I wrote, in part: > > He wanted the music itself printed on two facing pages, > > so there would be no page turns, even though this meant more than a > > dozen staves per page -- far too dense for easy readability.
Michael Edwards replied, in part: > It could be a problem, though, requiring the > player to turn the page in the middle of the > piece, couldn't it? (That would depend on > whether there were convenient rests in the > piece where the page could be turned.) ... > Another possibility might have been to have > three pages joined together in a row, so that > you can unfold them and have all three visible > on the music stand at once. Oh, I agree completely! Nobody is pickier than I am about page turns! If necessary for this piece of music, I'd have prepared printable copy or suitable postscript print files, and then had it printed on a tri-fold 25.5" x 11" sheet at a local printer. > > My own opinion is that composers and arrangers (of which I am one) > > should leave the engraving and printing details to the publisher, > > unless there are specific details which will directly impact the > > performance of the music. > As long as the notation is not actually > wrong or misleading, I feel composers > should be allowed reasonable freedom > about notation. And I guess that that's the whole point of this discussion -- where does deviation from traditional standards begin to detract from ease of reading, when does it become downright misleading, and when is it just plain incorrect? Jim O'Briant Bayside Music Press Gilroy, CA 95020 http://www.baysidemusicpress.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
