it all the time, and I always have multiple documents because I work a lot with musicals and stuff like that. So simply produce the PDF's and open e.g. all flute parts in acrobat professional and do the page numbering here. regards Stig Den 15/11/2008 kl. 08.05 skrev Darcy James Argue: Well, you can very easily convert the WAV file to MP3. Or you can specify a specific playback reason (for instance, one movement) before choosing Save As Audio. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 15 Nov 2008, at 1:45 AM, agil wrote: -- From: Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 6:43 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Page numbers in linked parts You could create a separate page number field for each part, showing just that one and hiding all the others -- but that's probably more trouble than it's worth and I suspect you are better off extracting. In future, it is almost always best to use a single score file for multimovement works, instead of splitting the work into one file per movement. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY Thankyou for your response - the reason for splitting multimovement works into one file per movement is mainly, in the case of rather long pieces, the exceeding dimension of the waw file to be extracted from just one file for the whole work. ag ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale MUSICMIND Stig Christensen www.musicmind.dk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hovmarksvej 24A 2920 Charlottenlund DENMARK +4526212425 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Page numbers in linked parts
-- From: Stig Christensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 11:24 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Page numbers in linked parts You could leave the whole page numbering business to the PDF creation proces. I do it all the time, and I always have multiple documents because I work a lot with musicals and stuff like that. So simply produce the PDF's and open e.g. all flute parts in acrobat professional and do the page numbering here. regards Stig That's great, thankyou. ag ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] O.T. Iconography in Music History
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Howell Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 6:09 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] O.T. Iconography in Music History At 2:03 PM -0500 11/14/08, Andrew Stiller wrote: James McKinnon, who taught a course on this at SUNY Buffalo back in the '70s, made the important distinction of realistic, but not real. A major example of this is a famous painting of St. Cecilia at the organ, in which the lengths of the pipes increase linearly from low to high instead of exponentially from high to low. Ah, but that's because the artist needed a diagonal line going in that direction! But exponential? I don't think so. Or perhaps I don't understand how exponential applies in this case. Yes, exponential. http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~kouba/Math21BThomasDIRECTORY/Exponential.pdf Pipes arranged in a decreasing series of half tone steps do not increase in length by a constant amount (which would make the profile of their ends a straight line.) The difference in their lengths gets larger and larger and so makes a curved profile - an exponential curve. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] missing 'Create Tempo Plug-In'
Have recently up-graded to 2009b and for the first time since I commenced using Finale in 2004, I am unable to find the 'Create Tempo Plug-In', which has always been under 'Plug-Ins---Expressions---Create Tempo. Now, no plug in. Am I missing something simple? Help, please.I am in the middle of something which requires repeated changes of tempo! Thanks. Rod. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] missing 'Create Tempo Plug-In'
One of the great improvements they made is that they got rid of it. It is now an expression, and you have to create it in the expression editor. Fun huh? On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Rod McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have recently up-graded to 2009b and for the first time since I commenced using Finale in 2004, I am unable to find the 'Create Tempo Plug-In', which has always been under 'Plug-Ins---Expressions---Create Tempo. Now, no plug in. Am I missing something simple? Help, please.I am in the middle of something which requires repeated changes of tempo! Thanks. Rod. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] missing 'Create Tempo Plug-In'
Before you know it they do away with everything except the simple rest palette... I can't wait... Eric Dannewitz wrote: One of the great improvements they made is that they got rid of it. It is now an expression, and you have to create it in the expression editor. Fun huh? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] O.T. Iconography in Music History
At 7:02 AM -0800 11/15/08, Richard Yates wrote: Yes, exponential. http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~kouba/Math21BThomasDIRECTORY/Exponential.pdf Pipes arranged in a decreasing series of half tone steps do not increase in length by a constant amount (which would make the profile of their ends a straight line.) The difference in their lengths gets larger and larger and so makes a curved profile - an exponential curve. OK, my math-starved brain can follow that reasoning, but do they not increase in length by a constant PERCENTAGE (as opposed to a constant LENGTH)? I thought exponential dealt with powers of 10 or some such thing. (My daughter is the math whiz in the family; she certainly didn't get it from ME!) John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Not Finale, but...
Hi folks: I made a HUGE mistake, and got myself a copy of Logic Express to make MP3s on a Mac (from Finale scores). When I figured out I could do it with soft fonts, Export to Audio File and iTunes, Logic Express became needlessly complicated. I think my cost on it was $249. I'd gladly sell it for a lot less, with a transfer of license and everything. I simply don't need it at the moment. If anyone's interested, please give me a holler offlist. Thanks, Dana ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] O.T. Iconography in Music History
Yes, exponential. http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~kouba/Math21BThomasDIRECTORY/Expo nential.p df Pipes arranged in a decreasing series of half tone steps do not increase in length by a constant amount (which would make the profile of their ends a straight line.) The difference in their lengths gets larger and larger and so makes a curved profile - an exponential curve. OK, my math-starved brain can follow that reasoning, but do they not increase in length by a constant PERCENTAGE (as opposed to a constant LENGTH)? Yes, that's right. And so the amount of increase increases at every step. I thought exponential dealt with powers of 10 or some such thing. (My daughter is the math whiz in the family; she certainly didn't get it from ME!) It does have to do with powers but not of 10. Each half tone increases by the twelfth root of 2, which is 2 to the 0.08333 power, which is 1.0594. Multiply 1.0594 times itself 12 times (for 12 steps in the octave) and you get 2 (i.e. twice the frequency, or one octave). ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] missing 'Create Tempo Plug-In'
Just create an expression in the tempo marks category. There's now a menu (Insert Note) where you can choose the note value, and if you continue typing something like = 120, you'll see that Finale automatically changes to the font defined for tempo marking numbers. Playback is automatically set. Honestly, it's just as good as the plug-in. There are advantages over the old version, as well: - The simple fact of creating the expression in the tempo marks category means that it gets assigned to the correct score list. - If you have a tempo marking that you will need to use often, you can create a metatool for it and pop it into the score with one click, something that didn't work too well in older versions (a measure-attached expression entered with a metatool automatically got entered on all staves). - The create tempo marking plug-in will only use Maestro as font for the note and number. In 2009 you can choose any font for the note value, and another for the number if you wish. - You can now very quickly create an expression for a tempo relation such as eighth note = quarter note. Michael On 15 Nov 2008, at 16:52, Rod McDonald wrote: Have recently up-graded to 2009b and for the first time since I commenced using Finale in 2004, I am unable to find the 'Create Tempo Plug- In', which has always been under 'Plug-Ins---Expressions---Create Tempo. Now, no plug in. Am I missing something simple? Help, please.I am in the middle of something which requires repeated changes of tempo! Thanks. Rod. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Iconography in Music History
On Nov 15, 2008, at 9:47 AM, John Howell wrote: I thought exponential dealt with powers of 10 or some such thing It sounds to me like your remembering logarithm. In this context, exponential just means that the formula describing the line would have at least one exponent. Like Y equals something squared. Dick H ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
Hi everyone: I'm just asking for different perspectives on a topic. I know everyone may have different views on it, so don't get into any flame wars over this please ;) I'm working on some Wanhal (or Vanhal) and Cannabich symphonies, which have 2 oboes, 2 horns, 2 bassoons, etc plus the strings. I have been putting each wind instrument on its own stave because I assumed at the time it's just easier for part extraction. Because I'm working from manuscript parts, it's just less of a chore to mark up the score with a2 or solo or tutti. I've seen some engraved scores which use the traditional 2 instruments per part and sometimes it's so cluttered with the markings about when the instruments are playing together or not. But on the other hand, I can see where having 2 instruments on a single stave can be LESS confusing because the chords being created in the winds are much more obvious. Any advice on this topic? As a sidebar, I was surprised at the smallness of the orchestra Cannabich used (I'm using the original performance part manuscripts)- the string parts are only 2 per string chair, although he was VERY heavy on the bass line, there are two parts for a cello, contrabass, and 2 bassoons, something that the classical period orchestras liked a great deal ( I believe that Mozart's Paris symphony was first played by 10 or 12 cellos!) Thanks so much for your feedback! Kim -- Kim Patrick Clow Early Music enthusiasts think outside the Bachs! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
Any advice on this topic? I guess it depends on a few things: 1) Is the score for performance, publication, or some other use? 2) (If it's for performance) Are you going to be the only conductor/music director using the score? 3) (If for publication) on what size paper will it be printed? 4) Are there any divisi figures between two chairs that, if put on one staff would look REALLY busy, and hard to read with up-stems and down-stems on the same staff? If it'll be hard to read because the music's too small, double up. If it's going to be on reasonable size paper, but you're more concerned about quick eyeballing of sections, double-up. If one staff per instrument works well for you, then go for it (if you'll be the only music director looking at the score). Also, if there isn't anything too complicated in one layer of a staff going against something equally complicated in another layer of the same staff, then you (or other conductors) won't have a problem looking at it, and making heads or tails of it while in rehearsal. I hope this was helpful. Early Music enthusiasts think outside the Bachs! OUCH! :) Dana ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Iconography in Music History
On Nov 14, 2008, at 9:08 PM, John Howell wrote: At 2:03 PM -0500 11/14/08, Andrew Stiller wrote: James McKinnon, who taught a course on this at SUNY Buffalo back in the '70s, made the important distinction of realistic, but not real. A major example of this is a famous painting of St. Cecilia at the organ, in which the lengths of the pipes increase linearly from low to high instead of exponentially from high to low. Ah, but that's because the artist needed a diagonal line going in that direction! But exponential? I don't think so. Or perhaps I don't understand how exponential applies in this case. The length of a tuned pipe is w = 1/(2^p * n), where w is the (wave)length of the pipe, p is the pitch in octaves above n, and n is an arbitrary reference pitch (440 Hz, e.g.). This is an exponential equation. And of course the portatif organ she's often shown with didn't exist in her time, but did exist in the artists' times! And she didn't like or play music either! Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Iconography in Music History
On 15 Nov 2008 at 11:26, Dick Hauser wrote: On Nov 15, 2008, at 9:47 AM, John Howell wrote: I thought exponential dealt with powers of 10 or some such thing It sounds to me like your remembering logarithm. In this context, exponential just means that the formula describing the line would have at least one exponent. Like Y equals something squared. Only outdoor pipe organs would be able to have more than about 4 or 5 logarithmic pipes, I think (unless you started with rilly, rilly tiny mixture-type pipes), and wouldn't be terribly useful musically. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Iconography in Music History
At 11:26 AM -0800 11/15/08, Dick Hauser wrote: On Nov 15, 2008, at 9:47 AM, John Howell wrote: I thought exponential dealt with powers of 10 or some such thing It sounds to me like your remembering logarithm. In this context, exponential just means that the formula describing the line would have at least one exponent. Like Y equals something squared. You're exactly right! Goes back to my years using a slide rule. (Anyone remember those?) John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
At 2:37 PM -0500 11/15/08, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: Hi everyone: I'm just asking for different perspectives on a topic. I know everyone may have different views on it, so don't get into any flame wars over this please ;) I'm working on some Wanhal (or Vanhal) and Cannabich symphonies, which have 2 oboes, 2 horns, 2 bassoons, etc plus the strings. I have been putting each wind instrument on its own stave because I assumed at the time it's just easier for part extraction. Because I'm working from manuscript parts, it's just less of a chore to mark up the score with a2 or solo or tutti. I've seen some engraved scores which use the traditional 2 instruments per part and sometimes it's so cluttered with the markings about when the instruments are playing together or not. But on the other hand, I can see where having 2 instruments on a single stave can be LESS confusing because the chords being created in the winds are much more obvious. Any advice on this topic? Personal opinion: If you have room on the page, give each instrument its own line. As a sidebar, I was surprised at the smallness of the orchestra Cannabich used (I'm using the original performance part manuscripts)- the string parts are only 2 per string chair, although he was VERY heavy on the bass line, there are two parts for a cello, contrabass, and 2 bassoons, something that the classical period orchestras liked a great deal ( I believe that Mozart's Paris symphony was first played by 10 or 12 cellos!) Kim Patrick, I think there may be a small flaw in your reasoning. Composers did not, generally, specify how many players were to play their music. If they worked for a patron, they wrote for the orchestra (or chorus, or band) that patron supported, period. True, when Mozart was freelancing in Vienna, and later for Beethoven, they hired their own orchestras for the concerts they personally produced, but even then there would have been financial incentives to keep the size as small as was acceptable. Similarly, we can usually identify Mozart's Salzburg works because they lack viola parts, because the Archbishop didn't employ violists. There may also, in some cases, have been space considerations. We know that Bach's orchestra at Leipzig was quite small, judging by the parts that were copied for that orchestra, and I suspect that there was a limited amount of space in the Thomaskirche (although I've never seen a good picture of it). I have seen a picture of Haydn's opera pit orchestra, and the space was very definitely limited. Probably Handel's in London, too. Our massive concept of large ensembles simply didn't exist until the advent of amateur choral societies, formed at first to continue performing the works of Handel. And of course there is never any way to make sure that the surviving parts are the ONLY parts that were copied. You can't prove a negative! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:54 PM, John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And of course there is never any way to make sure that the surviving parts are the ONLY parts that were copied. You can't prove a negative! John Thanks for your reply John, but the interesting thing is, for this Cannabich score, he wrote on it Sinfonia a 18 the parts match that number on the wrapper sheet, so there aren't any missing parts from what I can see. Thanks! Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] missing 'Create Tempo Plug-In'
Many thanks to those who helped me this morning. Took me a while to find the Insert Note command...at my age, I seem to have difficulty seeing what is directly in front of me! Best Wishes. Rod. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Florence + Michael Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2008 4:40 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] missing 'Create Tempo Plug-In' Just create an expression in the tempo marks category. There's now a menu (Insert Note) where you can choose the note value, and if you continue typing something like = 120, you'll see that Finale automatically changes to the font defined for tempo marking numbers. Playback is automatically set. Honestly, it's just as good as the plug-in. There are advantages over the old version, as well: - The simple fact of creating the expression in the tempo marks category means that it gets assigned to the correct score list. - If you have a tempo marking that you will need to use often, you can create a metatool for it and pop it into the score with one click, something that didn't work too well in older versions (a measure-attached expression entered with a metatool automatically got entered on all staves). - The create tempo marking plug-in will only use Maestro as font for the note and number. In 2009 you can choose any font for the note value, and another for the number if you wish. - You can now very quickly create an expression for a tempo relation such as eighth note = quarter note. Michael On 15 Nov 2008, at 16:52, Rod McDonald wrote: Have recently up-graded to 2009b and for the first time since I commenced using Finale in 2004, I am unable to find the 'Create Tempo Plug- In', which has always been under 'Plug-Ins---Expressions---Create Tempo. Now, no plug in. Am I missing something simple? Help, please.I am in the middle of something which requires repeated changes of tempo! Thanks. Rod. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
At 6:00 PM -0500 11/15/08, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:54 PM, John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And of course there is never any way to make sure that the surviving parts are the ONLY parts that were copied. You can't prove a negative! John Thanks for your reply John, but the interesting thing is, for this Cannabich score, he wrote on it Sinfonia a 18 the parts match that number on the wrapper sheet, so there aren't any missing parts from what I can see. You may be quite right, and he may have meant it that way. Normally a note like that indicates the number of lines used in the score (which might inform your score layout), with the assumption that if there were more than 2 players on each string part or each vocal part extra (individual) copies would be prepared. That's the case with Bach's choral works, usually one part for each voice with the solo movements and a second one without. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
On 15 Nov 2008 at 18:11, John Howell wrote: At 6:00 PM -0500 11/15/08, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:54 PM, John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And of course there is never any way to make sure that the surviving parts are the ONLY parts that were copied. You can't prove a negative! Thanks for your reply John, but the interesting thing is, for this Cannabich score, he wrote on it Sinfonia a 18 the parts match that number on the wrapper sheet, so there aren't any missing parts from what I can see. You may be quite right, and he may have meant it that way. Normally a note like that indicates the number of lines used in the score (which might inform your score layout), with the assumption that if there were more than 2 players on each string part or each vocal part extra (individual) copies would be prepared. That's the case with Bach's choral works, usually one part for each voice with the solo movements and a second one without. John, your reply has actually confused me. I do think Kim seems to be mistaken, but I may have understood him, too. I've lots of experience with MSS from the period Kim is working and what I see is that Sinfonia a 18 would mean that there are 18 individual lines (parts) in the score. That wouldn't mean 18 staves, as the two oboes are likely written on a single line, and so forth. A Sinfonia a 18 might have many more parts copied out. For instance, a title page might read thus (pardon my mixed spelling, i.e., plurals versus singular -- a surprisingly large number of these MSS are in Italian but written by non-native speakers and don't always make sense in terms of Italian grammar): Sinfonia à 11 2 Violini Viola [or Viole] Violoncello [or Violoncelli] Bassus [or, more often, Bassi] 2 Corni 2 Oboi 2 Fagotti Very often, this same title page will have been annotated by someone (the music librarian or a later owner) indicating duplicate parts, thus: Sinfonia à 11 2 Violini 2+2 Viola 2 Violoncello 3 Bassus 2 2 Corni 2 Oboi 2 Fagotti It might also be written thus: Sinfonia à 11 Violino Prima 2 Violino Seconda 2 Viola 2 Violoncello 3 Bassus 2 2 Corni 2 Oboi 2 Fagotti What this would mean is either 14 or 18 actual copied parts (depends on whether the winds have been supplied with individual parts). So, there's a difference between parts and parts (contrary to the old advertisement, it's not true that parts is parts), with the number of parts in the score usually determining the title number rather than the number of copied parts. So, 11 parts in the score could generate 14 or 18 actual copied parts. It is my experience that the title instrument count is supplied by the original copyist of the title page, while the count of copied parts is almost always a later addition by someone else (if it's there at all). My experience is that Sinfonia a 18 would almost never indicate that there were 18 copied parts, but that there were 18 individual parts in the score. That would be an awfully big orchestra for this period -- 2 additional horns + clarinets + flutes added to the original 11 gets you to 17, and I'm not sure where the other part would come from (perhaps a solor violin part, Violino Principale?). On the other hand, I'm not as familiar with the Mannheim/Munich traditions as I am with those from other locations, so they may have been different. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've lots of experience with MSS from the period Kim is working and what I see is that Sinfonia a 18 would mean that there are 18 individual lines (parts) in the score. That wouldn't mean 18 staves, as the two oboes are likely written on a single line, and so forth. A Sinfonia a 18 might have many more parts copied out. This particular symphony only has parts ( I believe that's the case for most of Cannabich's music, which survives largely complete in Munich). All I noticed was the relative lack of string parts and when I counted the parts that survive, it matches the number on the wrapper sheet. I'm not saying that's exactly what was used to perform this symphony, but the collection in Munich does seem pretty complete, and I have seen some Vanhal/Wanhal symphonies that have duplicate string parts (for example in Schwerin and in Regensburg and in Prague). Again, I'm just found this a bit odd considering the size of the orchestra in Mannheim, and with the heavy bass parts (why would there be two parts for bassoons and double basses when just a single cello would have sufficed if someone was going to toss out duplicate parts to save library shelf space?). Thanks for your ideas though David! :-) Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
On 15 Nov 2008 at 18:45, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've lots of experience with MSS from the period Kim is working and what I see is that Sinfonia a 18 would mean that there are 18 individual lines (parts) in the score. That wouldn't mean 18 staves, as the two oboes are likely written on a single line, and so forth. A Sinfonia a 18 might have many more parts copied out. This particular symphony only has parts ( I believe that's the case for most of Cannabich's music, which survives largely complete in Munich). That's the case with almost all the surviving MSS from this period (parts only, no score). And the title page we're talking about is for the wrapper that holds the parts. Scores (composer autograph or not), are very, very rare in this period. The fact that we have Mozart's, for instance, is really only because he became famous at about the same time that people started to value a composer's autograph scores for their own sake. All I noticed was the relative lack of string parts and when I counted the parts that survive, it matches the number on the wrapper sheet. What you delineated in terms of balance between strings and basses doesn't sound all that unusual to me at all, to be honest. I'm not saying that's exactly what was used to perform this symphony, but the collection in Munich does seem pretty complete, and I have seen some Vanhal/Wanhal symphonies that have duplicate string parts (for example in Schwerin and in Regensburg and in Prague). Again, I'm just found this a bit odd considering the size of the orchestra in Mannheim, and with the heavy bass parts (why would there be two parts for bassoons and double basses when just a single cello would have sufficed if someone was going to toss out duplicate parts to save library shelf space?). This is very common -- they seem to have performed with forces that were much more bass-heavy than we would think appropriate. Another thing to consider is whether or not there were any ripieno/concertino oral traditions. For instance, the Leopold Mozart parts for Mozart's piano concertos in St. Peters in Salzburg show that it may very well have been common practice to use a ripieno/concertino approach to performing them (the LM parts were made by LM for performance in Salzburg from WAM's autograph scores; Christopher Hogwood and Robert Levin released a recording of these versions using editions prepared by my former dissertation advisor, Cliff Eisen -- they are a sonic revelation). That is, it may be that all those extra parts may not have been playing all the time. It's not clear whether there were certain oral traditions for this, or if the fact that LM had to copy them out means that it was an unusual realization of his son's concertos. It could be that LM copied out the separate ripieno/concertino parts just because he was preparing a new set of parts, and if he'd gotten a pre-prepared set of parts he might have just used them as is with oral instructions as to when the individual desks/players should be silent. We just don't know for certain. In regard to the bass parts in your Cannibich, it may be that all the basses played only in tutti sections. But if the parts are all identical, having the complete bass line in them, we don't have any evidence to suggest that, suggesting that it was the case would be only pure speculation. We just don't know. It seems odd to think they'd have had so much bass-heaviness, but that's what the surviving parts for a lot of works tell us. On the other hand, it could have as much to do with where the parts were used to perform -- perhaps in a live hall that emphasized the treble and obscured the bass, in which case that's exactly what you might want to do, ie., overdouble the low parts and leave the top parts somewhat scantily covered. Again, we just don't know for certain. What we do know is that what you've described is not at all out of the ordinary -- though it's not the norm, there are plenty of sets of parts in all kinds of locations in which you see exactly what you've described. Also, it might be helpful to examine the paper types and copyists. It could be that a full set of undoubled parts were prepared, and doubling parts were created later for the strings and in actual performance some of the bass parts remained completely unused. Or the whole set was created at once, and only some of the parts used in any particular performance. It may be that all the bass parts would not have been used in any actual performance, and that if they had forces large enough to use all the bass parts, they would have copied out other string parts. Again, we just don't know for certain! There are plenty of studies of archival records of payrolls for orchestral musicians, but that doesn't tell us much, since it only says who got paid for the week/month, not what
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 7:14 PM, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The really surprising thing to me has been not so much the heavy bass, but the completely sparse *inner parts*. Heavy bass can work very well with a full harmony filled out above them, but in so many cases you see part sets with lots of treble parts, lots of bass parts and very little in between. Yes, of course, there might be one or two harmonic continuo parts that would fill out the middle, but a harpsichord or two can't really balance out all the bass and treble parts! There are two separate viola parts, I don't know how common that is for this period. I haven't moved far enough on this particular piece to see if the viola parts simply double or not. There are some sections of the opening movement that are marked Violoncelli soli and then a few bars later, Con tutti bassi. I know Christopher Hogwood recorded Mozart's Paris symphony based completely on what the forces were in Paris, VERY bass heavy-- it was a pretty unusual performance, but I've noticed the same things in Graupner and Endler symphonies-- many parts for the basso continuo-- especially Endler where there are up to 4 parts-- yet only a single 1st violin! Very odd. Again thanks for an interesting discussion ;) Kim ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] missing 'Create Tempo Plug-In'
timothy key price [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Nov 15, 2008, at 6:02 PM, Rod McDonald wrote: Many thanks to those who helped me this morning. Took me a while to find the Insert Note command...at my age, I seem to have difficulty seeing what is directly in front of me! Best Wishes. Rod. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Florence + Michael Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2008 4:40 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] missing 'Create Tempo Plug-In' Just create an expression in the tempo marks category. There's now a menu (Insert Note) where you can choose the note value, and if you continue typing something like = 120, you'll see that Finale automatically changes to the font defined for tempo marking numbers. Playback is automatically set. Honestly, it's just as good as the plug-in. There are advantages over the old version, as well: - The simple fact of creating the expression in the tempo marks category means that it gets assigned to the correct score list. - If you have a tempo marking that you will need to use often, you can create a metatool for it and pop it into the score with one click, something that didn't work too well in older versions (a measure-attached expression entered with a metatool automatically got entered on all staves). - The create tempo marking plug-in will only use Maestro as font for the note and number. In 2009 you can choose any font for the note value, and another for the number if you wish. - You can now very quickly create an expression for a tempo relation such as eighth note = quarter note. Michael On 15 Nov 2008, at 16:52, Rod McDonald wrote: Have recently up-graded to 2009b and for the first time since I commenced using Finale in 2004, I am unable to find the 'Create Tempo Plug- In', which has always been under 'Plug-Ins---Expressions---Create Tempo. Now, no plug in. Am I missing something simple? Help, please.I am in the middle of something which requires repeated changes of tempo! Thanks. Rod. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] missing 'Create Tempo Plug-In'
Tempo markings have always been expressions. This functionality was separated from the expression tool, making it hard to find for many people. The create tempo marking PI also did not use the new expression functionality. Now, everything's in the expression tool, doesn't require switching tools, obeys staff lists, and can be assigned a metatool. On Nov 15, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: One of the great improvements they made is that they got rid of it. It is now an expression, and you have to create it in the expression editor. Fun huh? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
At 6:37 PM -0500 11/15/08, David W. Fenton wrote: John, your reply has actually confused me. I do think Kim seems to be mistaken, but I may have understood him, too. I've lots of experience with MSS from the period Kim is working and what I see is that Sinfonia a 18 would mean that there are 18 individual lines (parts) in the score. That wouldn't mean 18 staves, as the two oboes are likely written on a single line, and so forth. A Sinfonia a 18 might have many more parts copied out. Yes, that's what I was suggesting, but your experience with these scores makes it a lot more clear than my awkward statement. I actually couldn't remember whether e.g. oboes were combined on one line in photos I've seen of manuscript score pages--especially Mozart. Thanks! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] O.T. Score layout for late 18th century symphonies (winds) Cannabich
On 16 Nov 2008 at 0:45, John Howell wrote: At 6:37 PM -0500 11/15/08, David W. Fenton wrote: John, your reply has actually confused me. I do think Kim seems to be mistaken, but I may have understood him, too. I've lots of experience with MSS from the period Kim is working and what I see is that Sinfonia a 18 would mean that there are 18 individual lines (parts) in the score. That wouldn't mean 18 staves, as the two oboes are likely written on a single line, and so forth. A Sinfonia a 18 might have many more parts copied out. Yes, that's what I was suggesting, but your experience with these scores makes it a lot more clear than my awkward statement. I actually couldn't remember whether e.g. oboes were combined on one line in photos I've seen of manuscript score pages--especially Mozart. Well, I was talking specifically about title pages, or, in most cases, what is really just a wrapper for a set of parts (not actually a title page). In Mozart's autographs, there is no title page, and none of what I wrote applies to his autographs. He did mostly combine parts on single staves. He used a doubled treble clef for those staves as a handy way of making it clear which staff was which (though he doesn't repeat the clefs on subsequent pages). Here's the first page of Der Schauspieldirektor, the first Mozart facsimile that turned up on the pile: http://dfenton.com/images/DerSchauspieldirektor.jpg For some reason, he did it for flutes, clarinets, horns and trumpets, but not for oboes. I have no idea why. And he never does it for bass clef instruments, so far as I can remember. But this is typical score layout for him (especially the Italianate practice of putting the strings at the top, as contrasted to modern score order). But the main point: Mozart (and Haydn and most other 18th-century composers with which I'm familiar) tended to put pairs of instruments on a single staff, except where the parts became too complicated for that. I can't think of an instance of Mozart placing a divisi part on two staves, but certainly later composers did it. And these scores are not hard to read, as for most of these pairs of instruments, the parts are not complex (especially the horns and trumpets). And they are often à2, such as in the bassoons, which (as in the illustration) often just double the bass in both parts. I wouldn't think there would be anything difficult with a modern edition that used exactly the same layout as that found here in Mozart's autograph. I can't see what would be gained by splitting the parts into separate staves. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
