> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of John Howell > > We're currently preparing the Saint-Saens A minor Cello Concerto. > ALL of the wind parts are combined, 1st and 2nd on the same part, on > two separate staves, except for unison passages that are one or more > lines long. I don't know why, nor do I know how orchestral players > feel about such parts. The one advantage is that if the 1st player > happens to be missing at a rehearsal, but 2nd player can fill in the > necessary solos. But it does mean that there are more pages in the > set of parts (2 copies of each wind part), which raises the cost of > the sets.
In my experience, wind players usually dislike combined parts, often intensely. > >b) such parts are > >generally harder to read; > > They shouldn't be, nor are any of these parts. Whenever I do come across combined parts, there are almost always multiple arrows pointing to the correct staff or part of the staff. I would take this to mean that they ARE harder to read than separate parts. > >c) such parts are almost always on multiple > >staves, producing more page turns; > > Which is not a problem if the page layout allows for rests during the > page turns. One principle that I subscribe to is the more music of a given size available to the eye at a glance, the easier to read. > >and d) the vast majority of orchestral > >literature is published one on a part (other than the > combination Cello/Bass > >part common before around 1850). > > Well, that seems to be your thesis, rather than the result of a > comprehensive study of parts. You're right, I haven't made a comprehensive study, just a few decades of observation and impressions. That's why I posted the question. Thanks for your thoughts. -Lee _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
