Re: [Finale] Notation Question/Clarification

[Blake Richardson]

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

[Doug Walter]

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 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

Re: [Finale] Notation Question/Clarification

[Haroldo Mauro]

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 Smith  
wrote:

> 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

[SN jef chippewa]

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

[Christopher Smith]

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

Re: [Finale] Notation Question/Clarification

[David H. Bailey]

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

[Blake Richardson]

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

[John Howell]

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

[Marcello Noia]

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

[David H. Bailey]

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

[Steve Parker]

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

[Chuck Israels]

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

[Darcy James Argue]

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

[David W. Fenton]

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

[Blake Richardson]

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

[David H. Bailey]

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

[Scott Jones]

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

[Giovanni Andreani]

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

[SN jef chippewa]

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

[arabushka]

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

[John Howell]

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

[Blake Richardson]

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

[Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre]

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

[SN jef chippewa]

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

[John Howell]

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

[Steve Parker]

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

[Raymond Horton]

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

[David W. Fenton]

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

[Steve Parker]

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

[David W. Fenton]

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

[A-NO-NE Music]

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

[Barbara Levy]

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

[Ryan]

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

[SN jef chippewa]

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

[Steve Parker]

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

[dhbailey]

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

[shirling neueweise]

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

[Barbara Touburg]

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

[Christopher Smith]

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

[Barbara Touburg]

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

[shirling neueweise]

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

[Aaron Rabushka]

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

[Rich Caldwell]

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

[Aaron Sherber]

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

[Rich Caldwell]

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

[Michael Cook]

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

[Aaron Sherber]

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

[David W. Fenton]

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

[Michael Cook]

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

[Darcy James Argue]

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

[Eden - Lawrence D.]

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

[dhbailey]

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

[Christopher Smith]

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

[A-NO-NE Music]

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

[Williams, Jim]

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

[A-NO-NE Music]

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

[dhbailey]

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

[Michael Cook]

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

[Chuck Israels]

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

[Brad Beyenhof]

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

[Darcy James Argue]

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

[David W. Fenton]

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

[David W. Fenton]

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

[Don Hart]

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

[Christopher Smith]

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

[Christopher Smith]

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

[Darcy James Argue]

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

[Christopher Smith]

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