On 19 Sep 2002 at 19:49, Mark D. Lew wrote: > At 6:30 PM 09/19/02, David W. Fenton wrote:
[] > >You're lapsing into Mac-speak -- I have no idea what you mean by > >OPTION-CLICK. I understand that it's one of the shift keys, but it is > >peculiar to the Mac, and I don't know what it maps to on Windows, nor > >what it does. > > Sorry. I don't know where the function is on PC. I'm sure it exists, but > with a different keystroke. You still haven't told me what OPTION-CLICK actually *does*. [] > >For polyphonic, melismatic music, the assumption > >breaks down. Which version of the text should I type in? The Soprano > >version? The Alto version? The Tenor version? The Bass version? Each > >has different repetitions and different melismas. > > You should enter them all separate. See, for example, the Coda sample file > "De Lassus" which I cited earlier. So, if nobody recommends multi-assignment of a single lyric WHY THE HELL DOES THE PROGRAM BEHAVE AS IF THIS IS PREFERRED? That is, the copy operation links to the original lyrics, rather than creating a new copy. That would seem to me to show that the designers of Finale thought entering the lyrics as few times as possible and assigning them to as many voices as they occurred in was the optimal approach. I can see no other justification for the behavior of the copy. > >If you are recommending putting each in separately in EDIT LYRICS, > >then I simply so no virtue over TYPE IN SCORE, except in terms of it > >being "closer to the metal" in terms of the flaws in Finale's UI > >implementation. > > That's one advantage, yes. I also prefer being able to do all the typing > separate from the assigning. I find the multi-click-assign method to be > faster than type in score for getting all the lyrics into place where I > want them. Also, I like being able to view the text all in one place, > organized into verses as I choose. And I like being able to type the lyrics > in a format with line breaks and spacing to match the poetry, or whatever > other visual scheme I find most helpful. But in highly repetitive music like the Mozart Requiem, you actually get something like this: Re-qui-em ae-ter-nam, ae-ter-nam do-na e-is, do-na, do-na e-is Do-mi- ne, re-qui-em ae-ter-nam do-na e-is Do-mi-ne: et lux per-pe-tu-a, et lux per-pe-tu-a lu-ce-at, lu-ce-at e- is. Ex-au-di, ex-au-di, ex-au- di, o-ra-ti-o-nem me-am, ad te, ad te o-mnis, o-mnis ca-ro ve-ni- et. Re-qui-em ae-ter-nam do-na, do-na e-is, e-is Do-mi-ne, do-na, do-na e- is, do-na e-is, do-na: et lux per-pe-tu-a, et lux per-pe-tu-a lu-ce- at e-is, et lux per-pe-tu-a lu-ce-at e-is. Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son, e-le i- son, e-le-i-son, Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, Chri-ste e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, Chri-ste e-le-i-son, Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son, e-le-i- son, Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, Chri- ste e-le-i- -son, e-le-i-son, Chri-ste e-le-i- son, Ky-ri-e e-le-i- son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, Chri-ste e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i- son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son. I don't see how that furthers anything whatsoever. It isn't poetry, so there are no natural line breaks, and since there's repetition of every single word, many times each, there is no comprehensibility to it. In short, it has meaning and comprehensibility only in the context of the score. So, unless you're typing only: Re-qui-em ae-ter-nam do-na e-is Do-mi-ne: et lux per-pe-tu-a lu-ce-at e- is. Ex-au-di, o-ra-ti-o-nem me-am ad te o-mnis ca-ro ve-ni- et. Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son, Chri-ste e-le-i-son, Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son. then I just don't see the advantage to using EDIT LYRICS and click assignment in terms of comprehensibility and the relationship to the original text. [] > I was confused (and am still confused) by your description of > syllables being ordered in the Edit Lyrics window to match the order they > were entered. It is my understanding that that was only true in earlier > versions. If you create a single bar with four quarter notes, and you type > in four lyrics from right to left, do they not still appear in > left-to-right order in the Edit Lyrics window? In MacFin 2002 they do. It seems that the *starting* point of a staff's lyrics is ordered according to the chronological order. That is, which voice's lyrics start the edit window is determined by which voice enters first. In my case, I was confused by the fact that my entry of the lyrics was in the order of the entries, as I started at the beginning of the score and put lyrics into the first voice that had them. That is, the order in which I typed happened to be exactly the same order in terms of starting point as the entries of the voices. At one point I was also confused because I could not find the text of the part that got screwed up, but this was because I had not searched down far enough. Seems to me there ought to be some Search/Replace functionality in the EDIT LYRICS window. > >In other words, you put them in in a manner that exhibits yet another > >counterintuitive approach. Mozart's Requiem has only one "verse," and > >the fact that you recommend putting it in as thought it does not > >shows yet another adaptation to Finale's bollixed-up requirements. > > The only bollix here is that "verse" is a silly name for it. It's not a > verse at all, it's a separate lyric compartment. I agree that "verse" is a > dumb name, but complaining about it is about as meaningful as protesting, > "But it's not a 'voice' at all, that's the piano part!" Are voices > counterintuitive because they might be played by trumpets or guitars? > "Layers" aren't really layers either, and many "articulations" aren't > really articulations, etc, etc. Verses actually *do* have a real use and function. In a strophic piece, you will, in fact, have multiple lines of lyrics in any one vocal line. That's what a verse is for. It is not for segregating out lyrics according to which staff they are attached to. In short, you're using screw driver to hammer a nail. If the piece were actually strophic, your approach could potentially cause no end of problems if you wanted the verses automatically numbered. And it's not like the term "voices" as any pianist is quite familiar with talking about the voices within a particular passage. The term has multiple meanings in music, and every musician knows them. But you have your analogy reversed: "voices" is a case where a single term is used to describe the implementation of more than one function in Finale. In your case, you are taking one Finale feature called "verses" and using it for multiple purposes within the same problem space. There will inevitably be conflicts. > If it makes you feel better, you can ignore the "verse" boxes altogether > put all your lyrics in the areas labeled "section" instead. They behave > exactly the same. Sections and staves are not the same thing. Again, you are using the screw driver to hammer the nail. Of course, that's entirely because Coda has not provided you with a hammer. [] > >> That's fine if what displays in the score has an obvious order, but > >> sometimes it doesn't. > > > >Sure it does! Everything in the top line of the score should come > >first, followed by everything in the second line and so forth. > > Now who's making assumptions that all music follows a single, simple pattern? I'm not. But one pattern that music *does* follow is that > What if I've got a D.S. al Coda situation? I want the lyrics to be ordered > as they'll be sung, not as they appear on the page. Sounds like a use for SECTION. Or a VERSE. And if you want the lyrics to appear in the order in which they are sung, then the current implementation must give you fits. And that goal is not possible, in any case, because some words are sung simultaneously, and in other cases, some voices sing the words out of order. It would simply be impossible to put the words in their sung order. Oops, forgot one thing! THE SCORE!!!!! Gosh, that's a strange place to have the lyrics presented in the order in which they are to be sung, don't you think? In general, it seems to me you are trying to make the EDIT LYRICS window serve some kind of purpose other than as a view of the underlying text stream. All I am suggesting is that this view could be made more logical by the adding of some kind of indication of the staff that a section of the text comes from. That there is no such indication seems to me to be pretty consistent with my assertion that the thinking behind the design of the whole lyrics substructure is that you put in the lyrics syllables once and then assign each syllable to as many notes as need that syllable. With that as your functional assumption, the idea of indicating a staff is senseless, as every syllable will be assigned to multiple staves in choral music, and with repetitive text setting, to multiple notes within each staff. So, I think it's perfectly clear why there is no staff indication in the EDIT LYRICS window, because the data structure doesn't work that way. You are utilizing VERSE/SECTION to organize your lyrics into staff blocks, but that is not what those functions were designed for, so far as I can tell. > What if I've got an alternate lyric displayed below the regular one? That's a verse, no? > . . . What > if I've used a separate staff for an optional cadenza? . . . I dunno. What? Why is a separate optional staff different from the other staves? > . . . What if I've got a > short divisi passage where I display separate syllables only for a few > bars? . . . Layers? > . . . What if I've got a verse/refrain situation where there are > several lines stacked for the verse and one line centered for the > refrain? . . . That's what CHORUS is for, no/ > . . . What if I've got a sentence intoned on a single long note > where I use a separate lyric item for some of the words in order to > make it multi-deck? . . . Verses? > . . . What if I've got pronunciation symbols which appear > under some words but not others? . . . Verses? > . . . What if I've got a short dialogue > where two characters are sharing a staff with their lyrics at the same > lyric baseline? . . . What about it? Section or verse, seems to me. > . . . Or contrariwise, what if the characters are on separate > staves but I want the poetry to appear continuous? (An extreme example > of this last would be the "Replying we sing, as one individual" section > from G&S's Gondoliers, where it would be impossible to make the hyphens > behave properly if the two voices aren't in interleaved in a single > verse.) I don't know. What is the point of your questions? > For most of these situations, I would employ separate verses. If you don't, > then Finale has to make up an order for the texts, which may or may not > turn out to be what was intuitive to you. Verses and choruses were surely implemented precisely for the purposes you enumerate. But keeping the text of separate staves segregated is completely different. It does not fit into the Finale paradigm, because Finale is designed around the assumption (I believe) that you would not enter separate lyrics for each staff. > But perhaps I now understand your point about lyrics appearing in the order > they were entered. Maybe you are not referring to the order of the > syllables within a voice at all, but only the order of the separate voices > themselves. This didn't occur to me because it wouldn't have occurred to me > to put all voices in the same verse. (Yes, yes, I know, "verses" aren't > really verses.) *Your* verses aren't really verses. *My* verses really *are* verses. Who is doing the convoluted thinking here? > Evidently, Finale expects them to be in separate verses as well, . . . Finale expects nothing. But the people who designed Finale seem to me to have been thinking that you wouldn't enter separate text for different staves when those staves were singing the same lyrics, but that you'd assign the syllables to multiple staves. > . . . and that's > why it didn't think to move your soprano part to the top. I suppose it > might be adapted to rearrange the order them as you suggest. Better yet, > the UI could be designed so that lyrics in different voices end up in > different verses by default, since that will most likely be a better > arrangement should you try to manipulate the lyrics later. No, putting them in different verses would then mess up the utility of segregating *real* verses. Voices are assigned to staves, and if Coda intended Finale to be used as you recommend, then they should have included a level of for STAFF. They did not, which suggest to me that your methods are not in harmony with the basic design of the lyrics substructure. That is not to say that your methods don't *work*, naturally. > >> As for next time, my recommendations are: (1) try out the > >> option-click-assign and see if you like it. (2) Regardless of your input > >> method, keep your separate parts in separate verses. You might have to > >> alter a baseline, depending on what default document you're working from. > > > >Again, you are recommending doing things in the counterintuitive > >ways. > > > >I understand that your advice is good. > > > >But you have to recognize that there's something fundamentally broken > >in a program that requires you to jump through so many hoops to > >accomplish a very straightforward task. > > OK, I'll recognize that the UI is broken, but I don't see that putting > lyrics for different voices in different verses is such a big hoop. The > text sung by the alto is separate from the text sung by the soprano; . . . Says who? > . . . it > does not follow after it consecutively. What is so counterintuitive about > having them in separate compartments? Why is it intuitive to string them > end to end? If you're going to enter all the text, with repetititions and punctuation, for each individual staff, then other than the problems of the disconnect between the UI and the underlying text stream, I see no reason not to use TYPE IN SCORE. Heavens, how can you possibly keep track of where you are when typing out the original lyrics when you don't have the notes of the musical text to guide you? Sounds like a huge, huge headache whenever the text is massively repetitious (as in the Requiem). > As for the multi-click-assignment, I was just suggesting it as a > possibility which you might find more efficient once you've gotten used to > it, very much like switching from Simple Entry to Speedy Entry. If you > don't like it, fine. It is by no means required. Either choice is > legitimate. > > Evidently, some users have been able to use type-in-score exclusively > without getting caught in any of the traps. Well, if it hadn't been for the copy default that creates mirrors for the lyrics, I never would have run into a problem. As long as I avoid that, I think I'll not have any further problems with lyrics. I intend to continue using TYPE IN SCORE, because IT MAKES THE MOST MUSICAL SENSE. The advantages of your approach seem very, very meager to me. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
