John Howell wrote:
At 7:50 AM +0200 10/16/06, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 16.10.2006 David W. Fenton wrote:
It would be nice, though, if some professional engraving standards
were somehow built into Finale so that it could tell you if you've
exceeded standard modern engraving density.
I don't think there is such a thing. I have a Henle part here, where
one page is extremely tightly spaced, tighter than anything I have
ever done...
I think this is another case where good engraving always needs a good
eye, too, and a computer can only go some of the way...
I'm used to reading orchestral music printed from 19th century plates,
where it is quite common to have as many as 12 bars or even more to a
line, and the parts are perfectly readable even by string players
sitting 2 on a stand. (But of course they are laid out line by line (or
page by page) to assure that readability.) On the other hand, I'm
always appalled by how wide the spacing is in standard piano or
piano-vocal editions, making many more page turns than might strictly be
necessary. But that's what pianists are used to. I suspect that they
are equally appalled at my piano parts, which tend to be much more
compressed because of my slight obsession with good page turns.
John
I wonder if this spacing issue and legibility might have to do with the
ratio of height to width. In other words, looking at a single string
part, a measure's width and height would have a certain proportional
relationship.
Keeping the width the same while adding another staff to the "frame"
would drastically alter that proportion. It would become much more
difficult to read.
I wonder if they space piano music more widely to better maintain a
certain proportion of height-to-width which is considered an ideal.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
