On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:58:39 -0400, "Tim Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > In my own practice, I stop the line short of the accidental, because it > works, and is clean (in my opinion), but my opinion may not be that of > a publisher such as Boosey and Hawkes--and obviously, Bartok had a > great deal of influence in the final result. Music typesetting has > always been evolving, and continues to. I think one would have to look > at Bartok's careful notations and ask if there is a reason not to > follow his precedent, or is there another precedent that trumps it. In > the end, when we self-publish, the call is our own...
All I would advocate is that Finale accomodates as many possibilities as it reasonably can. (I'm fairly happy with my workaround now, though!) Just as a data point, plenty of recent edited B&H scores have glissandi lines which stop before the accidental, and don't avoid it, or connect with the notehead. I'm not sure if debating what is "correct" or not is the point, because I think the issue is a bit moot- composers (and publishers) manifestly treat glissandi notation in different ways. David -- David Horne | www.davidhorne.co.uk note that email address has changed slightly to [EMAIL PROTECTED] email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is no longer read tel:+44(0)161-796-7964|fax:+44(0) 870-133-9627|mobile:+44(0)7904-114580 _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
