>Hi Richard, >read Christopher response to your question again. It is as clear as I >could describe it myself in English. You seem to have convinced >yourself with that way of writing it, and there is nothing we can do >to make you change your mind I guess.
I am sincerely puzzled that anyone thinks I am trying to mount some kind of defense here. My questions to responders have only been for the purpose of understanding what they wrote when it was not clear to me or to re-ask a question that I thought had not been answered. The way I wrote it is certainly nonstandard. I may use it; I may not. I only think it interesting (and a relevant music notation topic) to consider possible alternatives and the advantages and disadvantages of each. I have no interest in changing what is standard. I have no special attachment to any of the ways of doing it. I have not expressed (nor do I have) any strong opinion about it one way or the other. The way I first wrote the example has a couple of things going for it. It may very well be that the disadvantages completely overwhelm any advantages. I also am interested in other precedents and opinions. The inferences that some seem to be making about motivations are just irrelevant. >But you must understand that every poster made it clear in their > answers that it was unstandard and that I would most likely be >misunderstood by any reader I do understand that they thought it would be misunderstood. No one (except John who referred to assuming it was a typo) has said what actual misunderstanding there would be. > (or at best take some time to understand, which is the last thing we want) Ease of understanding is one valuable quality of music notation. It is not the only one, however, and sometimes there are tradeoffs. No, on second thought there are *always* tradeoffs. I am not claiming that the tradeoffs in this example are even remotely worthwhile, but your blanket statement warrants questioning. Ever seen a circular score? How about a puzzle canon? What about transposed instruments in orchestral scores? Cramped scores to avoid page turns? Any number of practices about courtesy accidentals? None of these maximize rapidity of understanding at the expense of other qualities. >...because they will not have seen this strange way to notate ever before. D.S. al Coda is as clear as > it can be and everyone will understand it. I do a lot of guitar >music, and the instrument of orchestration has nothing to do with the > way the form is written IMO. My point was that the confusion anticipated if this were being sight-read by multiple players is mitigated by the circumstances (solo) in which the score would actually be used. A player might look at it and think "What's going on there? Oh, I see. Weird. Never saw that before. Makes some sense, though, I guess. Rather efficient actually." and never have to think about it again. Someone else might be highly annoyed. (Personally I would be most annoyed by example two which means a page turn to play one measure). I also would point out that, even in the small number of responses, there is not consensus about how this should be written. The third example has John "stumped", David says it is the only way he has ever seen it done, and Hiro says don't make players jump around at all. Richard Yates _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
