Finale SmartMusic
  Home | Log In | Register | Search | Help
   
MakeMusic Forum > Public Forums > Finale - Macintosh - FORUM HAS MOVED! > Seeking comments on format of concerto  Forum Quick Jump
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum. You cannot reply to topics in this forum. Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

rumsong
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to rumsongAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 126
  		   Posted 2/4/2014 8:15 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Greetings,

I'm still working away at this beast and would appreciate any comments on the general look of the score now.

One thing is that the instrumental parts seem too small -- and the piano part is 125%. I also wonder if the performance directions are too small.

I've decided to keep the 11x17 size because there are pages where all are playing and it would have to be VERY small to all fit the music.

I've also just looked over an old 19th century score and it seems that the engraver DID make a few pages with smaller score size to fit everything it. In that score the performance directions are also very large.

And yes, there are a few typos and corrections that still need to be made...forgive me.

Many thanks in advance,

gordon

File Attachment :
Concerto III Quarantine.pdf   252KB (application/pdf)
This file has been downloaded 333 time(s).
Back to Top

Michel R. E.
Registered Member



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to Michel R. E.AIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 7430
  		   Posted 2/4/2014 8:20 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Why is the piano part larger than the other staves? This is the full score, there's no reason for it.

You should consolidate the staves for same instruments: 2 flutes together, 2 oboes together, etc... wherever possible.

And this would avoid errors like you have on page 4, measure 50, clarinet II. There's no reason to write "II" for the 2nd clarinet, if it's already alone on its own staff.

Your staves wouldn't have to be so small if instruments shared staves wherever possible. Looking just through the first 10 pages or so, I see no reason to have flutes, oboes, clarinets and bassoons each on its individual staff. you could easily make that 2 flutes sharing one staff, 2 oboes on one, etc...

Finale (started with ver. 3.0) 2010, 2011, 2012b installed
Win XP
basically ALL Garritan sounds, plus XSample Chamber Ensemble.

"Art critics suffer from Pigeon Syndrome. Pigeons like to leave their mark on monuments. But at the end of the day, the pigeon remains a pigeon, and the monument remains a monument."

Post Edited (Michel R. E.) : 2/4/2014 7:24:09 PM (GMT-6)

Back to Top

Ronwass
bassist/composer/arranger/conductor/bandleader



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to RonwassAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1492
  		   Posted 2/4/2014 11:48 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Looks to me like part of the Double Bass line would be too high if played an octave higher. Especially, the upper divisi when it goes up to A above the third ledger line over the bass clef.

Ron Wasserman
F2012, user since F2000
Desktop: 2012 i5 Macmini 4g ram OS X 10.9
Laptop: Intel Dual Core, 2g ram, Windows 7
Casio Keyboard midi out to edirol to usb
TG Tools full version

". . . I love music, and anything that interrupts music, I hate."
Astor Piazzolla, Central Park Concert

Back to Top

Michel R. E.
Registered Member



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to Michel R. E.AIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 7430
  		   Posted 2/5/2014 1:39 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Ronwass said...
Looks to me like part of the Double Bass line would be too high if played an octave higher. Especially, the upper divisi when it goes up to A above the third ledger line over the bass clef.


that would be 2 octaves and a 2nd higher than the open string.
high, but definitely not unplayable.

it's really the least of the problems with the score.

Finale (started with ver. 3.0) 2010, 2011, 2012b installed
Win XP
basically ALL Garritan sounds, plus XSample Chamber Ensemble.

"Art critics suffer from Pigeon Syndrome. Pigeons like to leave their mark on monuments. But at the end of the day, the pigeon remains a pigeon, and the monument remains a monument."

Back to Top

kvehmane
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to kvehmaneAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 117
  		   Posted 2/5/2014 5:47 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I like the solo part in larger print than the others, even in full score. I have made scores for several concertos by Kalevi Aho, with those larger solo staffs and the conductors have liked the result - it helps them to follow the solo part better especially in pieces with larger orchestra. I think I got the idea for larger solo staff from the engraved Sibelius violin concerto. The staff needs not to be too large, however; even 10-15% will do nicely. I would too consolidate some staffs (woodwinds mostly) to make the overall staff size slightly larger/less crowded.
Back to Top

Michael Cook
Registered Member



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to Michael CookAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Dec 1998
Total Posts : 2526
  		   Posted 2/5/2014 7:36 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
As a conductor I don't see any advantage in making the solo part larger than the rest. It's certainly not standard practice.

I'd follow all of Michel's advice. To that I'd add:

- 11 by 17 inches is near A3 size. A score that big flops over most music stands and is a bore to carry around. If a score is well laid-out it should be possible to make it readable on something like B4, which is about 14 by 10 inches.

- You noticed that the old engraved score had pages where the staves were smaller than in the rest of the score. This technique is sadly not often used in computer-engraved scores. It certainly means more work and should be done when all other editing is finished, but it can be worth the effort if your score has a few passages with a large number of staves (a tutti passage with divisi strings, for instance).

Michael Cook
Finale 3.0 - 2014
Mac OS 10.9

Back to Top

David Ward
Registered Member



Email Address Not AvailableClick to visit David Ward's website.Send a Private Message to David WardAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Aug 2009
Total Posts : 2834
  		   Posted 2/5/2014 8:07 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
kvehmane said...
I think I got the idea for larger solo staff from the engraved Sibelius violin concerto. The staff needs not to be too large, however; even 10-15% will do nicely.
I'd never noticed, but, yes, the solo fiddle stave is larger than the others in my score of the Sibelius concerto. There're an awful lot of notes in the solo part, so in theory, this might make things a little easier to read. Mind you, the same enlarged solo stave is not printed in the published score of the Schoenberg fiddle concerto, which probably has at least as many notes in the solo part. I'm comparing the two, since Hilary Hahn fairly recently (2008) recorded the two together on an entirely wonderful CD with the Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra and Esa-Pekka Salonen, to which I've just listened for the umpteenth time.

Despite the enlarged solo stave, I don't think I find my score of the Sibelius any easier to read than that of the Schoenberg, so I'm not sure that there's any gain from this practice.

David Ward
www.composers-uk.com/davidward

Finale 2010b, 2014a
Mac 10.6.8, 10.8.5
full TGTools

Back to Top

Michel R. E.
Registered Member



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to Michel R. E.AIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 7430
  		   Posted 2/5/2014 10:50 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Michael Cook said...
- You noticed that the old engraved score had pages where the staves were smaller than in the rest of the score. This technique is sadly not often used in computer-engraved scores. It certainly means more work and should be done when all other editing is finished, but it can be worth the effort if your score has a few passages with a large number of staves (a tutti passage with divisi strings, for instance).


It's funny that you should mention this. I have resorted to this a few times to get particularly-full systems onto a page.
But I have to admit to having always had a certain reticence about it. For some odd reason, I've always thought of it as "wrong".

Finale (started with ver. 3.0) 2010, 2011, 2012b installed
Win XP
basically ALL Garritan sounds, plus XSample Chamber Ensemble.

"Art critics suffer from Pigeon Syndrome. Pigeons like to leave their mark on monuments. But at the end of the day, the pigeon remains a pigeon, and the monument remains a monument."

Back to Top

rumsong
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to rumsongAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 126
  		   Posted 7/17/2014 1:08 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Greetings,

I'm just getting back to this score after a long hiatus. I thank all for their comments.

One question I have is:

How does one add in a new staff line and have the staff groups, braces and such actually work. That is what is the effective process? I tried following the directions in the manual and not got effective results. (Currently and for some odd reason, I've lost the manual in the last couple of weeks -- it no longer opens at all. I will try re-installing, but this has happened before).

You see, since I've already got the individual staff lines done (say Flute 1, Flute 2), I want to add in a Flute 1+2 (and other lines, of course for bassoon, etc.) while keeping the individual Flute 1, Flute 2 lines. The reason is that when I combine Flutes 1 and Flute 2 on one line (implode music), and make all of the required combinations (and many, many corrections), that line will (in my experience) not extract separate parts very easily (or will require much effort at clean-up). I will use the individual lines for parts as they are all correct in the score (or will be). The unnecessary staff lines will be hidden in the full score, of course.

Does that question make sense?

Please note I am using Finale 2006.

All best wishes and thanks in advance,

gordon
Back to Top
You cannot post new topics in this forum. You cannot reply to topics in this forum. Printable Version
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Tuesday, December 19, 2023 7:27 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 403,820 posts in 58,165 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2023

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual