Re: [Finale] Notation Question/Clarification
On Jun 24, 2017, at 10:00 AM, finale-requ...@shsu.edu wrote: > Send Finale mailing list submissions to > finale@shsu.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > finale-requ...@shsu.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > finale-ow...@shsu.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Finale digest..." > Today's Topics: > > 1. Notation Question/Clarification (Blake Richardson) > 2. Re: Notation Question/Clarification (David H. Bailey) > 3. Re: Notation Question/Clarification (Christopher Smith) > 4. Re: Notation Question/Clarification (SN jef chippewa) > 5. Re: Notation Question/Clarification (Haroldo Mauro) > 6. Re: Notation Question/Clarification (Doug Walter) Thanks to everyone who helped out. A mis-numbered tuplet does seem like the most logical explanation. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
Re: [Finale] Notation Question/Clarification
My guess would be that the first note in the RH is supposed to precede the first note in the LH, with the last note in the RH being played at the very end, totaling 8 separate notes. I think it's just notated a bit sloppily. Doug > On Jun 23, 2017, at 8:06 PM, Blake Richardsonwrote: > > I can't figure out what's going on with this piano line from John Williams' > score to DRACULA. > > It looks like it's supposed to be some sort of octuplet, but there's only six > notes on the bottom and the top notes look like they're played in unison with > the first and last notes on the bottom. > > Anyone have any ideas? > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/ujmnomjnr2dbpyp/Dracula.jpg?dl=0 > ___ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: > finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
Re: [Finale] Notation Question/Clarification
I see all 32nd notes, although it wouldn’t make any difference whether the last one is 16th or 32nd since they are all supposed to be held! I think he wrote 8 by mistake. It sohould be a 7. Or maybe he wrote 8 in a hurry as a reminder of 8ve higher and later indicated th 8ve on the left. On Jun 24, 2017, at 8:23, Christopher Smithwrote: > Yes, that looks like it to me. Notice the first six notes are 32nds, while > the last note is a 16th, so it does add up. The first note is a different > note in the right hand, while the last note is just a unison. You caught the > tiny, faded treble clef in the left hand, right? > > Christopher > > >> On Jun 23, 2017, at 11:06 PM, Blake Richardson wrote: >> >> I can't figure out what's going on with this piano line from John Williams' >> score to DRACULA. >> >> It looks like it's supposed to be some sort of octuplet, but there's only >> six notes on the bottom and the top notes look like they're played in unison >> with the first and last notes on the bottom. >> >> Anyone have any ideas? >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ujmnomjnr2dbpyp/Dracula.jpg?dl=0 >> ___ >> Finale mailing list >> Finale@shsu.edu >> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale >> >> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: >> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu > > > ___ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: > finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
Re: [Finale] Notation Question/Clarification
the last note is a 32nd as well, also in the upper voice -- i see 2 tiny extensions, the lower one is barely there, but there nonetheless. i agree with david, just a hastily notated tuplet (there would be no need to indicate 8 for 8-let, since they are 32nds...). and def think the 1st notes in LH and RH are meant to be played together. the 7 l.v. markings support the 7-let theory as well (the B in RH will continue to sound as well because of the pedal, but it is incidental, i think, and therefore notating that 8th pitch also as l.v. would confuse the musical intention of the RH melody) >Yes, that looks like it to me. Notice the first six notes are 32nds, >while the last note is a 16th, so it does add up. The first note is >a different note in the right hand, while the last note is just a >unison. You caught the tiny, faded treble clef in the left hand, >right? -- neueweise -- fonts for new music (and traditional) notation http://newmusicnotation.com/fonts.html shirling & neueweise | http://newmusicnotation.com new music notation + arts management + translation [FB] http://facebook.com/neueweise | [TW] http://twitter.com/neueweise ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
Re: [Finale] Notation Question/Clarification
Yes, that looks like it to me. Notice the first six notes are 32nds, while the last note is a 16th, so it does add up. The first note is a different note in the right hand, while the last note is just a unison. You caught the tiny, faded treble clef in the left hand, right? Christopher > On Jun 23, 2017, at 11:06 PM, Blake Richardsonwrote: > > I can't figure out what's going on with this piano line from John Williams' > score to DRACULA. > > It looks like it's supposed to be some sort of octuplet, but there's only six > notes on the bottom and the top notes look like they're played in unison with > the first and last notes on the bottom. > > Anyone have any ideas? > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/ujmnomjnr2dbpyp/Dracula.jpg?dl=0 > ___ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: > finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
Re: [Finale] Notation Question/Clarification
On 6/23/2017 11:06 PM, Blake Richardson wrote: > I can't figure out what's going on with this piano line from John Williams' > score to DRACULA. > > It looks like it's supposed to be some sort of octuplet, but there's only six > notes on the bottom and the top notes look like they're played in unison with > the first and last notes on the bottom. > > Anyone have any ideas? > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/ujmnomjnr2dbpyp/Dracula.jpg?dl=0 I see 7 notes -- the last note on the bottom looks like it's supposed to come immediately before the 2nd beamed note on the top. The 8 indicating an octuplet may have been a hastily scribbled mistake and he really meant to put a 7 there. That's my best guess since there's clearly not 8 notes. Unless the stem connecting the first note in the treble clef to the first note in the bottom was mis-written and it's supposed to come just before the first note on the bottom, in which case there are 8 separate notes. -- * David H. Bailey dhbaile...@comcast.net http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
[Finale] Notation Question/Clarification
I can't figure out what's going on with this piano line from John Williams' score to DRACULA. It looks like it's supposed to be some sort of octuplet, but there's only six notes on the bottom and the top notes look like they're played in unison with the first and last notes on the bottom. Anyone have any ideas? https://www.dropbox.com/s/ujmnomjnr2dbpyp/Dracula.jpg?dl=0 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
On Sep 6, 2011, at 2:30 PM, jhowell wrote: On Sep 4, 2011, at 4:23 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 4 Sep 2011 at 15:41, Darcy James Argue wrote: As for whether the Leslie speaker is a defining part of the Hammond sound, the only possible answer is of course. As Steve pointed out, every single Hammond-playing artist of any note employed the Leslie speaker. Within a certain musical style, yes, of course. But it's also not defining of Hammond organ sound, as other manufacturers used Leslie speakers, too. Yes, quite true. Similarly the native sound of a violin does not include vibrato and it can be played without, and the native sound of a vibrophone (without the fan) is a straight metalophone sound. But as a matter of synergy, the Hammond B-3/Leslie combination was so ubiquitous and adopted by so many players (granted, in popular music rather than church organists) that it is the de facto expectation. Without the Lesie it's just another electric organ sound, perhaps one of the first--perhaps THE first! But not all that distinctive. Slightly subjective, of course. My group played Lenny Dee's supper club in St. Petersburg Beach several time, and in fact got our record contract with Decca (Lenny's label) from our performances there, and Lenny was a master at making the instrument talk in ways that I'm sure Mr. Hammond would not have approved of. Lenny also used a tape-delay reverb unit that enhanced the sound wonderfully (in the late '60s, before black-box reverbs were a dime a dozen). His Wikipedia article gives this rundown: After his discharge from the Navy, Dee bought a Hammond Model A organ. He later customized this instrument with a Hammond Solovox, a Maas-Rowe Vibrachord, and Leslie speakers (model 31-H). He also had a tape echo built into his organ, allowing him to create his trademark re-echo sound. In the early 1960s, Dee recorded on a Wurlitzer organ overdubbed with his Hammond Model A. In 1967, he started recording on a Hammond X-66; in 1972, he switched to a Hammond Concorde. In the 1970s, he also recorded on Yamaha and Thomas organs. Other keyboards he used include the Hammond Piper, which he used for its trumpet and harpsichord sounds, and the ARP synthesizer. When he toured on a cruise ship towards the end of his life, he played a Hammond-Suzuki Elegante. So it appears that Lenny, like other popular organists both jazz and commercial, never did care much for the native sound of the Hammond. John John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music School of Performing Arts Cinema College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences 290 College Ave., Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html Machen Sie es, wie Sie wollen, machen Sie es nur schön. (Do it as you like, just make it beautiful!) --Johannes Brahms John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music School of Performing Arts Cinema College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences 290 College Ave., Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html Machen Sie es, wie Sie wollen, machen Sie es nur schön. (Do it as you like, just make it beautiful!) --Johannes Brahms ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
As far as I know all Hammond players use Leslie (lately DeFrancesco is endorsing KeyB and Numa Hammond clones that have a nice digital leslie emulation). I read that Brian Auger does not use it, preferring guitar and bass amps or active speakers to get a fatter sound. Il 04/09/2011 20.11, Chuck Israels ha scritto: Jimmy Smith, Joey DiFrancesco et al - do (did) they use the Leslie? Heard them and others for years (often playing joyous music) but never took notice of what they used to produce their sound. Chuck Sent from my iPhone On Sep 4, 2011, at 1:08 AM, Steve Parkerst...@pinkrat.co.uk wrote: I would say that the Leslie is still a defining aspect of the classic Hammond sound. Apart from a period when Jon Lord stopped using a leslie, I can't think of any major Hammond artist for whom it wasn't a defining part of their sound. Steve P. On 3 Sep 2011, at 21:59, David W. Fenton wrote: On 3 Sep 2011 at 14:14, John Howell wrote: Just as the rotating Leslie speakers and their vibrato are a defining aspect of the classic Hammond Organ sound. Actually, that's not true. The classic Hammond organ sound predates the invention of the Leslie speader, and Leslie speakers are used with any number of instruments, not just Hammonds. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
On 9/3/2011 7:37 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 4 Sep 2011 at 0:08, Steve Parker wrote: I would say that the Leslie is still a defining aspect of the classic Hammond sound. Apart from a period when Jon Lord stopped using a leslie, I can't think of any major Hammond artist for whom it wasn't a defining part of their sound. Have you ever played one without it? Perhaps we differ on what the essential sound of the Hammond organ is... That's most likely what's happening here -- Steve is right that jazz, blues and rock artists who have recorded with the Hammond B3 made extensive use of the leslie speaker, so that it has come to be considered by many to be an inherent part of the Hammond sound. That Hammond himself hated it and that the organ can be played very well without use of the leslie speaker makes no difference to the fact that for many the defining sound of the Hammond organ is what we've all heard on records. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
On 4 Sep 2011, at 00:37, David W. Fenton wrote: On 4 Sep 2011 at 0:08, Steve Parker wrote: I would say that the Leslie is still a defining aspect of the classic Hammond sound. Apart from a period when Jon Lord stopped using a leslie, I can't think of any major Hammond artist for whom it wasn't a defining part of their sound. Have you ever played one without it? I've played them a lot with and without, including daily Bach for a few years. I've already said that Hammond himself didn't consider it to be essential or desirable, but still it is the part of the rock and gospel Hammond sounds that are most well known. If I'm asked for Hammond on a session, I don't think I'd get very far without a Leslie, even just one on stop. Steve P. Perhaps we differ on what the essential sound of the Hammond organ is... -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
Jimmy Smith, Joey DiFrancesco et al - do (did) they use the Leslie? Heard them and others for years (often playing joyous music) but never took notice of what they used to produce their sound. Chuck Sent from my iPhone On Sep 4, 2011, at 1:08 AM, Steve Parker st...@pinkrat.co.uk wrote: I would say that the Leslie is still a defining aspect of the classic Hammond sound. Apart from a period when Jon Lord stopped using a leslie, I can't think of any major Hammond artist for whom it wasn't a defining part of their sound. Steve P. On 3 Sep 2011, at 21:59, David W. Fenton wrote: On 3 Sep 2011 at 14:14, John Howell wrote: Just as the rotating Leslie speakers and their vibrato are a defining aspect of the classic Hammond Organ sound. Actually, that's not true. The classic Hammond organ sound predates the invention of the Leslie speader, and Leslie speakers are used with any number of instruments, not just Hammonds. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
Hi Chuck, Yes. It's worth taking a close look at the Leslie in person next time you see a Hammond player using one -- watching the rotating speaker go round and round is hypnotic and fascinating. As for whether the Leslie speaker is a defining part of the Hammond sound, the only possible answer is of course. As Steve pointed out, every single Hammond-playing artist of any note employed the Leslie speaker. Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On 4 Sep 2011, at 2:11 PM, Chuck Israels wrote: Jimmy Smith, Joey DiFrancesco et al - do (did) they use the Leslie? Heard them and others for years (often playing joyous music) but never took notice of what they used to produce their sound. Chuck Sent from my iPhone On Sep 4, 2011, at 1:08 AM, Steve Parker st...@pinkrat.co.uk wrote: I would say that the Leslie is still a defining aspect of the classic Hammond sound. Apart from a period when Jon Lord stopped using a leslie, I can't think of any major Hammond artist for whom it wasn't a defining part of their sound. Steve P. On 3 Sep 2011, at 21:59, David W. Fenton wrote: On 3 Sep 2011 at 14:14, John Howell wrote: Just as the rotating Leslie speakers and their vibrato are a defining aspect of the classic Hammond Organ sound. Actually, that's not true. The classic Hammond organ sound predates the invention of the Leslie speader, and Leslie speakers are used with any number of instruments, not just Hammonds. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
On 4 Sep 2011 at 15:41, Darcy James Argue wrote: As for whether the Leslie speaker is a defining part of the Hammond sound, the only possible answer is of course. As Steve pointed out, every single Hammond-playing artist of any note employed the Leslie speaker. Within a certain musical style, yes, of course. But it's also not defining of Hammond organ sound, as other manufacturers used Leslie speakers, too. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Notation Question
A question for those familiar with vibraphones. There's handwritten direction in the following score excerpt that I can't quite make out. It says, ___ on, pedal down, soft sticks, but I can't tell what the first word is. It's probably something obvious that I'm just not seeing, but any help would be appreciated. http://gallery.me.com/btr1701/10039 (Click on the thumbnail labeled Jaws.Vibe and it will expand to full size.) Thanks in advance, Blake Richardson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
On 9/3/2011 6:56 AM, Blake Richardson wrote: A question for those familiar with vibraphones. There's handwritten direction in the following score excerpt that I can't quite make out. It says, ___ on, pedal down, soft sticks, but I can't tell what the first word is. It's probably something obvious that I'm just not seeing, but any help would be appreciated. http://gallery.me.com/btr1701/10039 (Click on the thumbnail labeled Jaws.Vibe and it will expand to full size.) That link didn't work for me, but I'll bet the word is motor. It's possible to play the vibes with the motor off but you don't get the vibrating sound, so sometimes as a special effect it will be played with the motor off. Same with the pedal - the vibes can be played with the pedal up as a special effect. That's what makes me think (without being able to see the image) that it says: motor on, pedal down, soft sticks. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
motor on. Sent from my iPad On Sep 3, 2011, at 6:56 AM, Blake Richardson btr1...@ix.netcom.com wrote: A question for those familiar with vibraphones. There's handwritten direction in the following score excerpt that I can't quite make out. It says, ___ on, pedal down, soft sticks, but I can't tell what the first word is. It's probably something obvious that I'm just not seeing, but any help would be appreciated. http://gallery.me.com/btr1701/10039 (Click on the thumbnail labeled Jaws.Vibe and it will expand to full size.) Thanks in advance, Blake Richardson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
The link don't work for me either Giovanni Andreani On 3 Sep 2011, at 13:25, David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com wrote: On 9/3/2011 6:56 AM, Blake Richardson wrote: A question for those familiar with vibraphones. There's handwritten direction in the following score excerpt that I can't quite make out. It says, ___ on, pedal down, soft sticks, but I can't tell what the first word is. It's probably something obvious that I'm just not seeing, but any help would be appreciated. http://gallery.me.com/btr1701/10039 (Click on the thumbnail labeled Jaws.Vibe and it will expand to full size.) That link didn't work for me, but I'll bet the word is motor. It's possible to play the vibes with the motor off but you don't get the vibrating sound, so sometimes as a special effect it will be played with the motor off. Same with the pedal - the vibes can be played with the pedal up as a special effect. That's what makes me think (without being able to see the image) that it says: motor on, pedal down, soft sticks. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
The link don't work for me either http://gallery.me.com/btr1701#100039/Jaws.Vibebgcolor=black definitely motor... actually that particular word for me is the clearest thing in the image 8-) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
motor? Blake Richardson btr1...@ix.netcom.com wrote: A question for those familiar with vibraphones. There's handwritten direction in the following score excerpt that I can't quite make out. It says, ___ on, pedal down, soft sticks, but I can't tell what the first word is. It's probably something obvious that I'm just not seeing, but any help would be appreciated. http://gallery.me.com/btr1701/10039 (Click on the thumbnail labeled Jaws.Vibe and it will expand to full size.) Thanks in advance, Blake Richardson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
At 3:56 AM -0700 9/3/11, Blake Richardson wrote: A question for those familiar with vibraphones. There's handwritten direction in the following score excerpt that I can't quite make out. It says, ___ on, pedal down, soft sticks, but I can't tell what the first word is. It's probably something obvious that I'm just not seeing, but any help would be appreciated. http://gallery.me.com/btr1701/10039 (Click on the thumbnail labeled Jaws.Vibe and it will expand to full size.) Thanks in advance, Blake Richardson Can't see anything since it seems to be a cellphone page of some kind. But the only logical instruction I can think of is Fan on since that's a normal choice on vibes. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music School of Performing Arts Cinema College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences 290 College Ave., Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html Machen Sie es, wie Sie wollen, machen Sie es nur schön. (Do it as you like, just make it beautiful!) --Johannes Brahms ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
On Sep 3, 2011, at 10:00 AM, finale-requ...@shsu.edu finale-requ...@shsu.edu wrote: From: SN jef chippewa shirl...@newmusicnotation.com Date: September 3, 2011 5:29:01 AM PDT To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Notation Question Reply-To: finale@shsu.edu The link don't work for me either http://gallery.me.com/btr1701#100039/Jaws.Vibebgcolor=black definitely motor... actually that particular word for me is the clearest thing in the image 8-) Thanks to all who responded. Now that I know it's 'motor', I can see it clearly, too. I didn't even know the instrument had a motor. All I know about vibraphones is that they're analogous to xylophones/marimbas with a different sound/timbre. As for the link not working, it's weird that some people could see it and others couldn't. Not sure why that would happen. Different OSs, browsers? Weird... Anyway, thanks again. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
Some have signed up with the same supplier of server space, some have not. I was told I needed a paid subscription to see your file. Klaus From: Blake Richardson btr1...@ix.netcom.com As for the link not working, it's weird that some people could see it and others couldn't. Not sure why that would happen. Different OSs, browsers? Weird... ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
i accessed it with no account, quite often moving up a level in a wrongly indicated or unavailable address gets you to a page where the file or link is listed, that is how i found it (removed 10039 from the original link to access the account of btr1701 [blake t. richardson]) http://gallery.me.com/btr1701 I was told I needed a paid subscription to see your file. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
At 10:43 AM -0700 9/3/11, Blake Richardson wrote: I didn't even know the instrument had a motor. All I know about vibraphones is that they're analogous to xylophones/marimbas with a different sound/timbre. Well, it's a metallophone--metal bars instead of wood or plastic--so that explains the different sound as well as the much longer decay time. But having a motor that runs a series of small fans in each resonance tube to produce a vibrato--and often a variable speed motor at that so the vibrato can be varied--is the defining aspect of a vibes sound! Just as the rotating Leslie speakers and their vibrato are a defining aspect of the classic Hammond Organ sound. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music School of Performing Arts Cinema College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences 290 College Ave., Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html Machen Sie es, wie Sie wollen, machen Sie es nur schön. (Do it as you like, just make it beautiful!) --Johannes Brahms ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
Did you know that Laurens Hammond didn't approve of the Leslie and did not permit official Hammond dealers to stock them! He felt it was a more serious instrument.. Steve P. On 3 Sep 2011, at 19:14, John Howell wrote: At 10:43 AM -0700 9/3/11, Blake Richardson wrote: I didn't even know the instrument had a motor. All I know about vibraphones is that they're analogous to xylophones/marimbas with a different sound/timbre. Well, it's a metallophone--metal bars instead of wood or plastic--so that explains the different sound as well as the much longer decay time. But having a motor that runs a series of small fans in each resonance tube to produce a vibrato--and often a variable speed motor at that so the vibrato can be varied--is the defining aspect of a vibes sound! Just as the rotating Leslie speakers and their vibrato are a defining aspect of the classic Hammond Organ sound. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music School of Performing Arts Cinema College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences 290 College Ave., Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html Machen Sie es, wie Sie wollen, machen Sie es nur schön. (Do it as you like, just make it beautiful!) --Johannes Brahms ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
Vibes and motor, all true, but in serious music vibes are assumed to have the motor off unless specified on. Raymond Horton On 3 Sep 2011, at 19:14, John Howell wrote: At 10:43 AM -0700 9/3/11, Blake Richardson wrote: I didn't even know the instrument had a motor. All I know about vibraphones is that they're analogous to xylophones/marimbas with a different sound/timbre. Well, it's a metallophone--metal bars instead of wood or plastic--so that explains the different sound as well as the much longer decay time. But having a motor that runs a series of small fans in each resonance tube to produce a vibrato--and often a variable speed motor at that so the vibrato can be varied--is the defining aspect of a vibes sound! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
On 3 Sep 2011 at 14:14, John Howell wrote: Just as the rotating Leslie speakers and their vibrato are a defining aspect of the classic Hammond Organ sound. Actually, that's not true. The classic Hammond organ sound predates the invention of the Leslie speader, and Leslie speakers are used with any number of instruments, not just Hammonds. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
I would say that the Leslie is still a defining aspect of the classic Hammond sound. Apart from a period when Jon Lord stopped using a leslie, I can't think of any major Hammond artist for whom it wasn't a defining part of their sound. Steve P. On 3 Sep 2011, at 21:59, David W. Fenton wrote: On 3 Sep 2011 at 14:14, John Howell wrote: Just as the rotating Leslie speakers and their vibrato are a defining aspect of the classic Hammond Organ sound. Actually, that's not true. The classic Hammond organ sound predates the invention of the Leslie speader, and Leslie speakers are used with any number of instruments, not just Hammonds. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
On 4 Sep 2011 at 0:08, Steve Parker wrote: I would say that the Leslie is still a defining aspect of the classic Hammond sound. Apart from a period when Jon Lord stopped using a leslie, I can't think of any major Hammond artist for whom it wasn't a defining part of their sound. Have you ever played one without it? Perhaps we differ on what the essential sound of the Hammond organ is... -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation Question
On 2011/09/03(土), at 後4:59, David W. Fenton wrote: On 3 Sep 2011 at 14:14, John Howell wrote: Just as the rotating Leslie speakers and their vibrato are a defining aspect of the classic Hammond Organ sound. Actually, that's not true. The classic Hammond organ sound predates the invention of the Leslie speader, and Leslie speakers are used with any number of instruments, not just Hammonds. Hammond himself hated his organ is being used with Leslie :-) -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Greater Boston http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Notation question -- sort of OT
Hello, everyone. I've run into a symbol on an oboe part that I've never seen before..it's a flat sign with a caret or marcato accent at the top of the stem. I don't think it's a misprint since the composer provided a special fingering for the note. The Dolmesch library calls it a microtonal 'flat up' sign, which doesn't help because it isn't defined. Alas, the composer is no longer with us. Do any of you composers out there have any idea what this strange beastie is, and how to perform it? Many thanks, and Holly Happydays to you all! Barb Levy barb...@msn.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question -- sort of OT
My guess is that the caret is supposed to be an arrowhead indicating that the note is to be raised a quarter tone. For example, if the symbol is on the note B, it should be a quarter tone up from Bb. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Barbara Levy barb...@msn.com wrote: Hello, everyone. I've run into a symbol on an oboe part that I've never seen before..it's a flat sign with a caret or marcato accent at the top of the stem. I don't think it's a misprint since the composer provided a special fingering for the note. The Dolmesch library calls it a microtonal 'flat up' sign, which doesn't help because it isn't defined. Alas, the composer is no longer with us. Do any of you composers out there have any idea what this strange beastie is, and how to perform it? Many thanks, and Holly Happydays to you all! Barb Levy barb...@msn.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question -- sort of OT
probably a (tempered) quarter tone. depending on the composer and context it could also be a non-tempered microtonal inflection... could also be a 6th or 8th tone. but i would also assume quarter tone if you can't find any other information. if you can conclude for certain that it is a quarter tone and you have the authority to do so, you would be best to change it to the backwards flat, a **much** more standardized quarter tone notation. My guess is that the caret is supposed to be an arrowhead indicating that the note is to be raised a quarter tone. For example, if the symbol is on the note B, it should be a quarter tone up from Bb. check out oboe fingering charts, it could in fact refer to an existing oboe treatise... some quarter tone charts on this site, but not oboe: http://www.wfg.woodwind.org/sax/sax_qt_1.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question -- sort of OT
Who is the composer? That would likely determine wether it is a tempered quarter tone or notation for a just interval. Steve Parker On 21 Dec 2010, at 19:12, Barbara Levy wrote: Hello, everyone. I've run into a symbol on an oboe part that I've never seen before..it's a flat sign with a caret or marcato accent at the top of the stem. I don't think it's a misprint since the composer provided a special fingering for the note. The Dolmesch library calls it a microtonal 'flat up' sign, which doesn't help because it isn't defined. Alas, the composer is no longer with us. Do any of you composers out there have any idea what this strange beastie is, and how to perform it? Many thanks, and Holly Happydays to you all! Barb Levy barb...@msn.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question
dc wrote: I have a piece in 2/4 with a half note that starts after an eighth note rest. What's the best way to notate to make it easily readable? Leave the half note shifted off the beat, or break it down to tied values (8+4+8)? I'm confused as to how you can have a half-note which starts after an 8th rest in a 2/4 measure -- that's 2.5 beats right there. If it's really 2/4 meter then you'd have to do: 8th-rest, 8th-note-tied-to-quarter-note-tied-over-the-barline-to-8th-note. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question
I have a piece in 2/4 with a half note that starts after an eighth note rest. What's the best way to notate to make it easily readable? Leave the half note shifted off the beat, or break it down to tied values (8+4+8)? half note shifted off-beat!?!? musicians will hate you. they don't know how to read modern interpretations of gregorian chant durations, so don't expect them to get this. 8th rest + dotted-q_|_8th if it only happens once, you might prefer: 8th rest + 8th_q_|_8th _ = tie | = barline -- shirling neueweise ... new music publishers mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question
In 2|2, it is perfectly allright wo write 8th rest dotted quarter because they are both within one beat/tactus. dc wrote: shirling neueweise écrit: if it only happens once, you might prefer: 8th rest + 8th_q_|_8th Thanks. This is indeed what I did, but on proofreading the score I was wondering and thought I might ask here. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question
On 13-Feb-07, at 4:54 PM, dc wrote: dhbailey écrit: I'm confused as to how you can have a half-note which starts after an 8th rest in a 2/4 measure -- that's 2.5 beats right there. If it's really 2/4 meter then you'd have to do: 8th-rest, 8th-note- tied-to-quarter-note-tied-over-the-barline-to-8th-note. Apologies, I meant a 2/2 measure. Very sorry. I would definitely write it eighth rest, dotted quarter tied to eighth. No need to show the second quarter in the measure by writing eighth rest, eighth tied to quarter tied to eighth. But you DO have to see the third beat in a measure with eighth note rhythms. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question
Yeah, that is what I was trying to say. Dutch. Hm. Christopher Smith wrote: I would definitely write it eighth rest, dotted quarter tied to eighth. No need to show the second quarter in the measure by writing eighth rest, eighth tied to quarter tied to eighth. But you DO have to see the third beat in a measure with eighth note rhythms. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question
I would definitely write it eighth rest, dotted quarter tied to eighth. No need to show the second quarter in the measure by writing eighth rest, eighth tied to quarter tied to eighth. totally agree. however, if a large chamber music score, it can be useful to line up things vertically (visually) across the entire ensemble in the score (in whihc case 8th rest + 8th_q_8). if solo, or small chamber group however, this should be fine. -- shirling neueweise ... new music publishers mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question
Reminds me of the climax of the Mahler 4th Symphony 3rd movement, written to make it sound like the triangle comes in a smidge late. Percussion players must hate it. Aaron J. Rabushka [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.waymark.net/arabushk - Original Message - From: shirling neueweise [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] Notation question I would definitely write it eighth rest, dotted quarter tied to eighth. No need to show the second quarter in the measure by writing eighth rest, eighth tied to quarter tied to eighth. totally agree. however, if a large chamber music score, it can be useful to line up things vertically (visually) across the entire ensemble in the score (in whihc case 8th rest + 8th_q_8). if solo, or small chamber group however, this should be fine. -- shirling neueweise ... new music publishers mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question: beams for flags
Shouldn't DocOptsBeamsUse Straight Flags do this? I tried it, but Maestro and Engraver don't seem to have straight flags. -Rich At 07:48 AM 5/15/05 -0400, John Howell wrote: I played a concert Saturday night, and ran into something I've never seen before. I'm wondering whether it's something that's snuck in as, somehow, a new notation practice, or whether it's an indication that the composer doesn't know how to use Finale (if that's what he used). All single 8th and 16th notes were printed not with the curved flags we are used to, but with beams going off to the right but not attached to anything, sometimes overriding 8th and 16th rests. Beams of different length, to boot, for 16ths and 32nds. It made sightreading slow and frustrating, because of the mental processing time needed to figure out measure by measure where the darned beats were, but I must admit that by the time I knew the music it wasn't bothering me any more. Just curious whether anyone has run into this, and whether there is some way--certainly not at all obvious--in which it is supposed to be an improvement. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question: beams for flags
At 10:54 AM 05/15/2005, Rich Caldwell wrote: Shouldn't DocOptsBeamsUse Straight Flags do this? I tried it, but Maestro and Engraver don't seem to have straight flags. Where do you see such an option? Are you referring to Flatten all beams? That is something different entirely -- it forces all beams to be horizontal, regardless of the contour of the notes under them. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question: beams for flags
Maybe it isn't in all versions? FinMac 2005b here. Document Options --- Flags --- Flag Type [right at the top] I guess one can also choose any characters you want globally for flags here, but only for 8ths and 16ths. I notice that if you use the Jazz font, some strange straight flags appear, but it's nothing I've ever seen or would want to see. -Rich On May 15, 2005, at 11:09 AM, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 10:54 AM 05/15/2005, Rich Caldwell wrote: Shouldn't DocOptsBeamsUse Straight Flags do this? I tried it, but Maestro and Engraver don't seem to have straight flags. Where do you see such an option? Are you referring to Flatten all beams? That is something different entirely -- it forces all beams to be horizontal, regardless of the contour of the notes under them. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question: beams for flags
Use Straight Flags is in Document Options Flags. You also need to change the flag font (Document Options Fonts) to Tamburo, choose the characters for the straight upstem and downstem flags from the Music Characters popup in Document Options Flags and adjust the positioning in the Flag Positioning popup. More information can be found in the pdf user manual. Michael Cook On 15 May 2005, at 17:09, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 10:54 AM 05/15/2005, Rich Caldwell wrote: Shouldn't DocOptsBeamsUse Straight Flags do this? I tried it, but Maestro and Engraver don't seem to have straight flags. Where do you see such an option? Are you referring to Flatten all beams? That is something different entirely -- it forces all beams to be horizontal, regardless of the contour of the notes under them. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question: beams for flags
At 11:35 AM 05/15/2005, Rich Caldwell wrote: Maybe it isn't in all versions? FinMac 2005b here. Document Options --- Flags --- Flag Type [right at the top] Ah -- your earlier post said Doc Options | BEAMS. If you look at the help file for this screen, you'll see that 'Use Straight Flags' only works if you first go into the Fonts screen and select Tamburo as your Flags font. Except it doesn't seem to work for me with those settings, either. Look in the manual under Flags | Using Straight Flags. You'll see that there's a bunch of information there (which doesn't agree with the information in the help file). Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation question: beams for flags
On 15 May 2005 at 11:35, Rich Caldwell wrote: Maybe it isn't in all versions? FinMac 2005b here. Document Options --- Flags --- Flag Type [right at the top] I guess one can also choose any characters you want globally for flags here, but only for 8ths and 16ths. I notice that if you use the Jazz font, some strange straight flags appear, but it's nothing I've ever seen or would want to see. I noticed in the sections of the Lord of the Rings documentaries that dealt with Howard Shore's film scores that his parts and score used straight flags. I couldn't tell from what was onscreen if he was using Finale or not, but I assumed that if he was, he was using a font with straight flags, rather than changing settings for one of Finale's default fonts. Any comments from those in the business? -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
On 18 avr. 05, at 23:14, Christopher Smith wrote: But back at you, in the key of C would YOU spell the bII7 chord as Db-F-Ab-Cb when there is a perfectly good and functional leading tone B in the key signature? If the next chord is C major I'd certainly spell it with a B, since the B would be functioning as the leading tone. But if the next chord is Gb major I'd spell it with a Cb. And I'm speaking as a pianist. To read fast at the piano you need to recognise a chord like you recognise a printed word: you see the word as a whole, without having to separately read each letter. A chord must have the right shape, the right sequence of intervals. In the case above, if the chord is functioning as a dominant 7th of Gb major (whatever the actual key signature is), I need to see a third between Ab and Cb. A sort of rule of thumb (with exceptions, I know) for dual-function or pivot chords is to look at the chord that comes _after_ and use the spelling which will make sense for this progression. When sight-reading you always need to look ahead and in most musical styles the chord you're playing can give you a hint as to what is coming. Michael Cook ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
On 19 Apr 2005, at 3:17 AM, Michael Cook wrote: On 18 avr. 05, at 23:14, Christopher Smith wrote: But back at you, in the key of C would YOU spell the bII7 chord as Db-F-Ab-Cb when there is a perfectly good and functional leading tone B in the key signature? If the next chord is C major I'd certainly spell it with a B, since the B would be functioning as the leading tone. In jazz, the next chord is likely to be some form of CMA7 (C-E-G-B), so that leading tone isn't actually going anywhere -- it becomes the major 7th of the tonic MA7 chord. Therefore, on a linear (non-chordal) part, B-B makes more sense than Cb-B. But on a chordal part, the vast majority of jazz players prefer 7th chords to always be spelled as 7th chords, regardless of function, for *exactly* the reason you state below: To read fast at the piano you need to recognise a chord like you recognise a printed word: you see the word as a whole, without having to separately read each letter. It's weird for jazz players to see 7th chords spelled as augmented sixth chords, no matter where they resolve to. (And, in modern practice, they can resolve practically anywhere, which is IMO an excellent argument for spelling them consistently regardless of their function.) I've actually never seen a jazz chart that systematically used the spelling rules Chris suggests -- and, as he admits, even he only applies this practice selectively. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] notation question
Fellow Listers, I am often undecided about using sharps as accidentals in flat keys and using flats in sharp keys. I prefer to simplify the notation, substituting B for Cb, for example, but I want to know what is the correct way to make the decision. I want my parts to be easily read and played correctly, but I don't want to violate the rules of theory.. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
Eden - Lawrence D. wrote: Fellow Listers, I am often undecided about using sharps as accidentals in flat keys and using flats in sharp keys. I prefer to simplify the notation, substituting B for Cb, for example, but I want to know what is the correct way to make the decision. I want my parts to be easily read and played correctly, but I don't want to violate the rules of theory.. Sometimes you can't resolve your last statement satisfactorily, any more than you can simplify your verbal writing in English, using only the word to whenever you want that sound regardless of the meaning you intend. If you want the part easily and correctly read, you also have to take into consideration the people who will be reading it -- most advanced amateurs and certainly any professional worthy of cashing a paycheck will have no problem reading Cb. 10-year-old beginners will definitely have a problem, until they are taught how to play it and then it will never be a problem again. For my 2-cents'-worth, I think you should stick to the rules of music theory as much as possible. If the spelling of the harmony calls for a Cb, regardless of the key signature, that's what you should use. That way if some confusion over what is intended arises, you have made your meaning as clear as possible. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
On Apr 18, 2005, at 7:19 AM, Eden - Lawrence D. wrote: Fellow Listers, I am often undecided about using sharps as accidentals in flat keys and using flats in sharp keys. I prefer to simplify the notation, substituting B for Cb, for example, but I want to know what is the correct way to make the decision. I want my parts to be easily read and played correctly, but I don't want to violate the rules of theory.. Lawrence, I don't know how that old myth about not mixing sharps and flats came about. How else are you going to deal with G minor, which has Eb, Bb, and F#? Or in the key of D, a Bb chord, which is correctly spelled in a sharp key with Bb and Fnat? I carefully watch my harmonic spellings so that they are correct in the key (either the key signature or the key of the moment if I have momentarily modulated.) This means sometimes using double sharps or double flats in keys with a large key signature, though I sometimes respell to eliminate the double accidentals. When I do that, I change the entire chord, not just one or two notes, to the enharmonic. (for example, in the key of Ab major I might respell an Fb major chord so that it appears as an E major chord.) For chromatically altered notes, they generally should be spelled to resolve in the direction of their alteration. So F# to G, but Gb to F, but not where that interferes with the correct spelling of the chord. It is especially important with long note values, or mulit-voice parts like piano, so that the chord and the fingering can be recognized. I found this on the Internet (no attribution I could find) as the introduction to a 2-page guide on the subject. If you are interested, I could email you the whole doc as an attachment. 3 Principles: I. Generally, tertian chords are spelled in 3rds from the root up. But the roots of ambiguous sounding chords (especially aug. triads and o7 chords) are sometimes controversial and, then, so are their spellings. II. When not in conflict with Principle I, lines are spelled so that their conjunct sounding portions appear to follow the alphabet and their skips appear to outline chords. III. When not in conflict with Principle I or II, chromatic notes most often proceed in the direction of their alteration, most often by step. This is especially true of the sharpest and flattest notes. (See paragraph 8.) For jazz things get hairy, as tritone substitute dominant chords should be correctly spelled as if they were augmented sixth chords, e.g., in the key of C a Db7 chord would be spelled Db, F, Ab, B (not Cb). Many jazz musicians freely use enharmonic spellings, which means that those big chords haven't a chance in heck of ever being tuned properly. But I am generally regarded as a freak by my colleagues. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
Eden - Lawrence D. / 05.4.18 / 07:19 AM wrote: I am often undecided about using sharps as accidentals in flat keys and using flats in sharp keys. I prefer to simplify the notation, substituting B for Cb, for example, but I want to know what is the correct way to make the decision. I want my parts to be easily read and played correctly, but I don't want to violate the rules of theory.. - If there is a clear tonality, it must be spelled accordingly, i.e., where the key of the moment is Gb Major, and the tritone are F and Cb. If notated in F and B, it doesn't suggests resolving to Gb Major to most of the musicians. Seeing B in key of Gb screws performer's mind especially when the key of the piece is something else other than Gb. -If it is just a chromatic passage, the rule is simpler. Sharp to ascending, and flat to descending. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] notation question
I make a big distinction between music that is to be sightread in performance and music that can be rehearsed several times. For me this distinction affects not only note spelling--the issue here--but also page layout. For music to be performed at sight or on only one readthrough, I will simplify spelling (this problem arises most often in diminished constructions or substitute harmonies) unless the simplification is grossly misleading (of course, I will do the F# in G minor). As Hiro says, to write a B in the key of Gb in a normal context is misleading. I will also strive more to fit a phrase or a half-phrase on a single line. I will often end a page before the bottom in order to end with a rest where a page can be turned easily, and I avoid anything beyond the simplest roadmaps, especially avoiding a reverse page turn. For music to be performed after several rehearsals, I tend to use the theoretical spellings more often, and I am slightly more loose about the phrase/half-phrase thing. I will still try to end a page on a rest if there is to be a turn, though ;-) Here's a question--I find myself writing fewer roadmaps in general since using software. Cut-and-paste works well! Some people rag on me for this since they want to know if something is a recap or some such. My response is always if you can't tell what it is, turn your ears on--it's tonal music or some such. Simple repeats with 1st and 2nd endings, ok--but much beyond that, I'm writin' it out. If something is meant to be a Coda, I may mark it as such, but that's about it. Am I alone in my abandonment of roadmaps? Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of dhbailey Sent: Mon 18-Apr-05 7:42 To: finale@shsu.edu Cc: Subject: Re: [Finale] notation question Eden - Lawrence D. wrote: Fellow Listers, I am often undecided about using sharps as accidentals in flat keys and using flats in sharp keys. I prefer to simplify the notation, substituting B for Cb, for example, but I want to know what is the correct way to make the decision. I want my parts to be easily read and played correctly, but I don't want to violate the rules of theory.. Sometimes you can't resolve your last statement satisfactorily, any more than you can simplify your verbal writing in English, using only the word to whenever you want that sound regardless of the meaning you intend. If you want the part easily and correctly read, you also have to take into consideration the people who will be reading it -- most advanced amateurs and certainly any professional worthy of cashing a paycheck will have no problem reading Cb. 10-year-old beginners will definitely have a problem, until they are taught how to play it and then it will never be a problem again. For my 2-cents'-worth, I think you should stick to the rules of music theory as much as possible. If the spelling of the harmony calls for a Cb, regardless of the key signature, that's what you should use. That way if some confusion over what is intended arises, you have made your meaning as clear as possible. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale winmail.dat___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
There is one other style worth noted. Take the music into totally super horizontal. In this context, the vertical harmonic structure is rather ignored, thus accidentals are not given according to the vertical harmonic structure. If no obvious clue of the key of the moment is visually affecting to the performer, this is much easier and musical to the performer, and it works file for solo instruments. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
Williams, Jim wrote: [snip] Here's a question--I find myself writing fewer roadmaps in general since using software. Cut-and-paste works well! Some people rag on me for this since they want to know if something is a recap or some such. My response is always if you can't tell what it is, turn your ears on--it's tonal music or some such. Simple repeats with 1st and 2nd endings, ok--but much beyond that, I'm writin' it out. If something is meant to be a Coda, I may mark it as such, but that's about it. Am I alone in my abandonment of roadmaps? Jim I've read the same philosophy from several people on the Sibelius list, so I don't think you're alone. My personal philosophy is that if it saves page turns, use the repeats and other shortcuts. I see no reason to waste paper and make lots of extra unnecessary page turns just to play the same music again. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
On 18 avr. 05, at 15:33, Williams, Jim wrote: For music to be performed at sight or on only one readthrough, I will simplify spelling (this problem arises most often in diminished constructions or substitute harmonies) unless the simplification is grossly misleading (of course, I will do the F# in G minor). The big question is: what do you mean by simplifying the spelling? In many situations a supposed simplification will make the passage harder to read. I am a very fast sight-reader at the piano: in my job I need to be able to play convincingly at first sight anything from the opera repertoire of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries (and I do mean anything: Janacek, Richard Strauss, Berg, Peter Maxwell Davies, whatever). I can read fluently if the way the harmonies are written makes sense in the style of the piece, but if a harmonic progression has been simplified so that (for instance) a dominant 7th chord on Db has a B instead of a Cb, this trips me up. I also often have to transpose pieces for the needs of different singers: it's much easier to transpose at sight if the piece is written using the correct harmonic spellings. So I wouldn't make a difference between stuff that is to be sight-read and stuff that can be rehearsed several times: always use theoretically correct spellings. Michael Cook ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
On Apr 18, 2005, at 6:33 AM, Williams, Jim wrote: Here's a question--I find myself writing fewer roadmaps in general since using software. . Am I alone in my abandonment of roadmaps? Jim I haven't abandoned them entirely, when the structure is simple enough. But I write out the things that require double codas - things like that. I copy and paste the things that will make the performance easier, taking into account general layout, page turns, etc. It's a balancing act. Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:19:40 -0400, Eden - Lawrence D. wrote: I am often undecided about using sharps as accidentals in flat keys and using flats in sharp keys. I prefer to simplify the notation, substituting B for Cb, for example, but I want to know what is the correct way to make the decision. I want my parts to be easily read and played correctly, but I don't want to violate the rules of theory.. I (as an editor) tend to amalgamate the two approaches described by other posters. Not to sound overly Schenkerian, but I find that approaching the spelling matter with an equal weight to the requirements of both Harmony and Voice Leading (to quote from the title of the textbook I read as an undergraduate) is the best way to achieve a readable and theoretically accurate score. For example, a passage written as B-C-Eb-E will almost always need to be written with a D#, no matter what the key signature. The line moves stepwise, and for the performer to see a jump of a third will be confusing. As another example, if you're in the key of Ab Major, and you have a Db minor chord, you must use an Fb instead of an E. Calling it an E may seem like simplification, but notating an E in a chord that is ostensibly supposed to be a chord based on D is, again, quite confusing. In short, every situation must be evaluated in its own merits. Developing spelling rules that are intended to be universal almost always ends up being more of a burden than a help. -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Life would be so much easier if only (3/2)^12=(2/1)^7. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
On 18 Apr 2005, at 8:48 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: For jazz things get hairy, as tritone substitute dominant chords should be correctly spelled as if they were augmented sixth chords, e.g., in the key of C a Db7 chord would be spelled Db, F, Ab, B (not Cb). Many jazz musicians freely use enharmonic spellings, which means that those big chords haven't a chance in heck of ever being tuned properly. Wow, do you really follow that rule consistently? I mean, in the key of Db, would you spell the bII7 chord D-F#-A-B#? Because if I had to read a chart that used that spelling, I'd probably want to murder you. What about half-step-above approach chords built on other scale degrees, i.e., bIII7 to II, bVI7 to V, etc etc etc??? Readability aside, tritone substitution in jazz is *not* the same thing as augmented sixth chords in classical music -- they resolve differently -- and so I see no reason why they should be spelled the same way. Genuine augmented sixth chords in jazz are relatively rare. When they *do* happen -- there are some Ellington-Strayhorn charts that use them -- I can see the argument for spelling them according to the classical rules. But certainly not for tritone subs -- let alone all the other half-step approach chords. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
On 18 Apr 2005 at 8:48, Christopher Smith wrote: I.Generally, tertian chords are spelled in 3rds from the root up. But the roots of ambiguous sounding chords (especially aug. triads and o7 chords) are sometimes controversial and, then, so are their spellings. I have to disagree with this comment. In any particular musical context, a diminished or augmented chord should be playing one role, and should then have one indentifiable root, which means there's only one spelling that makes sense. Of course, both chords also serve as harmonic pivot points, and therefore can have two justifiable roots (one for the previous context, one for the upcoming context). That's a feature, not a bug! -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
On 18 Apr 2005 at 10:19, dhbailey wrote: Williams, Jim wrote: [snip] Here's a question--I find myself writing fewer roadmaps in general since using software. Cut-and-paste works well! Some people rag on me for this since they want to know if something is a recap or some such. My response is always if you can't tell what it is, turn your ears on--it's tonal music or some such. Simple repeats with 1st and 2nd endings, ok--but much beyond that, I'm writin' it out. If something is meant to be a Coda, I may mark it as such, but that's about it. Am I alone in my abandonment of roadmaps? Jim I've read the same philosophy from several people on the Sibelius list, so I don't think you're alone. My personal philosophy is that if it saves page turns, use the repeats and other shortcuts. I see no reason to waste paper and make lots of extra unnecessary page turns just to play the same music again. I also think it serves the purposes of getting the players to perceive musical structure much more clearly to *not* write it out. The repeats are clear analysis of the form, and so the performer *knows* they are playing the same music again, rather than having to check to be sure. That has interpretive results (or it should), and I think those should not be overlooked. That said, I wouldn't do anything more complicated than D.S./D.C. al fine. I've performed those complicated medieval poetic forms from original MSS, and it's a pain to keep track of what the hell comes next. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
When I first started using Finale in the dark ages of 1988, :-) I tended to repeat larger sections (choruses or verses) of the pieces I worked on, and was very happy to get away from the use of col bars. However, the major reason I avoided repeats was the difficulty, without the availability of staff lists for repeats, of getting them into all the parts. I don't know how many times I got to a session and discovered in the read through that the repeats were only in the top part of each group. It didn't happen *that* often because I, pretty much, just stopped using repeats. Simple repeats are quite easy to manage, now, with the addition of staff lists, effective plugins, and much easier playback. These days, for a musical passage that could repeat, I might look at the possibility of changing or adding just one or two elements, enough to alter some things, but preserve a sense of familiarity. If needed, I do now use repeats in my scores. Any tendency toward fewer repeats has less to do with Finale than it does with my writing. Don Hart on 4/18/05 9:38 AM, Chuck Israels at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 18, 2005, at 6:33 AM, Williams, Jim wrote: Here's a question--I find myself writing fewer roadmaps in general since using software. . Am I alone in my abandonment of roadmaps? Jim I haven't abandoned them entirely, when the structure is simple enough. But I write out the things that require double codas - things like that. I copy and paste the things that will make the performance easier, taking into account general layout, page turns, etc. It's a balancing act. Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:29 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 18 Apr 2005, at 8:48 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: For jazz things get hairy, as tritone substitute dominant chords should be correctly spelled as if they were augmented sixth chords, e.g., in the key of C a Db7 chord would be spelled Db, F, Ab, B (not Cb). Many jazz musicians freely use enharmonic spellings, which means that those big chords haven't a chance in heck of ever being tuned properly. Wow, do you really follow that rule consistently? I mean, in the key of Db, would you spell the bII7 chord D-F#-A-B#? No, because to be painfully correctly spelled, it would be an Ebb7, which would include the diatonic leading tone spelled as C. Respellings are to help reading, not to hinder it. I had mentioned earlier in the post that I respell the entire chord when too many double flats or double sharps cloud the reading in large key signatures, but if I were come across your example, I would make a considered exception to spell it D-F#-A-C most likely. (grin) Leave it to you to poke holes in my pronouncements. It's good, it keeps me on my toes. But back at you, in the key of C would YOU spell the bII7 chord as Db-F-Ab-Cb when there is a perfectly good and functional leading tone B in the key signature? Because if I had to read a chart that used that spelling, I'd probably want to murder you. What about half-step-above approach chords built on other scale degrees, i.e., bIII7 to II, bVI7 to V, etc etc etc??? They are secondary tritone tonicisations, too, so I would try to spell them correctly in the key as augmented sixth chords, but in large key signatures (especially flat ones!) I would probably respell, but only when I had to. It depends on the resolutions, too. It often makes more sense to show a downward resolution as a flat. I wouldn't alter a third to do that (like D7 to G7 I wouldn't use Gb-F but F#-Fnat, but I might if the progressions was Ab7 G7, even though it isn't strictly correct by my book.) Readability aside, tritone substitution in jazz is *not* the same thing as augmented sixth chords in classical music -- they resolve differently -- and so I see no reason why they should be spelled the same way. I'm not with you there. The original augmented sixth chords were like bVI7 chords, which couldn't usually resolve to V directly because of common-practice voice leading requirements, which have been considerably relaxed in these modern times. Nowadays bVI7 absolutely CAN go directly to V7, which is exactly the resolution of the original aug 6ths (except they passed through I64 first). The concept has simply been extended to approaches to OTHER diatonic chords as well, but they function pretty much the same as aug 6ths do on a V7. Genuine augmented sixth chords in jazz are relatively rare. Yes, they are considered old-fashioned, like cadential 6/4 chords are, too. When they *do* happen -- there are some Ellington-Strayhorn charts that use them -- I can see the argument for spelling them according to the classical rules. But certainly not for tritone subs -- let alone all the other half-step approach chords. Hey, I relax the rules from time to time when it helps, too. Like a series of descending dominants in the key of C Bb7 A7 Ab7 G7 Cmaj7 I would most likely spell even the tritone tonicizations (Bb7 and Ab7) with Ab and Gb to show their resolutions more clearly as DOWN rather than the leading-tone's usual UP resolution. I'm not a tyrant of some sort, after all. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
On Apr 18, 2005, at 3:20 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 18 Apr 2005 at 8:48, Christopher Smith wrote: I. Generally, tertian chords are spelled in 3rds from the root up. But the roots of ambiguous sounding chords (especially aug. triads and o7 chords) are sometimes controversial and, then, so are their spellings. I have to disagree with this comment. In any particular musical context, a diminished or augmented chord should be playing one role, and should then have one indentifiable root, which means there's only one spelling that makes sense. Of course, both chords also serve as harmonic pivot points, and therefore can have two justifiable roots (one for the previous context, one for the upcoming context). That's a feature, not a bug! Your last paragraph was the point I think the author was trying to make. Dual-function (or pivot) chords can be tough to figure out. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
On 18 Apr 2005, at 5:14 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:29 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Wow, do you really follow that rule consistently? I mean, in the key of Db, would you spell the bII7 chord D-F#-A-B#? No, because to be painfully correctly spelled, it would be an Ebb7 Chris, it would be *completely insane* to spell that chord as Ebb7. I know you wouldn't actually do that, but when the exceptional cases start outnumbering those covered by the rule, maybe it's time to reconsider the rule, eh? But back at you, in the key of C would YOU spell the bII7 chord as Db-F-Ab-Cb On a piano or guitar part, absolutely -- no hesitation, no question. On chordal parts, I spell dominant 7th chords as dominant 7th chords, regardless of function. I think it's needlessly confusing to the player to do otherwise. On a horn part, probably not -- if the progression is Db7 - CMA7 I wouldn't write the voice in question as Cb-B. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if the spelling for the horn lines doesn't exactly match the spelling in the piano part. It's all about what makes the most sense for each individual player. It depends on the resolutions, too. It often makes more sense to show a downward resolution as a flat. I wouldn't alter a third to do that (like D7 to G7 I wouldn't use Gb-F but F#-Fnat, but I might if the progressions was Ab7 G7, even though it isn't strictly correct by my book.) Well, yeah. I think it's kind of silly and confusing to spell the Ab7 in the Ab7-G7 progression as Ab-C-Eb-F#. It would be equally silly to spell the D7 in Dy-G7 as D-Gb-A-C. But these are both silly for *exactly the same reason*. I think you'll find the policy of spelling dominant seventh chords as dominant seventh chords -- at least for chordal instruments -- has a lot to recommend it. Readability aside, tritone substitution in jazz is *not* the same thing as augmented sixth chords in classical music -- they resolve differently -- and so I see no reason why they should be spelled the same way. I'm not with you there. The original augmented sixth chords were like bVI7 chords, which couldn't usually resolve to V directly because of common-practice voice leading requirements, which have been considerably relaxed in these modern times. Nowadays bVI7 absolutely CAN go directly to V7, which is exactly the resolution of the original aug 6ths (except they passed through I64 first). That's a big except in my book. I'll agree that half-step-above resolutions are descended from augmented sixth chords, but they've grown up, moved out of the basement, and begun their own lives. They don't have to play by Mom and Dad's rules anymore. Hey, I relax the rules from time to time when it helps, too. Like a series of descending dominants in the key of C Bb7 A7 Ab7 G7 Cmaj7 I would most likely spell even the tritone tonicizations (Bb7 and Ab7) with Ab and Gb to show their resolutions more clearly as DOWN rather than the leading-tone's usual UP resolution. I'm not a tyrant of some sort, after all. I would spell them with Ab and Gb because it's almost always preferable to spell dominant seventh chords properly, instead of forcing them to obey 19th century rules about enharmonic spelling, at the expense of readability and common sense. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] notation question
On Apr 18, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 18 Apr 2005, at 5:14 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: But back at you, in the key of C would YOU spell the bII7 chord as Db-F-Ab-Cb On a piano or guitar part, absolutely -- no hesitation, no question. On chordal parts, I spell dominant 7th chords as dominant 7th chords, regardless of function. I think it's needlessly confusing to the player to do otherwise. On a horn part, probably not -- if the progression is Db7 - CMA7 I wouldn't write the voice in question as Cb-B. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if the spelling for the horn lines doesn't exactly match the spelling in the piano part. It's all about what makes the most sense for each individual player. I think that gets to the heart of it. For a piano player, there is no tuning advantage, and a considerable reading advantage. For a horn voicing, he NEEDS to see the leading tone (at least!) spelled correctly. It depends on the resolutions, too. It often makes more sense to show a downward resolution as a flat. I wouldn't alter a third to do that (like D7 to G7 I wouldn't use Gb-F but F#-Fnat, but I might if the progressions was Ab7 G7, even though it isn't strictly correct by my book.) Well, yeah. I think it's kind of silly and confusing to spell the Ab7 in the Ab7-G7 progression as Ab-C-Eb-F#. It would be equally silly to spell the D7 in Dy-G7 as D-Gb-A-C. But these are both silly for *exactly the same reason*. I think you'll find the policy of spelling dominant seventh chords as dominant seventh chords -- at least for chordal instruments -- has a lot to recommend it. Yet the note in question should be tuned as an F#, that is, slightly lower as a major third, not slightly higher as a Gb minor seventh would be. That's why I would tend to try to preserve the correct spelling wherever possible. The F# SHOULD be tuned the same way whether the bass note is D or Ab. I know this makes no difference on a piano, which is why I don't object to respelling in that instance. But the tuning (theoretically anyway) of a strong functional note like the F# needs to be clear. I would spell them with Ab and Gb because it's almost always preferable to spell dominant seventh chords properly, instead of forcing them to obey 19th century rules about enharmonic spelling, at the expense of readability and common sense. For a pianist, yes. In a voicing for separate instruments, though, when I see an F# in the key of C on an inner part it tells me exactly how it has to be tuned. Gb tells me a different story. So I try to let the player know which one it is. For fast lines, it won't be as much of an issue, for sure, but I think we already agree on best melodic spellings. Christopher] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale