|
|
| MakeMusic Forum > Public Forums > Finale - Macintosh - FORUM HAS MOVED! > Guidelines for Performance Materials | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
jcotton
Registered Member
      
Date Joined Apr 2000
Total Posts : 453
| Posted 6/14/2002 10:41 AM (GMT -6) |   |
Hi Folks --
I've been meaning to do this for quite a while but have been too busy.
A while back we at Metamorphosen Chamber Orchestra decided to draw up our own guidelines for the submission of acceptable performance materials. We actually got some good input from a couple of the Big Five librarians, as well.
I'd appreciate it if you could all take a look at it and give me some feedback. It's not intended to be an all-inclusive manual on notation. It came into being because we have dealt with some young composers along the way who were, shall we say, not up to date on notational practices. This document is intended to define a threshold between acceptable and unacceptable materials.
Please drop me a note by e-mail (jeffery@jefferycotton.com), unless you think it's a valid topic of conversation here....
Thanks, and here's the link:
http://www.metamorphosen.org/documents/guidelines.pdf
Jeffery
------------------------------
Jeffery Cotton
visit my homepage at
http://www.jefferycotton.com
You can listen to my music
and see example of my scores
done in Finale (as pdf files).
------------------------------
| | Back to Top | |
|
Éric Dussault
Finale 2011 Mac user
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 778
| Posted 6/14/2002 4:16 PM (GMT -6) | |
Hi Jefferey, your guidelines document is
very well presented and I really like the
part about ties, accents and proper
spacing, which are some of the main
problems
encountered in the music I see that is
made by Finale. I do disagree with the
discussion about accidentals. You seem to
have a very personal interpretation of the
rules. It doesn't match with any reference
book I use (Kurt Stone's Music Notation in
the Twentieth Century, Ted Ross's teach
yourself the art of music engraving or
Schirmer's Manual of Style and Usage to
name a few). There is no reason to
repeat an accidental in the same measure
unless you have very specific reasons. I do
use
courtesy accidentals, but only to cancel a
note that was altered in the previous
measure. I really hope that you will
reconsider this part of your nice document
to make it follow the modern and widely
accepted usage of accidentals.
Good luck
Eric
| | Back to Top | |
|
musicofnote
Registered Member
 
Date Joined Jan 2001
Total Posts : 490
| Posted 6/14/2002 8:55 PM (GMT -6) | |
Eric,
There are several conventions for
courtesy accidentals, especially in
atonal type contemporary music. I've had
several composers tell me they adhere to
the "Stockhausen" rules, but they all did
them differently and couldn't refer me to a
printed explanation. Maybe someone here
can point me to a source?
I do personally object when they are used
in tonal music, however.
greetings
Leonard Cecil
Music of Note
http://www.music-of-note.com
| | Back to Top | |
|
jcotton
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2000
Total Posts : 453
| Posted 6/15/2002 1:50 AM (GMT -6) | |
Hi Eric,
thanks for the feedback. I agree with Leonard, however, when it comes to the accidentals question. In atonal music, or in contemporary music in general, as long as no key signature is in use, repeating an accidental later in the bar is a pretty standard practice.
(This very issue has received a great deal of attention in the Windows forum thread where I also did this post... check it out.)
Jeffery
------------------------------
Jeffery Cotton
visit my homepage at
http://www.jefferycotton.com
You can listen to my music
and see example of my scores
done in Finale (as pdf files).
------------------------------
| | Back to Top | |
|
Éric Dussault
Finale 2011 Mac user
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 778
| Posted 6/15/2002 2:25 AM (GMT -6) | |
Hi Jefferey,
I was thinking that your guidelines was
meant as to explain general use of (in this
case) accidentals. My comments were in
the sense of standard notation of course.
Your example looked as if it could
definitely be notated in a traditional way. I
think that the musicians in orchestras
definitely prefer music that is written the
traditional way, as it provides solutions for
many almost everything. The use of
contemporary and modern notation is in
my opinion best when no standard or
traditional way of doing it is possible. If
your example was meant for modern
music, then I apologize, but suggest that
you mention it nearby the example.
Eric
| | Back to Top | |
|
jcotton
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2000
Total Posts : 453
| Posted 6/15/2002 3:47 AM (GMT -6) | |
Hi Eric --
These guidelines are specifically for composers submitting new works to the ensemble. An explicit statement of this at the top of the document would certainly be appropriate -- thanks!
------------------------------
Jeffery Cotton
visit my homepage at
http://www.jefferycotton.com
You can listen to my music
and see example of my scores
done in Finale (as pdf files).
------------------------------
| | Back to Top | |
|
Peter Thomsen
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2000
Total Posts : 8331
| Posted 6/15/2002 4:15 AM (GMT -6) | |
I very much agree with the others who have posted comments here and in the Windows forum:
Nice job!
I also agree with Leonard Cecil about the use of "infrequent notes" like B sharp and F flat (or even F double-sharp and B double-flat):
Musicians think in keys.
Where it makes sense, it is OK to use "infrequent notes", even an F double-sharp.
Therefore - as Jim Williams points out - your example 2.9 is not grotesque enough. See the attached graphic (Grotesque.gif) which I believe is grotesque enough.
In section 5. c) you write:
"Include "courtesy" accidentals anytime the music departs from an implied key. Accidentals are traditionally introduced in a specific order: for example, a D sharp anywhere near an F will imply an F sharp to most musicians."
This is a brilliant observation that we should all keep in mind. But your example (D sharp - F) could be even more grotesque:
an A sharp anywhere near an F will imply an F sharp to most musicians.
The "grotesqueness" of intervals can be measured by ordering all our notes in a sequence of fifths:
...Fb - Cb - Gb - Db - Ab - Eb - Bb - F - C - G - D - A - E - B - F# - C# - G# - D# - A# - E# - B#...
In this sequence the distance between D# and F is 10 "fifth-steps".
And the distance between A# and F is 11 "fifth-steps".
Note, By The Way, that all augmented and diminished intervals are 6 "fifth-steps" or more.
Regarding example 2.8:
In order to avoid objections about hiding the 3rd beat in 4/4 I suggest that you extend the example with an extra beat so that the example appears to be in 5/4.
Apart from the spacing issue the syncopated rhythm could also be clarified with a beam extension on the group of two 16ths. See the attached graphic (example 2.8b.gif).
Even in 5/4 you can still argue that the high G quarter note should be splitted into two tied 8ths. But you can also argue in favor of the un-splitted quarter note:
The principle of [1 note = 1 sounding tone] gives a satisfactory accordance between what you see and what you hear.
Peter
| | Back to Top | |
|
jcotton
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2000
Total Posts : 453
| Posted 6/15/2002 4:36 AM (GMT -6) | |
On 6/15/2002 9:15:00 AM, Peter Thomsen wrote:
>I very much agree with the
>others who have posted
>comments here and in the
>Windows forum:
>Nice job!
Thanks, Peter.
>an A sharp anywhere near an F
>will imply an F sharp to most
>musicians.
Good idea -- I'm going to work on that example and use your idea.
And I *love* your "grotesque" example for the clarinet transposition. It's a much better example of the problem I was trying to explain. I'm in fact going to link this to the Windows forum so the guys there can see it...
------------------------------
Jeffery Cotton
visit my homepage at
http://www.jefferycotton.com
You can listen to my music
and see example of my scores
done in Finale (as pdf files).
------------------------------
| | Back to Top | |
|
RickV
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 60
| Posted 6/15/2002 12:58 PM (GMT -6) | |
Repeating accidentals within a measure
is usually reserved for inexperienced
musicians.
| | Back to Top | |
|
jcotton
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2000
Total Posts : 453
| Posted 6/16/2002 7:08 AM (GMT -6) | |
>Repeating accidentals within a
>measure
>is usually reserved for
>inexperienced
>musicians.
Oh dear -- I'm sorry, Ricardo, but I really have to disagree with that one. Look at any number of contemporary scores -- clearly not intended for inexperienced players -- and you'll see that repetition of accidentals has become a very common practice.
------------------------------
Jeffery Cotton
visit my homepage at
http://www.jefferycotton.com
You can listen to my music
and see example of my scores
done in Finale (as pdf files).
------------------------------
| | Back to Top | |
|
GT
It was some other guy.
Date Joined Feb 2001
Total Posts : 1434
| Posted 6/16/2002 1:29 PM (GMT -6) | |
I agree with Jeff here; when you're dealing with contemporary scores, all bets are off. I'd hate to read, say, a George Crumb score that was engraved according to traditional notational standards...
Cheers.
Gary
| | Back to Top | |
|
RickV
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 60
| Posted 6/17/2002 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | |
We must live in two different musical
worlds. I live in the world of studio
musicians. The only time the accidental
in the bar was repeated, was if the same
note was separated by an octave, or
octaves. Rick
| | Back to Top | |
|
kignature
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2000
Total Posts : 337
| Posted 6/18/2002 6:14 AM (GMT -6) | |
Jeffery,
I have my copy of Finale 2003, the "wrong" tie (Section 2.d.2.)that you show as being Finale's default isn't the default anymore...
-KI
| | Back to Top | |
|
Éric Dussault
Finale 2011 Mac user
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 778
| Posted 6/18/2002 1:10 PM (GMT -6) | |
there is actually a difference with what we
can call «North american engraving» and
traditional European engraving» when it
comes to ties. The example 2.3 is perfect
for the so-called European standard, but
the 2.2 is what publishers in America are
widely using. 2.3 placement would be
used exclusively for slurs and ties would
look like 2.2. I personally prefer the
European standard.
Eric
| | Back to Top | |
|
guser
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2001
Total Posts : 661
| Posted 6/18/2002 1:28 PM (GMT -6) | |
Well, just to be different, my preference is for style 2.2
For efficient sight reading, I like a strong visual differentiation between a tie and a slur.
| | Back to Top | |
|
jcotton
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2000
Total Posts : 453
| Posted 6/18/2002 5:59 PM (GMT -6) | |
>For efficient sight reading, I
>like a strong visual
>differentiation between a tie
>and a slur.
I agree about the tie -- I don't like the 3rd example in the document myself. That was included largely at Scott Yoo's insistence.
------------------------------
Jeffery Cotton
visit my homepage at
http://www.jefferycotton.com
You can listen to my music
and see example of my scores
done in Finale (as pdf files).
------------------------------
| | Back to Top | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Tuesday, December 19, 2023 7:23 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 |
|
|