Re: [Finale] OT: French dictionary with syllables
On Jun 17, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Ryan wrote: I'm looking for a good online French dictionary with syllabification. Setting some nursery rhymes and kid's songs and I want to make sure the lyrics are correct. French is one of the harder languages for word division, but there are basic rules which will take you pretty far. 1. When the syllable divides on a single consonant between vowels, always break before the consonant 2. When the syllable divides on two consonants, break between the two consonants, UNLESS: - the pair is GN, CH, PH, RH, or TH. - the second consonant is L or R, and the first consonant is *not* L, M, N or R. If it meets one of those exceptions, keep the consonants together and break before them. 3. When the syllable divides on three consonants, break between the first and second consonant of the three. No doubt there are exceptions, but off the of my head I can't think of any exception to those rules. The basic idea is to keep any consonantal digraph together and keep any pair that's a hard consonant followed by and liquid together. If there were a DL or TL pair, those should probably be split, but I can't think of any such word. Likewise, I'd split GN if the G is pronounced hard, but I can't think of any word like that either. If there were three consonants together and the third one isn't L or R, I'd rethink that, too, but I can't think of such a word. If the syllable divides between vowels, it should be intuitive from the pronunciation. Any vowel pair pronounced as a digraph should stay together. Also, I would never break after an apostrophe. And when a word ending in a weak -e is followed by a word starting with a vowel, don't make a syllable out of it just to elide it. So: Au clair de la lu-ne, Mon a-mi Pier-rot Prê-te moi ta plu-me Pour é-crire un mot Ma chan-delle est mor-te Je n'ai plus de feu Ou-vre-moi ta por-te Pour l'a-mour de Dieu! mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Comments on Modern Time Signatures for 1660 Piece -- Addendum
On 18.06.2010 04:29, David W. Fenton wrote: That does raise the question if you think that I've handled the coloration correctly. I would have liked to have used tuplets, but in this particular meter, I just think it would have confused things, so I wrote out the literal note values, instead. It seems perfectly clear to me. David, Actually, your interpretation of the coloration worries me. I've never seen anything like this, and I have a lot of experience transcribing and playing music from this era (and yes, even Capricornus). How is the original notated, for example, in measure 138 of the soprano 1 part? If there are three colored whole notes (or one regular and two colored whole notes), they should still be transcribed as whole notes, since coloration at this time does not involve altering the length of the notes, but merely indicates a rhythmic shift: from ONE two three | ONE two three to ONE two THREE | one TWO three. -- **In other words: in this period, coloration is the signal for a hemiola.** And how is the ending (m. 245-end), for example, of the Tr 1 part notated in the original? This looks really weird. Howard -- Howard Weiner h.wei...@online.de http://howard-weiner.de/ Help stamp out and eradicate superfluous redundancy ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Comments on Modern Time Signatures for 1660 Piece
On 18.06.2010 04:29, David W. Fenton wrote: That does raise the question if you think that I've handled the coloration correctly. I would have liked to have used tuplets, but in this particular meter, I just think it would have confused things, so I wrote out the literal note values, instead. It seems perfectly clear to me. David, Actually, your interpretation of the coloration worries me. I've never seen anything like this, and I have a lot of experience transcribing and playing music from this era (and yes, even Capricornus). How is the original notated, for example, in measure 138 of the soprano 1 part? If there are three colored whole notes (or one regular and two colored whole notes), they should still be transcribed as whole notes, since coloration at this time does not involve altering the length of the notes, but merely indicates a rhythmic shift: from ONE two three | ONE two three to ONE two THREE | one TWO three. And how is the ending (m. 245-end), for example, of the Tr 1 part notated in the original? This looks really weird. Howard -- Howard Weiner [1]h.wei...@online.de [2]http://howard-weiner.de/ Help stamp out and eradicate superfluous redundancy References 1. mailto:h.wei...@online.de 2. http://howard-weiner.de/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: French dictionary with syllables
Keeper! Christopher On Fri Jun 18, at FridayJun 18 2:02 AM, Mark D Lew wrote: On Jun 17, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Ryan wrote: I'm looking for a good online French dictionary with syllabification. Setting some nursery rhymes and kid's songs and I want to make sure the lyrics are correct. French is one of the harder languages for word division, but there are basic rules which will take you pretty far. 1. When the syllable divides on a single consonant between vowels, always break before the consonant 2. When the syllable divides on two consonants, break between the two consonants, UNLESS: - the pair is GN, CH, PH, RH, or TH. - the second consonant is L or R, and the first consonant is *not* L, M, N or R. If it meets one of those exceptions, keep the consonants together and break before them. 3. When the syllable divides on three consonants, break between the first and second consonant of the three. No doubt there are exceptions, but off the of my head I can't think of any exception to those rules. The basic idea is to keep any consonantal digraph together and keep any pair that's a hard consonant followed by and liquid together. If there were a DL or TL pair, those should probably be split, but I can't think of any such word. Likewise, I'd split GN if the G is pronounced hard, but I can't think of any word like that either. If there were three consonants together and the third one isn't L or R, I'd rethink that, too, but I can't think of such a word. If the syllable divides between vowels, it should be intuitive from the pronunciation. Any vowel pair pronounced as a digraph should stay together. Also, I would never break after an apostrophe. And when a word ending in a weak -e is followed by a word starting with a vowel, don't make a syllable out of it just to elide it. So: Au clair de la lu-ne, Mon a-mi Pier-rot Prê-te moi ta plu-me Pour é-crire un mot Ma chan-delle est mor-te Je n'ai plus de feu Ou-vre-moi ta por-te Pour l'a-mour de Dieu! mdl ___ 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] OT: Comments on Modern Time Signatures for 1660 Piece
At 10:29 PM -0400 6/17/10, David W. Fenton wrote: Yes, of course. I never had a proper course in graduate school on the notation of this period -- I've learned what I know only by doing it myself! That's the only way you CAN learn it, even if you took the Early Notation course! And when it comes to the late Medieval stuff I have to RE-learn it whenever I get involved in it again. Although teaching it does help me keep it straight. The challenge is finding examples that are clear cut enough to make sense for beginners. It was left out of my grad school training because, I think, there was an assumption that the notation is just the same as modern notation, which is bollocks, of course! Throw that coloration (see the last page, for instance) at someone familiar only with a modern notation and see what they come up with! That does raise the question if you think that I've handled the coloration correctly. I would have liked to have used tuplets, but in this particular meter, I just think it would have confused things, so I wrote out the literal note values, instead. It seems perfectly clear to me. Without seeing what the original looks like it's hard to judge, but what you have certainly works musically even though it's a child's garden of hemiola! I wonder about repeating the 3/2 time signature in the final bar, though, since that's part of the 9/2 pattern. And of course the longa is treated the same as a fermata--just an indication that th, th, th, that's all, folks! Was that REAL coloration, black notes replacing white notes? The traditional meaning is duple time, of course, so that certainly works, but in 1660? That IS unusual!!! A tuplet would work, but I think your solution is less confusing. 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:john.how...@vt.edu) 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] upgrade? and question
Dear finalelist, I'm working on a fairly new mac with finale 2004. 1. Is it time to upgrade to 2011? 2. I have a score with 4 staves. Is it possible (for formatting) to move a single staff up or down within a single system ? Thanks, Katherine Hoover ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Comments on Modern Time Signatures for 1660 Piece
On 18 Jun 2010 at 10:26, Howard Weiner wrote: On 18.06.2010 04:29, David W. Fenton wrote: That does raise the question if you think that I've handled the coloration correctly. I would have liked to have used tuplets, but in this particular meter, I just think it would have confused things, so I wrote out the literal note values, instead. It seems perfectly clear to me. Actually, your interpretation of the coloration worries me. I've never seen anything like this, and I have a lot of experience transcribing and playing music from this era (and yes, even Capricornus). How is the original notated, for example, in measure 138 of the soprano 1 part? There is always one colored note fewer than under my bracket, because I'm indicating which notes have altered values. When there are three that I've notated as dotted whole and two dotted halves, it's a normal semi-breve followed by filled-in semi-breves. The colored notes change the length of the note that comes before them (which would be a whole note without coloration), so I include it under the bracket. The one recording of this realizes the rhythms of the coloration precisely the same as I do, so I think this is just a question of notating the coloration in the modern score. If there are three colored whole notes (or one regular and two colored whole notes), they should still be transcribed as whole notes, since coloration at this time does not involve altering the length of the notes, but merely indicates a rhythmic shift: from ONE two three | ONE two three to ONE two THREE | one TWO three. No, there are only two colored notes, but since those two alter the length of the one before, I put the bracket over all three (to show that those are notes that are not exactly the same identical rhythmic value). And how is the ending (m. 245-end), for example, of the Tr 1 part notated in the original? This looks really weird. That one was actually a real puzzler. I took it as a substitution of two minims for a semi-breve, so the same figure as I've described above, but with the first note divided in half. This works out perfectly with the other parts in terms of rhythm and harmony, so I went with this interpretation. I put the bracket over all four notes on the same principle I put it over the three, as described above. Certainly nobody in my ensemble gives a rat's ass about the coloration (though with the two-note pairs that indicate the shift from 2 groups of 3 to 3 groups of two, they are useful markers), but as this has never been published, I probably need to follow standard practice. I assume that I should be putting the bracket over the colored note only? -- 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
[Finale] Lost Ambience
Dear folks, I seem to have lost the Garritan Ambience file. When I look at the offerings for Fx on the Audio Units page it does not show up now for some reason. How can I access it? Hal -- Harold Owen 1375 Olive Street #402, Eugene, OR 97401 mailto:hjo...@uoregon.edu Visit my web site at: http://uoregon.edu/~hjowen/ FAX: (509) 461-3608 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Comments on Modern Time Signatures for 1660 Piece
On 18 Jun 2010 at 13:07, John Howell wrote: At 10:29 PM -0400 6/17/10, David W. Fenton wrote: Yes, of course. I never had a proper course in graduate school on the notation of this period -- I've learned what I know only by doing it myself! That's the only way you CAN learn it, even if you took the Early Notation course! And when it comes to the late Medieval stuff I have to RE-learn it whenever I get involved in it again. When you say it you mean one of the many notational dialects, Mensural, Garlandian, Franconian, etc. When I got to the point that I could tell the difference by looking, and even see Garlandian notation copied by a Franconian (so that Franconian aspects got haphazardly placed in the basic Garlandian notation), I knew I'd absorbed it. But that was almost 20 years ago, and, heavens, I don't know if I could do it any longer. Although teaching it does help me keep it straight. The challenge is finding examples that are clear cut enough to make sense for beginners. The early medieval notation is frightfully difficult, since up to Franco, any particular symbol derives its rhythmic meaning from context, and that means it's ambiguous. It was left out of my grad school training because, I think, there was an assumption that the notation is just the same as modern notation, which is bollocks, of course! Throw that coloration (see the last page, for instance) at someone familiar only with a modern notation and see what they come up with! That does raise the question if you think that I've handled the coloration correctly. I would have liked to have used tuplets, but in this particular meter, I just think it would have confused things, so I wrote out the literal note values, instead. It seems perfectly clear to me. Without seeing what the original looks like it's hard to judge, but what you have certainly works musically even though it's a child's garden of hemiola! It's really quite nice rhythmically, though I'm sure some of the players' heads will explode trying to make it fit together. BTW, the only recording I've found is this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001KUCY62 It's pretty nice, actually, though I don't agree entirely with their interpretations of affect/tempo in all the sections. If anyone downloads the tracks (they are 99¢ each, so $5 for this piece), can you listen to it with the score to see if they are, indeed, interpreting the coloration the same as I've done (the last track, #11, Was schadet mir, is the one with all the follies at the end)? I have it really strongly in my ear from having worked on it, and what they do sounds to me like exactly what I've notated (though I can't really hear what they do with the inner parts in the penultimate measure that Howard questioned). I wonder about repeating the 3/2 time signature in the final bar, though, since that's part of the 9/2 pattern. And of course the longa is treated the same as a fermata--just an indication that th, th, th, that's all, folks! I wasn't sure how to handle that. In fact, in the original, it's actually a pair of longs, but I thought better of putting in two and tying them together -- they were so imprecise with this that I think slavish transription of exactly what they wrote implies a precision that isn't there. They obviously wanted a big long note at the end, one that is not part of the meter of the measure to which it is attached (or more strictly speaking, a massive lengthening of the final measure). I'm not sure my 1st/2nd ending is strictly Kosher, but I don't think it's confusing, either. To be really precise, the first ending would have to be a 9/2 measure, and the second ending a 6/2 measure followed by an 8/2 measure (two longs). Of course, I vaguely recall that the tail on the long changes the value or something? And this pair of longs has the tails between them: o o | | (that's the best I can do in ASCII!) ...and I now notice a fermata beneath the two flags. Oops, no, the double longs are only in the instruments. The organ and the voices have but a single long, so I think my solution is probably best, since I took the barring from the organ part. Was that REAL coloration, black notes replacing white notes? The traditional meaning is duple time, of course, so that certainly works, but in 1660? That IS unusual!!! A tuplet would work, but I think your solution is less confusing. It's definitely real coloration (see my reply to Howard Wiener), with a white semi-breve and two colored semi-breves in the time of a dotted breve. I've seen cadential coloration like this in Charpentier MSS, too, but I didn't understand it at the time and mistranscribed it. And, yes, it's pretty darned late! Here's the last two pages of the first viol part: http://dfenton.com/images/Capricornus-ColorationV1.png If you see anything there in regard to coloration that you think is wrong in my
Re: [Finale] OT: Comments on Modern Time Signatures for 1660 Piece
At 3:12 PM -0400 6/18/10, David W. Fenton wrote: The early medieval notation is frightfully difficult, since up to Franco, any particular symbol derives its rhythmic meaning from context, and that means it's ambiguous. Well, it's dead easy as long as they follow their own rules, but they have a nasty habit of breaking the mode near a cadence that then everything's up for grabs! They obviously wanted a big long note at the end, one that is not part of the meter of the measure to which it is attached (or more strictly speaking, a massive lengthening of the final measure). Yes, and that last bar seems to be a bit of overkill! I'm not sure my 1st/2nd ending is strictly Kosher, but I don't think it's confusing, either. To be really precise, the first ending would have to be a 9/2 measure, and the second ending a 6/2 measure followed by an 8/2 measure (two longs). I think it's Kosher because it makes both endings fit the same rhythm, which certainly works for me. Of course, I vaguely recall that the tail on the long changes the value or something? And this pair of longs has the tails between them: That's a lot earlier. Seeing the original makes it obvious that they are following a convention that stems on notes on the middle line go up, the opposite of the modern convention, but it's consistent. And applied more to ligatures in earlier times than individual notes. Stems on individual longs always went down, just as stems on minims always went up. Here's the last two pages of the first viol part: http://dfenton.com/images/Capricornus-ColorationV1.png If you see anything there in regard to coloration that you think is wrong in my interpretation, do let me know! OK, with that to look at, I do think I would interpret it differently, and actually more simply. I would probably keep the two minims as half notes (E5, A4), then treat the two black semibreves as actual imperfect semibreves worth 2 minims each (2 modern whole notes), and the first cadence note as a regular dotted semibreve (worth 3 minims). I didn't quite understand what you meant about the coloration changing the value of the notes BEFORE it, since that's something I've never come across. But this interpretation gives a very nice and very standard hemiola preceding the final cadence note, in a nice cross rhythm with each of the vocal parts, which are already in cross rhythms with each other. But that doesn't mean I'm right or you're wrong. It's just the first thing I would try, and the note values do work out even though they are not 4 notes of equal length. Interesting that in the absence of bar lines, the engraver (or more likely typesetter) used tied notes rather than dotted notes. It looks really weird in this repertoire! I'd love to give one of these a try, although it would have to be with violins rather than viols. I think I'll have the right people for it, but I never know until the semester starts. 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:john.how...@vt.edu) 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] upgrade? and question
Katherine Hoover wrote: Dear finalelist, I'm working on a fairly new mac with finale 2004. 1. Is it time to upgrade to 2011? 2. I have a score with 4 staves. Is it possible (for formatting) to move a single staff up or down within a single system ? 1. Only you can answer if it's time to move up to 2011. Some would say definitely, while others would say that if 2004 is doing all you need/want it to do, then you should stay where you are. 2. Optimize the score (in page layout tool) but don't have it remove any staves (unless you want to have some removed). Once you've had the score optimized, when you use the Staff Tool you'll notice two handles on each staff where there used to be only one. Grab the lower one and that will move only that staff in that system. If you grab the upper handle you move that staff in all the systems throughout the score. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Comments on Modern Time Signatures for 1660 Piece
On 18 Jun 2010 at 15:56, John Howell wrote: At 3:12 PM -0400 6/18/10, David W. Fenton wrote: The early medieval notation is frightfully difficult, since up to Franco, any particular symbol derives its rhythmic meaning from context, and that means it's ambiguous. Well, it's dead easy as long as they follow their own rules, but they have a nasty habit of breaking the mode near a cadence that then everything's up for grabs! But it's not that easy in the early mensural notation and the Garlandian. I think it's interesting that the fluidity of cadential rhythm persisted all the way into the Baroque. There's lots of interesting stuff going on cadentially in the Parisian Organum repertory, for instance (not so much rhythmically, but in terms of melodic formulae), and this seems to be one aspect of musical style (i.e., rhythmic/metrical marking of cadences) that persists for a very long period. They obviously wanted a big long note at the end, one that is not part of the meter of the measure to which it is attached (or more strictly speaking, a massive lengthening of the final measure). Yes, and that last bar seems to be a bit of overkill! In the original, or in my edition? I thought about leaving it out entirely and doing the job with a fermata, but don't think that has the same effect. I'm not sure my 1st/2nd ending is strictly Kosher, but I don't think it's confusing, either. To be really precise, the first ending would have to be a 9/2 measure, and the second ending a 6/2 measure followed by an 8/2 measure (two longs). I think it's Kosher because it makes both endings fit the same rhythm, which certainly works for me. It seems the simplest solution to me. Of course, I vaguely recall that the tail on the long changes the value or something? And this pair of longs has the tails between them: That's a lot earlier. Hence, my question, since that's the notational period I have solid training in. Seeing the original makes it obvious that they are following a convention that stems on notes on the middle line go up, the opposite of the modern convention, but it's consistent. And applied more to ligatures in earlier times than individual notes. Stems on individual longs always went down, just as stems on minims always went up. I noticed that it's pretty consistent in this edition. Here's the last two pages of the first viol part: http://dfenton.com/images/Capricornus-ColorationV1.png If you see anything there in regard to coloration that you think is wrong in my interpretation, do let me know! OK, with that to look at, I do think I would interpret it differently, and actually more simply. I would probably keep the two minims as half notes (E5, A4), then treat the two black semibreves as actual imperfect semibreves worth 2 minims each (2 modern whole notes), and the first cadence note as a regular dotted semibreve (worth 3 minims). That makes much more sense and doesn't require the old-fashioned alteration of the length of the semi-breve that comes before the coloration. And now that I listen to the recording again, it seems clear they did it that way. I just overcomplicated things by thinking like a Medievalist. I didn't quite understand what you meant about the coloration changing the value of the notes BEFORE it, since that's something I've never come across. But this interpretation gives a very nice and very standard hemiola preceding the final cadence note, in a nice cross rhythm with each of the vocal parts, which are already in cross rhythms with each other. It's a much simpler interpretation, and I've changed my score to use this one (which is undoubtedly correct). It does raise one notational question for me, and that's how wide the coloration brackets should be? Should they be as long as the entire note value, or just as wide as the notes they apply to (as I've actually done it)? This interpretation does require one oddity, and that's in m. 145 in Bass I, where in the part for that measure is a half rest, a dotted minim, a colored semi-breve, a dotted minim and a semi-minim. If the colored semi-breve is interpreted as a whole note, it means there's an extra semi-minim (in modern terms, there's only room for a dotted half (as in the score), instead of a whole). The fascinating thing is that the copy I'm working from (I don't know its exact pedigree -- I assume it's from a microfilm -- someone else took care of finding the original source!) has been used in the past by somebody who has marked it with strokes to delineate the semi- breves: http://dfenton.com/images/Capricornus-ColorationV4.png Now, I can confirm that the semi-breves are correctly counted, but I don't know how to interpret that except as I've done it in the score. Any suggestions? But that doesn't mean I'm right or you're wrong. It's just the first thing I would try, and the note values do work out even though they are not
[Finale] Message bar in 2011
Obviously I upgraded to 2011. Only finished one smaller project so far and have not run into disasters yet. However I am annoyed by a minor detail. As I remember it, previous versions allowed some sort of preference setting, so the Message Bar never showed. Now it pops up every time I open a document and I have to remove it via the View menu. Any more permanent ways to make it disappear. Klaus ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Call for scores for chamber orchestra
Hello Listers, The UK magazine Classical Music has an article in its most recent issue entitled Contemporary Conundrums, wondering why so few contemporary composers write for the sort of orchestra that's needed for e.g. symphonies by C. P. E. Bach, Haydn or Schubert. It makes the point that many new works don't make it past their first performance because the extra instruments needed, in particular large percussion sections, make them too expensive to put on. The article is part of a section in this issue of the magazine looking at various aspects of amateur music-making in the UK. http://www.rhinegold.co.uk/magazines/classical_music/ The reason I'm mentioning this is that at the end of the article there's a call for scores from a London orchestra: The Orchestra of St. Paul's, resident at the Actors' Church in Covent Garden, is inviting composers to submit works of six to nine minutes' duration, scored specifically for two oboes, one bassoon, two horns, and strings (3.2.2.2.1). There is no age limit. The judging panel will include the composer David Matthews and OSP's musical director Ben Palmer [writer of the article]. The winning piece will be performed at St. Paul's in June 2011. The deadline for submissions is Friday 14 January 2011. For further details visit www.orchestraofstpauls.co.uk I've also sent this to Orchestralist. Patsy -- Patsy Moore AGSM ARCM pa...@mooremusic.org.uk Conductor, arranger etc. Da Capo (Do All Come And Play Orchestra) www.mooremusic.org.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Call for scores for chamber orchestra
Note that there is a £500 prize for this competition, but also a £25 entry fee. Presumably they're hoping to get 20+ entries. Matthew On 19/06/10 8:08 AM, Patsy Moore wrote: Hello Listers, The UK magazine Classical Music has an article in its most recent issue entitled Contemporary Conundrums, wondering why so few contemporary composers write for the sort of orchestra that's needed for e.g. symphonies by C. P. E. Bach, Haydn or Schubert. It makes the point that many new works don't make it past their first performance because the extra instruments needed, in particular large percussion sections, make them too expensive to put on. The article is part of a section in this issue of the magazine looking at various aspects of amateur music-making in the UK. http://www.rhinegold.co.uk/magazines/classical_music/ The reason I'm mentioning this is that at the end of the article there's a call for scores from a London orchestra: The Orchestra of St. Paul's, resident at the Actors' Church in Covent Garden, is inviting composers to submit works of six to nine minutes' duration, scored specifically for two oboes, one bassoon, two horns, and strings (3.2.2.2.1). There is no age limit. The judging panel will include the composer David Matthews and OSP's musical director Ben Palmer [writer of the article]. The winning piece will be performed at St. Paul's in June 2011. The deadline for submissions is Friday 14 January 2011. For further details visit www.orchestraofstpauls.co.uk I've also sent this to Orchestralist. Patsy ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Call for scores for chamber orchestra
Yeah, kinda like a lottery! Christopher On Sat Jun 19, at SaturdayJun 19 12:28 AM, Matthew Hindson (gmail) wrote: Note that there is a £500 prize for this competition, but also a £25 entry fee. Presumably they're hoping to get 20+ entries. Matthew ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
