On 8 Feb 2004 at 10:08, William Roberts wrote: > >> David Fenton wrote: > >> >What about things like you see on the last page of this score: > >> > > >> >http://www.bway.net/~dfenton/Collegium/Scores/MorleyRoses.pdf > >> > > > > >> I imagine it could be done by . . . . > >> 1. Making the first bar 9/8 (with 4/4 style beaming and invisible > >> time sigs and rests of course). 2. Invisifying an 8th rest on the > >> downbeat of the next bar. > > > >But wrong playback, so I say BZZZZZZTTTT to that! :) > > Actually, there's a better way -- I don't do Renaissance music myself > but I looked in the Sib manual and was able to find some instructions > for exactly this situation. > > Essentially, you create a bar that's twice as long as the prevailing > meter, and then input two bars' worth of music into that bar. You can > then create a barline halfway through the bar. Spacing and playback > both then work just fine.
You're speaking of Sibelius, I assume, as there's no reliable way to place a barline in the middle of a measure in Finale. What do you do, though, if you have overlapping parts where you have a succession of many measures, say 8, with the need for this? Have a measure that's 8 times the length of your default measure? The Morley I gave as example would require a measure of 16/2 to fit the 8 bars of overlap into it. Of course, the Finale way is a workaround, too. But both approaches do require that your score displays with the too many beats in a measure, which was given early in the discussion as a "giveaway" that a score was engraved in Finale. > >Harold Owen wrote to me privately when I posted this example and he > >wondered in his reply whether Sibelius handles Mensurstriche... > > It does. Choose 'Between staves' in the Barline menu from Create. > > >If Sibelius can't do this kind of thing, then it's pretty > >unsatisfactory for large bodies of music before 1700. > > I don't know everything these is to know about this, by any means, but > I don't think Sibelius is any more unsuitable than Finale for music > before 1700. I think that being forced to input music into a measure that is in the meter 16/2 (8 measures of 2/2) would be rather difficult, and the passage in the Morley is fairly compact in comparison to many that I've seen (which could easily have far longer passages with values overlapping barlines). While I wouldn't say the Finale way of accomplishing the same thing is easy or intuitive, it is, at least, easier to manage than having these extremely long fake measures that would have be broken into multiple parts. Actually, there's a good point: could Sibelius notate that passage of 8 measures of overlap in a measure of 16/2 and then break the system at exactly the right place? On another note, I was thinking about the whole Finale vs. Sibelius discussion, and it seems to me that there are several classes of important differences between the two programs: 1. things one program can do that are impossible in the other. 2. things that both programs can do, but that is much easier in one than the other. 3. things that one takes for granted as taken care of by default in one program that need futzing around in the other. All of those are issues that have an impact on usability, and the balance may be very different for different repertories. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
