The original version of this page can be found at : http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6&m=485485
Posted By : Cathy Aggett - 9/20/2016 9:52 PM
Is it possible to insert a mid-measure barline and have independent, but multiple staves? I know you can add a barline as an expression, but I was hoping to be able to do it another way.


cathya
Finale 3.2 - 2014.5 Windows and now Mac!
Northern Beaches Music Studio
www.nbmusicstudio.com


Posted By : Peter Thomsen - 9/21/2016 12:09 AM
I suppose that you by your words {independent, but multiple staves} mean {independent barlines / staggered barlines}, right?

Yes, it is possible.

However, we need more info about the actual layout.

Generally you can get any such layout, but some solutions require advanced workarounds.

Without knowing the actual layout we can not suggest the best solution.

I attach a particular advanced example. It was done in Finale.

Peter


Mac Finale, 2012c, 2014d & 2014.5, Dolet 6.6 plug-in, Mac OS X 10.11.6, iMac Intel Core i7, 2.93 GHz, 16 GB RAM


Posted By : Daz - 9/21/2016 12:32 AM
Hi Peter

I've opened the PDF you've attached but several elements are missing. (Noteheads, time sigs etc)
I believe that it is because I do not have the font used to create those elements installed on my system.
Can you reporduce that PDF but embed the fonts (or just attach a jpg/png of the pahe)

Cheers...


Daz. :o)

------------------------
Finale 2006-2011, Finale 25 - Win7 64 bit
Core2 Duo i7-4790, 16Gb Ram, Soundblaster Z


Posted By : Cathy Aggett - 9/21/2016 1:20 AM
This is a screenshot of the first section of the manuscript. You can see that the treble and bass are not connected as a system and barlines are independent.

I need to be able to:

- Set the treble and bass either without them being in the same system, or at least visually, so they don't look like they're in the same system.
- set various parameters individually, in particular, barlines showing on one stave and not the other.
- either hide or set separately aspects such as time signatures, etc.

Hopefully, the attachment makes it clearer what I need to do.
:-)


cathya
Finale 3.2 - 2014.5 Windows and now Mac!
Northern Beaches Music Studio
www.nbmusicstudio.com


Posted By : Motet - 9/21/2016 2:00 AM
Do you care about playback? It might be easiest to just do that on consecutive staves.


Finale 2014.5, 2011b, 2005, TGTools
Windows 7, MIDI input
Finale Transposition Chart


Posted By : diz - 9/21/2016 3:09 AM
I agree with Motet, the end result (printed music) is the prime concern, forget playback in this situation, consecutive staves are easiest.


Finale 2012A.r3 and 2014.5
Macbook Air


Posted By : Peter Thomsen - 9/21/2016 10:55 AM
Daz said...
Hi Peter

I've opened the PDF you've attached but several elements are missing. (Noteheads, time sigs etc)
I believe that it is because I do not have the font used to create those elements installed on my system.
Can you reporduce that PDF but embed the fonts (or just attach a jpg/png of the pahe)…

Here it is as a graphic.

Peter


Mac Finale, 2012c, 2014d & 2014.5, Dolet 6.6 plug-in, Mac OS X 10.11.6, iMac Intel Core i7, 2.93 GHz, 16 GB RAM


Posted By : Peter Thomsen - 9/21/2016 11:58 AM
Cathy Aggett said...
This is a screenshot of the first section of the manuscript. You can see that the treble and bass are not connected as a system and barlines are independent …

The meaning of the manuscript is not very clear.

- Do the sections in the top staff (marked “slow”) play immediately after each other? Or are there (hidden) rests between the sections?

- Do the sections in the bottom staff play immediately after each other? Or are there (hidden) rests between the sections?

- Only the first section in the bottom staff is marked “a little quicker”. The bottom staff’s second section does not have a tempo indication.
What is the tempo in the second section? Is it “slow” (as in the top staff)? Or is it “a little quicker” (as in the first section)?

- What is the meaning of two vertical lines appearing in the staff between two sections?

I suppose that there are some explanatory notes in the manuscript?

I suppose that the vertical arrows indicate simultaneous points in the two staves?

The better we understand, the better we can help.

Peter


Mac Finale, 2012c, 2014d & 2014.5, Dolet 6.6 plug-in, Mac OS X 10.11.6, iMac Intel Core i7, 2.93 GHz, 16 GB RAM


Posted By : Daz - 9/21/2016 12:07 PM
Hi Peter

How did you manage to get that effect?
I've tried and even with independant time sigs, the barlines all appear to line up for a system.

Cheers.


Daz. :o)

------------------------
Finale 2006-2011, Finale 25 - Win7 64 bit
Core2 Duo i7-4790, 16Gb Ram, Soundblaster Z


Posted By : Peter Thomsen - 9/21/2016 12:34 PM
Daz said...
… How did you manage to get that effect?
I've tried and even with independant time sigs, the barlines all appear to line up for a system …

The trick is Overlapping Systems.

It is time consuming, but you can get a layout of truly independent staves/barlines.

See the attached files.

Peter


Mac Finale, 2012c, 2014d & 2014.5, Dolet 6.6 plug-in, Mac OS X 10.11.6, iMac Intel Core i7, 2.93 GHz, 16 GB RAM


Posted By : Ralph L. Bowers Jr. - 9/21/2016 12:35 PM
Daz said...
Hi Peter

How did you manage to get that effect?
I've tried and even with independant time sigs, the barlines all appear to line up for a system.

Cheers.


Just ask Peter to drop you the Finale File. It's easily seen within the file.
Or just read through this old topic that has Peter's coments and a file.

forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=5&m=428342


Finale 2010b, 2011b, 2012c, 2014d, 2014.5 TGTools Pro, Patterson plugins, JW plugins (current for each Finale Instalation)
Sibelius 6.2, 7.1.3, 7.5.1, 8.4.2, Write Score Sound Sets, TMT Publisher Bundle Plugins, Bob Zawalich plugins, Dolet 6.6
Print Music 2004, 2010a, 2011a, 2014a
Progression, Progression 2, Progression 3, Notion 4, [Notion 5, (bought but not installed)update finally installed]
Pro Tools 9.5, Reaper
Kontakt 5
GPO4, GPO5, World Instruments
SmartScore X Pro, SmartScore X2 Pro, PhotoScore Ultimate 6 & 7 & 8.04 ( 7 has some utility----best of those available, 8 has some issues that need fixing)
M-Audio "Oxygen 25" Midi input keyboard (recent addition 2014)
Systems (5) // Windows XP Pro (32bit), [email protected] Windows 7 Pro, 8.1 Pro, Windows 10 64 bit, 4GB - 16GB RAM
Paper & Pencil

BMus, MM (Musicology)


Posted By : Daz - 9/21/2016 12:50 PM
Hi

Peter Thomsen said...

The trick is Overlapping Systems.


Very cool. Obviously takes some planning but very clever!

Cheers...


Daz. :o)

------------------------
Finale 2006-2011, Finale 25 - Win7 64 bit
Core2 Duo i7-4790, 16Gb Ram, Soundblaster Z


Posted By : Daz - 9/21/2016 1:08 PM
Hi

I must admit, though, that the score offered in the very last post in this thread shows a lot of promise for what Cathy is after.
He makes some very clever uses of staff styles and hidden rests to create a similar effect.



Cheers...


Daz. :o)

------------------------
Finale 2006-2011, Finale 25 - Win7 64 bit
Core2 Duo i7-4790, 16Gb Ram, Soundblaster Z


Posted By : Cathy Aggett - 9/21/2016 5:21 PM
Thank you gentlemen. The overlapping systems is very clever, Peter. I'll keep that up my sleeve. In the meantime, I think I'll try setting it consecutively, as Motet and Diz suggest. I'd thought of that this morning before I opened your replies again. I'll post the result, if successful!


cathya
Finale 3.2 - 2014.5 Windows and now Mac!
Northern Beaches Music Studio
www.nbmusicstudio.com


Posted By : Daz - 9/22/2016 12:21 AM
Hi

Just out of interest, I reproduced the screenshot usung the same methods that were used in the choral piece.



Cheers...


Daz. :o)

------------------------
Finale 2006-2011, Finale 25 - Win7 64 bit
Core2 Duo i7-4790, 16Gb Ram, Soundblaster Z


Posted By : Cathy Aggett - 9/23/2016 10:25 PM
This piece has given me nightmares, but it's finally done. I set it as one continuous piece, separating the systems manually. There are 'hidden' measures, barlines and time signatures to try and make it fit. I've another one very similar to this to set, but at least now I know how to approach it. Thank you all for your suggestions. They were most helpful.


cathya
Finale 3.2 - 2014.5 Windows and now Mac!
Northern Beaches Music Studio
www.nbmusicstudio.com


Posted By : John Ruggero - 9/24/2016 10:36 AM
In case you missed these and for what it is worth:

There is a bar line missing between the first and second measure of the LH. Also a cautionary natural on the third note of the LH. When the tip of the arrow is on the note head side it is better if it almost touches the note-head as in the handwritten score. Yours are a little far away. When the tip is on the stem side several of your arrows run into the notes. The handwritten score has a single final bar line running through the staves not two individual ones. This is better.

The use of system dividers is unusual in solo piano music (if it is for piano) as is their use on both sides of the page! I think that the standard single connecting left bar line and brace is a much better way to accomplish this. The score would look better if the RH and LH staves were a little closer together and there were more space between the systems themselves. This would also make the dividers unnecessary.


Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Finale 2014d (Finale 2011 as a backup) with GPO 4
Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2, Adobe InDesign CS4 SmartScore X Pro, JW Plug-ins
www.cantilenapress.com

The better the composer, the better the notation.

Post Edited (John Ruggero) : 9/24/2016 9:39:32 AM (GMT-5)


Posted By : Cathy Aggett - 9/24/2016 5:38 PM
Thanks John for your insights. I'll fix those slips you've noted, which I'm sure will be also noted by the composer.

Re the system dividers, I've reproduced what was on the score. While I agree with you that it might be better if the systems were joined, it was impossible to set this piece traditionally in order to achieve the elements independently. Because of that, I couldn't work out how to achieve a connected final barline at the end, as the two staves are not connected. If you can suggest something, I'd appreciate it.


cathya
Finale 3.2 - 2014.5 Windows and now Mac!
Northern Beaches Music Studio
www.nbmusicstudio.com


Posted By : John Ruggero - 9/24/2016 10:36 PM
You are very welcome, Cathy. If the staves have to be independent of each other, one might have to draw in the final bar line with the line tool for the thin line and a thicker line created for the occasion as a custom line. I tried it and found that it had to be done in two parts, one for each of the staves and joined in the middle. Or one could import the file into Photoshop and draw in the lines that way. But one of the power users may have a much better solution.

If I were faced with this piece, I think that I would group the two staves normally, with or without left bar lines as required, make the meter large enough to make the entire piece one measure, and place all the elements in the score individually, including the numbers in the time signatures, as if hand copying or doing a Schenker graph in Finale. The piece is simple enough that this might not be too time consuming.


Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Finale 2014d (Finale 2011 as a backup) with GPO 4
Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2, Adobe InDesign CS4 SmartScore X Pro, JW Plug-ins
www.cantilenapress.com

The better the composer, the better the notation.


Posted By : Daz - 9/25/2016 11:37 AM
Hi Cathy

In case you're interested, here's my attempt using two staves, staff styles and manual spacing.
I've attached a PDF of the file. I found that your file did not look correct on my system by that is
probably due to me not having the same fonts or similar cross platform issues.

So with that in mind, I've attached the Finale file I created and also a PDF print

Keep in mind that I'm not a copyist and have very little knowledge of the spacing rules for layout,
but the method I've used gives the appearance of two independant staves.
If anyone wishes to criticize or comment on features that do not work/appear correct I would welcome the feedback.

Cheers...


Daz. :o)

------------------------
Finale 2006-2011, Finale 25 - Win7 64 bit
Core2 Duo i7-4790, 16Gb Ram, Soundblaster Z


Posted By : Peter Thomsen - 9/25/2016 12:15 PM
Hi Cathy,

An exact Finale reproduction of the manuscript is not the ideal solution for performing purposes, since the manuscript is unclear:

- Do the sections in the top staff (marked “slow”) play immediately after each other? Or are there (hidden) rests between the sections?

- Do the sections in the bottom staff play immediately after each other? Or are there (hidden) rests between the sections?

- The first section in the bottom staff is marked “a little quicker”. The bottom staff’s second section does not have a tempo indication.
What is the tempo in the second section? Is it “slow” (as in the top staff)? Or is it “a little quicker” (as in the first section of the bottom staff)?

- What is the meaning of two vertical lines appearing in the staff between two sections?

- What is the meaning of the word “slower” (appearing at two places)?
Slower than what? - Slower than the (simultaneous) tempo in the other staff? - Or slower than the previous tempo in the same staff?

The performer needs answers to such questions.
Not only should the layout be easy to understand, it should also be impossible to misunderstand.

There is an explanatory note at the bottom of the manuscript page:
{The arrows are cues to one hand, to interrupt the other hand & begin counting again from 'one'. ♩ in one hand
does not have to equal ♩ in another.}
Are there other explanatory notes for this particular piece? - perhaps in a preface?

Peter


Mac Finale, 2012c, 2014d & 2014.5, Dolet 6.6 plug-in, Mac OS X 10.11.6, iMac Intel Core i7, 2.93 GHz, 16 GB RAM


Posted By : Cathy Aggett - 9/25/2016 5:42 PM
Dear Peter,

I follow the composer's instructions and wishes re copying. He wants this to be two independent lines (I believe). Yes, I've hidden rests between the sections. If the top section hasn't had a tempo change, then it remains the same until a new indication. The two vertical lines mean the sound ends at that moment. Re your questions to the meaning of 'slower than what', that's always up the performer. I would hazzard they'll select their tempi appropriately.

Re the explanatory notes, no there are no further instructions.

This will of course, be checked by the composer, who will decide if further explanation of the notation and indications are required.

Thank you for your comments.

Cathy


cathya
Finale 3.2 - 2014.5 Windows and now Mac!
Northern Beaches Music Studio
www.nbmusicstudio.com


Posted By : John Ruggero - 9/25/2016 10:52 PM
Daz, there are very nice things in your engraving. Here are few comments as requested:

1. Check for a few wrong notes, for example, the second LH note should be C# which really requires a cautionary natural for the next note. Also, the final bar line should run through the staves.

2. It would be better to spread the piece out on 4 complete lines to retain the composer's more spacious layout, and place the composer's comment at the bottom where it might be easier to maintain a constant line height.

3. Even though there are a few needless notational eccentricities, like the system dividers, that could be done away with with good spacing, other unusual features are essential and should be retained. For example, the at times unusual stem direction is designed to allow the arrow tips to intersect note heads rather than stems, which is better visually.

4. To make the two staves look more independent, I would suggest to the composer that the empty space be cut away at the beginning of the first LH staff and the beginning of any others in which the LH has no notes or rests.

5. in response to Peter Thomsen, I think that the meaning of the train tracks as a termination mark is pretty clear, but it might be explained earlier in what appear to be a large set of pieces, and the rather vague tempo indications are intentional and designed to produce a very free performance. The LH "slower" seems to be either misplaced or redundant and is an error that should be corrected by the composer.


Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Finale 2014d (Finale 2011 as a backup) with GPO 4
Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2, Adobe InDesign CS4 SmartScore X Pro, JW Plug-ins
www.cantilenapress.com

The better the composer, the better the notation.


Posted By : Peter Thomsen - 9/26/2016 1:38 AM
Cathy Aggett said...
… The two vertical lines mean the sound ends at that moment …

Thanks for the explanation.
I would add that explanation to the performance instructions.


Cathy Aggett said...
… Re your questions to the meaning of 'slower than what', that's always up the performer …

If that is what the composer means, then I would make it clear in the performance instructions that it is up to the performer to decide, whether “slower” means “slower than the tempo in the same staff” or “slower than the tempo in the other staff”.
The same for “quicker”.

Another question:
What is the meaning of a tie that does not go to another note?
Example: the third note in the treble clef staff (= dotted half-note ‘b’). A tie begins on this ‘b’ note, but the tie does not end on another note.
Does the tie perhaps mean that the duration should be extended so that e. g. the dotted half note should last longer than a dotted half?
Could that not just as well be notated with a fermata?

One more question:
I can see two rests that are not hidden.
What is the difference between hidden rests and visible rests?

Peter


Mac Finale, 2012c, 2014d & 2014.5, Dolet 6.6 plug-in, Mac OS X 10.11.6, iMac Intel Core i7, 2.93 GHz, 16 GB RAM


Posted By : Daz - 9/26/2016 9:32 AM
Hi John

John Ruggero said...
Daz, there are very nice things in your engraving. Here are few comments as requested:

1. Check for a few wrong notes, for example, the second LH note should be C# which really requires a cautionary natural for the next note.



Well that's embarrassing. I've gone through and (I hope) found the incorrect notes.
I wondered the cautionary myself, but later in the score the composer has specifically placed one (albeit on the same ledger line). I have my own suspicions as to the purpose of this score, so I decided to let sleeping accidentals lie.


John Ruggero said...

Also, the final bar line should run through the staves.


Again, a case of not properly checking work. But it's now fixed

John Ruggero said...

2. It would be better to spread the piece out on 4 complete lines to retain the composer's more spacious layout, and place the composer's comment at the bottom where it might be easier to maintain a constant line height.


Done!

John Ruggero said...

3. Even though there are a few needless notational eccentricities, like the system dividers, that could be done away with with good spacing, other unusual features are essential and should be retained. For example, the at times unusual stem direction is designed to allow the arrow tips to intersect note heads rather than stems, which is better visually.


Done!

John Ruggero said...

4. To make the two staves look more independent, I would suggest to the composer that the empty space be cut away at the beginning of the first LH staff and the beginning of any others in which the LH has no notes or rests.


There I must (respectfully) disagree. While the score and system appear to be independent, I believe that they are not. The notes actually make that clear.
I actually think that this is a training exercise to teach pupils to develop independent 'brains' in their left and right hands (maybe Cathy can correct me here)

In any event, thank you for you feedback John. I've redone my attempt and post it here.
This is actually my first real attempt to try and get a score to look good. I'm usually more concerned in getting the music in there and fiddling with how it sounds rather than how it looks.

This is a great challenge. It's small, and simple enough (comparitively) to allow me to find ways of getting the idea down on paper, without overwhelming me with the complexity/bulk of some of the orcehstral scores that I usually play with.

I hope, Cathy, that you don't mind that I've hijacked this piece (and thread) for my own education.

Cheers...


Daz. :o)

------------------------
Finale 2006-2011, Finale 25 - Win7 64 bit
Core2 Duo i7-4790, 16Gb Ram, Soundblaster Z

Post Edited (Daz) : 9/26/2016 9:55:48 AM (GMT-5)


Posted By : John Ruggero - 9/26/2016 4:40 PM
Daz, that is much improved and the overall impression is attractive and inviting to play. I notice that you are being even more faithful to the original in various ways, which is laudable. You might be right about the purpose of this piece. The cut-out score was more a thought than a suggestion.

A few more suggestions:

You should include the composer's measure numbers. And system dividers are usually centered under the left bar lines as in the composer's score. This does create a spacing issue with the margin that doesn't exist in orchestral scores where the instrument labels compensate. (Maybe one reason you don't see this in solo piano music.) Of course they could be made much smaller and thinner to fit better in the margin.

A few small suggestions regarding your engraving: your slurs are often little too arched for my taste, and the tempo markings are sometimes too far and sometimes too close to the notes.

This piece could definitely lead to a discussion of how faithful an engraver should be to a composer's manuscript, about which a book should be written. This particular piece is a mix of logical if unusual notation but also some illogical things that an engraver should bring up with the composer, assuming that the composer is open to discussion.

For example, in the opening measures of the LH the slur would be better above the note heads and out of the way of the tempo indication such as at 37 in the LH. Also, the composer's placement of the tempo markings is OK for handwriting but not for engraving and would be better aligned with the first note of each phrase.

There is also an issue where a dynamic precedes (or follows!) a tempo marking separated by a comma. Normally, they would be independent which would aid placement. This needs to be addressed.

The composer's one cautionary accidental is non-standard for an original work, prevents fingering from being above the notes where it belongs, should be corrected, and other needed cautionary accidentals added. And one also suspects that the composer has accidentally omitted some slurs here and there. All of these things would be discussed with the composer.

The biggest problem concerns the last measure: it is fingered for the RH! If played by the RH, which is more pianistic, why is it on the lower staff?


Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Finale 2014d (Finale 2011 as a backup) with GPO 4
Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2, Adobe InDesign CS4 SmartScore X Pro, JW Plug-ins
www.cantilenapress.com

The better the composer, the better the notation.


Posted By : Peter Thomsen - 9/26/2016 5:47 PM
John Ruggero said...
… You should include the composer's measure numbers …

I could be wrong here, but I suspect that those numbers are not the composer’s measure numbers, but rather “auxiliary measure numbers” for the Finale solution where each system in the manuscript is created as two (independent) systems in the Finale document.

John Ruggero said...
… The biggest problem concerns the last measure: it is fingered for the RH! If played by the RH, which is more pianistic, why is it on the lower staff?

Generally the quick tempi are in the lower staff, and the slow tempi are in the upper staff.

My guess is that the composer put the last measure in the lower staff because of its tempo.

Peter


Mac Finale, 2012c, 2014d & 2014.5, Dolet 6.6 plug-in, Mac OS X 10.11.6, iMac Intel Core i7, 2.93 GHz, 16 GB RAM


Posted By : John Ruggero - 9/27/2016 5:58 PM
You certainly might be right about the measure numbers, Peter. I had assumed that they were by the composer since they occur in the MS. This piece seems to defy measure numbers!

And that is a possible explanation for the last measure. The dotted bar line might then signify that the hands swap roles and positions on the staves. Very, very strange.


Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Finale 2014d (Finale 2011 as a backup) with GPO 4
Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2, Adobe InDesign CS4 SmartScore X Pro, JW Plug-ins
www.cantilenapress.com

The better the composer, the better the notation.


Posted By : Peter Thomsen - 9/28/2016 1:21 AM
John Ruggero said...
… And that is a possible explanation for the last measure. The dotted bar line might then signify that the hands swap roles and positions on the staves …

Or the dotted barline could be a graphical way of instructing the performer to release the two fermata notes together.
There is also a verbal instruction - “release together” - but there is nothing wrong in giving a performance instruction both verbally and graphically.

Peter


Mac Finale, 2012c, 2014d & 2014.5, Dolet 6.6 plug-in, Mac OS X 10.11.6, iMac Intel Core i7, 2.93 GHz, 16 GB RAM


Posted By : John Ruggero - 9/28/2016 11:59 AM
Yes, the dotted bar line seems to mean an ending with the hands therefore released together, and the final measure is a kind of coda. The two hands represent two distinct personalities engaged in a conversation, but at the end Eusebius symbolically takes on the character of Florestan by moving to the bottom staff. Or maybe the composer was just winging it.


Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Finale 2014d (Finale 2011 as a backup) with GPO 4
Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2, Adobe InDesign CS4 SmartScore X Pro, JW Plug-ins
www.cantilenapress.com

The better the composer, the better the notation.