On Jun 24, 2017, at 10:00 AM, finale-requ...@shsu.edu wrote:
> Send Finale mailing list submissions to
> finale@shsu.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
My guess would be that the first note in the RH is supposed to precede the
first note in the LH, with the last note in the RH being played at the very
end, totaling 8 separate notes. I think it's just notated a bit sloppily.
Doug
> On Jun 23, 2017, at 8:06 PM, Blake Richardson wrote:
>
> I ca
I see all 32nd notes, although it wouldn’t make any difference whether the last
one is 16th or 32nd since they are all supposed to be held!
I think he wrote 8 by mistake. It sohould be a 7. Or maybe he wrote 8 in a
hurry as a reminder of 8ve higher and later indicated th 8ve on the left.
On J
the last note is a 32nd as well, also in the upper voice -- i see 2
tiny extensions, the lower one is barely there, but there nonetheless.
i agree with david, just a hastily notated tuplet (there would be no
need to indicate 8 for 8-let, since they are 32nds...). and def
think the 1st notes i
Yes, that looks like it to me. Notice the first six notes are 32nds, while the
last note is a 16th, so it does add up. The first note is a different note in
the right hand, while the last note is just a unison. You caught the tiny,
faded treble clef in the left hand, right?
Christopher
> On J
On 6/23/2017 11:06 PM, Blake Richardson wrote:
> I can't figure out what's going on with this piano line from John Williams'
> score to DRACULA.
>
> It looks like it's supposed to be some sort of octuplet, but there's only six
> notes on the bottom and the top notes look like they're played in u
I can't figure out what's going on with this piano line from John Williams'
score to DRACULA.
It looks like it's supposed to be some sort of octuplet, but there's only six
notes on the bottom and the top notes look like they're played in unison with
the first and last notes on the bottom.
Anyo
Sorry for misleading you Christopher, I indeed meant ’Speedy Entry Tool’.
And yes, the issue was related to the Voicing you mentioned: one part, out of
six, had a rule set for all notes to appear in Layer 1 only; after deselecting
the ’Specify Voicing’ button all notes appeared in the part as wel
I suppose I’m the one not understanding now. You can’t enter notes with the
Measure Tool. Do you mean Speedy or Simple?
A “voicing” is Finale’s word for when you have for example two notes on a
single flute staff in the score, but have set up “rules” in the Manage
Part>Part Definition dialogue
Sorry, I wrote the last message in a rush. I wanted to point out that, in
addition to the fact I don’t see any notation in layers different from layer 1,
in parts except for the score, I now noticed that the staff tool is not
functioning when I try to insert notes from within a part: when I sele
I don’t fully get what you mean by “ specified a “voicing” “. I just see that
the staff tool is not functioning when I try to insert notes from within a
part: when I select it an click a measure, instead of the usual expected
behaviour, the measure gets selected like when clicking from within t
Is it possible that you have specified a “voicing” for the linked part, so only
one layer is used?
Christopher
> On Thu Nov 26, at ThursdayNov 26 3:50 AM, Giovanni Andreani
> wrote:
>
> I’m working on a document where notation is mainly written in layer 1 but I
> seldom use layer 4 for spec
I’m working on a document where notation is mainly written in layer 1 but I
seldom use layer 4 for special purposes. All looks perfect in the score but in
the part where layer 4 was applied no notation is visible. I have no
staff-styles applied and can’t just guess why this is.
Any hint? Thank
Please forgive the cross-posting:
MuseScore (the free notation program)
http://musescore.org/
Version 2 has been released in a "final release candidate" with the
actual version 2 coming on March 24th. The only difference according to
the web-site is that the actual version 2 coming on March 24
On 12/19/2012 12:47 PM, William Sinclair wrote:
> Hmm - I seem to have started a "row."
>
> Well, I wanted to keep the same tempo per quarter note,
> normally 4/4 measures,
> but this particular phrase had an extra two beats in it.
> I thought it would be easier to make a measure 6 beats, instead o
Hi William,
This is what I suspected, and is exactly the kind of situation where using 6/4
as a duple meter (instead of 3/2) makes perfect sense.
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org
On Dec 19, 2012, at 12:47 PM, William Sinclair wrote:
> Hmm - I seem to have started a
Hmm - I seem to have started a "row."
Well, I wanted to keep the same tempo per quarter note,
normally 4/4 measures,
but this particular phrase had an extra two beats in it.
I thought it would be easier to make a measure 6 beats, instead of
splitting it up into a 4/4 and a 2/4 measure.
In other w
At 08:19 -0500 12/18/12, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>I actually answered the question in my first response.
so did raymond himself shortly after you
;-)
>On Dec 18, 2012, at 3:26 AM, Raymond Horton wrote:
>> OK, I'm not sure I have read every message, but I believe we have followed
> > the usu
I actually answered the question in my first response.
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org
On Dec 18, 2012, at 3:26 AM, Raymond Horton wrote:
> OK, I'm not sure I have read every message, but I believe we have followed
> the usual pattern for this list:
>
> Q: "How do I
OK, I'm not sure I have read every message, but I believe we have followed
the usual pattern for this list:
Q: "How do I do ___?"
A1: "Why would you want to do ___? You should do ___!"
A2: "No, I think he should do ___!"
etc., never answering the question asked.
In FinWin2011 and several version
always here to help
>Thank you for your input.
>It clarifies a lot!
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Thank you for your input.
It clarifies a lot!
Cortez
On 18.12.2012, at 01:29, SN jef chippewa wrote:
>
>> I understand your point. So I wonder, why use a time-signature at
>> all if it does not have any meaning!
>
> there was a meaning if you wanted to see it. why bother to make a
> rep
>I understand your point. So I wonder, why use a time-signature at
>all if it does not have any meaning!
there was a meaning if you wanted to see it. why bother to make a
reponse at all if it does not have any meaning!
___
Finale mailing list
Finale
Thank you and good night (00:32 my time!)
Greetings,
Cortez
On 18.12.2012, at 00:25, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> Because you need some way to organize the music into units. Music without
> time signatures, or with extremely long measures (like, say, 11/2) is
> extraordinarily difficult to read
Because you need some way to organize the music into units. Music without time
signatures, or with extremely long measures (like, say, 11/2) is
extraordinarily difficult to read. So you pick the time signature that
organizes and communicates the music in the most legible way for the greatest
nu
I understand your point. So I wonder, why use a time-signature at all if it
does not have any meaning!
Cortez
On 17.12.2012, at 23:59, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> Hi Cortez,
>
> My reasons are perfectly logical, as I explained, and are the best solution
> for the musicians I work with.
>
>
In Finale 2011, when I enter 6/4 as 6 quarter notes and change to slash
notation, I get six slashes.
Raymond Horton
Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra
Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) UMC
Composer, Arranger
VISIT US AT rayhortonmusic.com
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Jón Kristinn Cor
Hi Cortez,
My reasons are perfectly logical, as I explained, and are the best solution for
the musicians I work with.
In a contemporary context, people employ odd subdivisions of meters *all the
time* without changing time signatures.
4/4 is very often subdivided 3+3+2.
3/4 is very often sub
There is no logical reason to have 6/4 doing double duty; being both a duple
and triple meter is confusing. In the example you state I would have written 4
bars 4/4 and one 2/4. By your way I would always have to check where the beat
is in 6/4. What about 3/4 and 6/8?
Cortez
On 17.12.2012, a
That is the traditional view. My own view is that 6/4 with the half note
getting the beat is perfectly acceptable and logical in a modern context,
especially if you're dealing with a mix of, e.g., 4/4 and 6/4.
I have a piece where the time signature pattern is always 3 bars of 4/4
followed by
Three beats with a half note for the beat is 3/2, can never be 6/4
Cortez
On 17.12.2012, at 22:39, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> It's not a bug. Traditionally, 6/4 is a compound meter -- two beats per
> measure, dotted half note has the beat. That's why Finale shows only two
I would add that a better choice for a time signature in this case might be
3/2, rather than 6/4.
Perhaps William wants six slashes in 6/4? That can also be taken care of in
the Time Signature dialogue box.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> It's not a bug
William,
Your 6/4 must be defined as 2 dotted halfs. Change it with Time Sig tool
to 6 quarters.
Raymond Horton
Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra
Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) UMC
Composer, Arranger
VISIT US AT rayhortonmusic.com
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:30 PM, William Sinclair
Hi William,
It's not a bug. Traditionally, 6/4 is a compound meter -- two beats per
measure, dotted half note has the beat. That's why Finale shows only two
slashes (and will add dots if you have "add dots to slashes in compound meter
checked).
If you want your 6/4 to be three beats per measur
I have not seen this before. Have any of you?
When I have a measure of 6/4, and I use SLASH notation,
it puts only 2 slashes for a 6/4 measure.
Is there a way around this problem? I want to avoid a HAND edit.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
htt
Darcy:
But there is a reason Steve Reich gave up writing for orchestra, and it's not
like his music is overtly virtuosic or anything.
Me:
I'm sure the less-than-ideal attitude that some orchestras display towards his
music is part of it, but I asked him once (in a "c'mon, Steve, please please
p
I also like 9.5"x12.5" for parts. I got a batch of 12.5"x19" from Vallé Music
here in L.A. a few years ago - don't remember the price, but they had it in
stock - not a custom cutting job. It works great with my printer, which prints
up to 13"x19" page sizes.
I recently did a copy job for Tori
At 8:43 AM -0400 11/1/12, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>I have to step in here. Maybe standards are
>different in the States, but around here ALL the
>string players HAVE to check out the parts
>beforehand, and if the woodwind players don't
>they take their lives in their hands. This
>applies no
>9.5"x12.5" is also quite common in NYC circles
>-- it's probably more widely used than either
>9"x12" or 10"x13".
ah, interesting, anyone know where this format
came from? the canadian music centre uses this
format for its parts. as i understood they went
that way in part because of the O
Hi Chris,
I'm speaking primarily of freelance orchestras, which are the groups by which a
non-famous composer might realistically have their work performed in the US.
But even in the full-time orchestras, standards of personal preparation for new
works are often extremely low. This is true even
To add to what Robert said, 9.5"x12.5" is also quite common in NYC circles --
it's probably more widely used than either 9"x12" or 10"x13".
I like 11"x14" as a *score* size, but it's bad for parts.
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org
On Nov 1, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Robert
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:54 AM, John Howell wrote:
> Both Beethoven and Schumann did pretty well
> fighting "the tyrany of the barline" using
> completely conventional notation for their time,
> and what they wanted is pretty darned clear.
>
Actually, Beethoven used cross-bar beaming to show syn
At 10:41 PM -0400 10/31/12, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>Hi Dennis,
>
>Do the musicians in your circles genuinely feel
>that "Phrase-beaming is more legible than a
>clutter of accents"? Because I've honestly never
>met a single musician who believes this. Every
>instrumentalist I've ever talked to
If the students get the stuff in the guide, that seems to me not a bad basis
for a lifelong discovery of the best way to notate.
Plenty to argue with but some of that is due to it being instructions for a
specific situation rather than a general style manual.
If every new composition followed t
> Maybe standards are different in the States, but around here ALL the string
> players HAVE to check out the parts beforehand
...
Just to be obnoxious
I've seen orchestras and choirs in Britain sight-read crazy complex spectral
music at composer play-throughs with pages and pages of wri
On Wed Oct 31, at WednesdayOct 31 10:53 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> Any composer working in the United States writing for orchestra needs to be
> absolutely, acutely aware of what types of notation are most easily read at
> sight, because you're never going to get everyone to check out the p
>Fair enough! But the guidelines given were
>guidelines for students. In my experience, it's
>often good for students to give them certain
>prescriptive rules the bright ones can rail
>against or find ways to subvert.
i don't think notation should be about
subversion, except in projects that
Also, the example at the website we are responding to included both accents
*and* phrase beaming...
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org
On Nov 1, 2012, at 12:06 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2012, at 11:10 PM, SN jef chippewa
> wrote:
>
>> an accented n
On Oct 31, 2012, at 11:10 PM, SN jef chippewa
wrote:
> an accented note is not the same at all as a note starting a phrase,
> except when played by the most vulgar of musicians.
Of course we both know context is everything. When a (non-vulgar) musician is
operating in a context where some kin
Hi Dennis,
It's funny -- none of the players in my circles would bat an eye at being asked
to "sing and whistle and make various mouth sounds while playing." In fact most
of them welcome this stuff! It's all in a days' work.
But they all, uniformly, cross out phrase beaming when given it and p
On Oct 31, 2012, at 11:10 PM, SN jef chippewa
wrote:
> i don't think there is a set of hard rules that can lay this out in
> clear terms and be relevant. it could be useful to state the kinds
> of things you mention as the guidelines: think about this and that
> and these issues and weigh th
>Guess I'm too old to worry who gets their knickers in a twist
>because it doesn't look like what's in their dog-eared exercise
>books.
there are also a lot of changes in the level of performers coming out
of the unis in recent years (what happens to them after 27yrs in the
orchestra is anoth
>Any composer working in the United States writing for orchestra
>needs to be absolutely, acutely aware of what types of notation are
>most easily read at sight, because you're never going to get
>everyone to check out the parts in advance.
this is of course a much larger problem: are you (the
On Wed, October 31, 2012 10:41 pm, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> Do the musicians in your circles genuinely feel that "Phrase-beaming is more
> legible than a clutter of accents"? Because I've honestly never met a single
> musician who believes this. Every instrumentalist I've ever talked to about
> t
jef: don't dis Broadway players. They are some of the best players on the
planet, and not all their gigs are on Broadway. They fill the ranks of NY's
most adventuresome new music ensembles, too.
In traditional music, as a performer, I find cross-bar beaming to be quite
clear when used sparingly. F
On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:24 PM, SN jef chippewa
wrote:
>> Cross-bar beaming is not uncommon in solo music,
>> but adds unnecessary difficulties to large
>> ensemble writing.
>
> author never heard of bartók i guess...
Bartók also died in 1945 and his method of indicating phrasing via beaming is
On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:38 PM, SN jef chippewa
wrote:
> i'm not concerned so much with sight-reading.
> i'm concerned with the music being clearly shown
> to the musician.
Any composer working in the United States writing for orchestra needs to be
absolutely, acutely aware of what types of n
>But having spent entirely too much time trying to figure out what
>some orchestrator for a Broadway show actually wanted to hear, when
>some weird indication for playing a harmonic just doesn't make any
>sense, I'm quite happy to see what they've provided, and I suspect
>that others who are n
Hi Dennis,
Do the musicians in your circles genuinely feel that "Phrase-beaming is more
legible than a clutter of accents"? Because I've honestly never met a single
musician who believes this. Every instrumentalist I've ever talked to about
this issue absolutely *hates* phrase-beaming (and this
just because bartók died in 1945 doesn't make the practice obsolete.
>You'll disagree, of course, but I'd expect that
>no one is ever sight-reading the types of music
>you normally engrave!
i'm not concerned so much with sight-reading.
i'm concerned with the music being clearly shown
to the
>And if you aren't familiar with academic BS, you might not be aware
>that there are ALWAYS hard and fast and often arbitrary and
>ridiculous "rules" for the submission of dissertations which will
>get them rejected if the rules are not followed, and that ALWAYS
>includes specifying margins, i
On Wed, October 31, 2012 10:03 pm, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> Beaming reinforces meter. Beaming should not be used to indicate phrasing.
> There are plenty of other ways of doing that besides employing non-metrical
> and/or over-the-barline beaming.
And none of it creating the same musical express
On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:24 PM, SN jef chippewa
wrote:
>> Cross-bar beaming is not uncommon in solo music,
>> but adds unnecessary difficulties to large
>> ensemble writing.
>
> author never heard of bartók i guess...
Bartók also died in 1945. His method of indicating phrasing via beaming is
w
At 2:24 AM +0100 11/1/12, SN jef chippewa wrote:
>i would not consider this "resource" to be
>complete in any manner. and i would be ashamed
>to work in a place teaching composition where
>this is considered to be a useful resource... "to
>standardize [the] composition department
>preferences for
i would not consider this "resource" to be
complete in any manner. and i would be ashamed
to work in a place teaching composition where
this is considered to be a useful resource... "to
standardize [the] composition department
preferences for notation."
>http://www.music.indiana.edu/departm
A question about notation for harmonics came up
last week on the viola list, and I'd like to
share a resource that I was directed to:
http://www.music.indiana.edu/departments/academic/composition/style-guide/index.shtml
This is a style guide posted on line by the
Composition Department of the
On Sep 6, 2011, at 2:30 PM, jhowell wrote:
>
> On Sep 4, 2011, at 4:23 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
>> On 4 Sep 2011 at 15:41, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>>
>>> As for whether the Leslie speaker is a "defining part of the Hammond
>>> sound," the only possible answer is "of course." As Steve poin
As far as I know all Hammond players use Leslie (lately DeFrancesco is
endorsing KeyB and Numa Hammond clones that have a nice digital leslie
emulation).
I read that Brian Auger does not use it, preferring guitar and bass amps
or active speakers
to get a fatter sound.
Il 04/09/2011 20.11, Chuck
On 4 Sep 2011 at 15:41, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> As for whether the Leslie speaker is a "defining part of the Hammond
> sound," the only possible answer is "of course." As Steve pointed out,
> every single Hammond-playing artist of any note employed the Leslie
> speaker.
Within a certain musica
Hi Chuck,
Yes. It's worth taking a close look at the Leslie in person next time you see a
Hammond player using one -- watching the rotating speaker go round and round is
hypnotic and fascinating.
As for whether the Leslie speaker is a "defining part of the Hammond sound,"
the only possible ans
Jimmy Smith, Joey DiFrancesco et al - do (did) they use the Leslie? Heard them
and others for years (often playing joyous music) but never took notice of what
they used to produce their sound.
Chuck
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 4, 2011, at 1:08 AM, Steve Parker wrote:
> I would say that the
On 4 Sep 2011, at 00:37, David W. Fenton wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2011 at 0:08, Steve Parker wrote:
>
>> I would say that the Leslie is still a defining aspect of the classic
>> Hammond sound. Apart from a period when Jon Lord stopped using a
>> leslie, I can't think of any major Hammond artist for who
On 9/3/2011 7:37 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2011 at 0:08, Steve Parker wrote:
>
>> I would say that the Leslie is still a defining aspect of the classic
>> Hammond sound. Apart from a period when Jon Lord stopped using a
>> leslie, I can't think of any major Hammond artist for whom it wa
On 2011/09/03(土), at 後4:59, David W. Fenton wrote:
> On 3 Sep 2011 at 14:14, John Howell wrote:
>
>> Just as the rotating Leslie
>> speakers and their vibrato are a defining aspect
>> of the classic Hammond Organ sound.
>
> Actually, that's not true. The classic Hammond organ sound predates
On 4 Sep 2011 at 0:08, Steve Parker wrote:
> I would say that the Leslie is still a defining aspect of the classic
> Hammond sound. Apart from a period when Jon Lord stopped using a
> leslie, I can't think of any major Hammond artist for whom it wasn't a
> defining part of their sound.
Have you e
I would say that the Leslie is still a defining aspect of the classic Hammond
sound.
Apart from a period when Jon Lord stopped using a leslie, I can't think of any
major Hammond artist for whom it wasn't a defining part of their sound.
Steve P.
On 3 Sep 2011, at 21:59, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
On 3 Sep 2011 at 14:14, John Howell wrote:
> Just as the rotating Leslie
> speakers and their vibrato are a defining aspect
> of the classic Hammond Organ sound.
Actually, that's not true. The classic Hammond organ sound predates
the invention of the Leslie speader, and Leslie speakers are use
Vibes and motor, all true, but in serious music vibes are assumed to have
the motor off unless specified on.
Raymond Horton
On 3 Sep 2011, at 19:14, John Howell wrote:
>
> > At 10:43 AM -0700 9/3/11, Blake Richardson wrote:
> >>
> >> I didn't even know the instrument had a motor.
> >> All I know
Did you know that Laurens Hammond didn't approve of the Leslie and did not
permit official Hammond dealers to stock them!
He felt it was a more serious instrument..
Steve P.
On 3 Sep 2011, at 19:14, John Howell wrote:
> At 10:43 AM -0700 9/3/11, Blake Richardson wrote:
>>
>> I didn't even know
At 10:43 AM -0700 9/3/11, Blake Richardson wrote:
>
>I didn't even know the instrument had a motor.
>All I know about vibraphones is that they're
>analogous to xylophones/marimbas with a
>different sound/timbre.
Well, it's a metallophone--metal bars instead of
wood or plastic--so that explains
i accessed it with no account, quite often moving up a level in a
wrongly indicated or unavailable address gets you to a page where the
file or link is listed, that is how i found it (removed "10039" from
the original link to access the account of btr1701 [blake t.
richardson])
http://gallery
Some have signed up with the same supplier of server space, some have not.
I was told I needed a paid subscription to see your file.
Klaus
>
>From: Blake Richardson
>
>
>
>As for the link not working, it's weird that some people could see it and
>others coul
On Sep 3, 2011, at 10:00 AM,
wrote:
> From: SN jef chippewa
> Date: September 3, 2011 5:29:01 AM PDT
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Finale] Notation Question
> Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu
>
>
>> The link don't work for me either
>
> http://gallery.me.com/
At 3:56 AM -0700 9/3/11, Blake Richardson wrote:
>A question for those familiar with vibraphones.
>There's handwritten direction in the following
>score excerpt that I can't quite make out. It
>says, "___ on, pedal down, soft sticks", but I
>can't tell what the first word is. It's probably
>so
"motor"?
Blake Richardson wrote:
> A question for those familiar with vibraphones. There's handwritten direction
> in the following score excerpt that I can't quite make out. It says, "___ on,
> pedal down, soft sticks", but I can't tell what the first word is. It's
> probably something
>The link don't work for me either
http://gallery.me.com/btr1701#100039/Jaws.Vibe&bgcolor=black
definitely "motor"... actually that particular word for me is the
clearest thing in the image 8-)
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu
The link don't work for me either
Giovanni Andreani
On 3 Sep 2011, at 13:25, "David H. Bailey"
wrote:
> On 9/3/2011 6:56 AM, Blake Richardson wrote:
>> A question for those familiar with vibraphones. There's handwritten
>> direction in the following score excerpt that I can't quite make out.
>
motor on.
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 3, 2011, at 6:56 AM, Blake Richardson wrote:
> A question for those familiar with vibraphones. There's handwritten direction
> in the following score excerpt that I can't quite make out. It says, "___ on,
> pedal down, soft sticks", but I can't tell what the
On 9/3/2011 6:56 AM, Blake Richardson wrote:
> A question for those familiar with vibraphones. There's handwritten
> direction in the following score excerpt that I can't quite make out.
> It says, "___ on, pedal down, soft sticks", but I can't tell what the
> first word is. It's probably something
A question for those familiar with vibraphones. There's handwritten direction
in the following score excerpt that I can't quite make out. It says, "___ on,
pedal down, soft sticks", but I can't tell what the first word is. It's
probably something obvious that I'm just not seeing, but any help wo
Hi Steve,
Yeah, there is basically no good reason not to remove empty staves on piano
parts, other than mindless fidelity to tradition. And believe me, I understand
that in certain contexts, mindless fidelity to tradition is exactly what's
required! (As I said in my previous email, I would alwa
I don't think it's at all unacceptable.
I've played classical repertoire employing this.
Steve P.
On 4 Apr 2011, at 23:35, SN jef chippewa wrote:
certainly unacceptable in classical music
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.ed
goddamn radikals...
In NYC new music circles it *is* in fact widespread practice, and I
have in fact been chastised by ensembles for NOT removing unused
piano staves.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fi
On 4 Apr 2011, at 21:11, Darcy James Argue wrote:
It's of course fine to use a singe staff for piano parts as well
Of course... but it is surprising how many piano (and synth) parts I
play that have pages and pages with one stave of two empty!
Steve P.
Hi Jef,
In NYC new music circles it *is* in fact widespread practice, and I have in
fact been chastised by ensembles for NOT removing unused piano staves.
I wouldn't do it for orchestral piano parts, but in chamber music situations
it's the new norm.
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secret
in jazz maybe...
not a widespread practice in new music (but it is encountered from
time to time, is generally frowned upon by pianists) and certainly
unacceptable in classical music
It's of course fine to use a singe staff for piano parts as well, or
to switch between single staff and gran
It's of course fine to use a singe staff for piano parts as well, or to switch
between single staff and grand staff on a system-by-system basis as needed.
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org
On 4 Apr 2011, at 3:27 PM, Steve Parker wrote:
>
> On 4 Apr 2011, at 18:04, C
Where the synth is not used extensively, I have placed it near the percussion
staves, (similar to
the piano part) but expecting a percussionist would be able to play the part.
The score indicates
the patch number, the note and duration, an indication of what the patch
represent, and the volu
On 4 Apr 2011, at 18:04, Christopher Smith wrote:
here is some discussion as to whether you should notate octave-
transposing sounds in the played octave or the sounding octave, but
as long as you are clear as to which is needed and stay consistent,
it should work out either way.
Just a s
In my view, a part is a part. What does it matter that it's a synth part. I'd
give it a stave and go, The other musicians join in from their scores and off
you go. Is there a more specific concern you had in mind?
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Eric Dentremont wrote:
>
>
1 - 100 of 379 matches
Mail list logo
