...
> I'm convinced the whole idiotic notion of combining 1/3 v. 2/4 arose
> from a generation of composition and theory teachers being guided by an
> error in Walter Piston's orchestration book. Every time I've challenged
> the practice, it seems that is the source that is thrown back at me.
> Pi
> Individual parts for each player just makes sense because it avoids confusion
> completely.
>
> This is why I have been recently trying to lay out the score with individual
> staves for each part. This makes extracting the parts a breeze, and doing this
> ensures that I have no wrong missing
Individual parts for each player just makes sense
because it avoids confusion completely.
This is why I have been recently trying to lay out
the score with individual staves for each part. This makes extracting the parts
a breeze, and doing this ensures that I have no wrong missing notes i
"David H. Bailey" wrote:
> I don't quite follow the logic of that part of your argument, but I am
> all in favor of printing 1/2 and 3/4 or 1, 2, 3, 4 if either will serve
> the horn section better.
As a horn player I thoroughly second Lawrence Yate's plea. It has
nothing to do with physically l
In a message dated 12/07/2002 19:40:21 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will bow to your experience about pairing of parts on a page, but
there is a terrible flaw in your logic here:
Hi David,
I stand by my plea that if parts MUST be paired, then it should be 1&2, 3&4 but better
I will bow to your experience about pairing of parts on a page, but
there is a terrible flaw in your logic here:
If two parts are on a single piece of music, with an extra copy so that
each may practice their parts at home, you say: "presume that we will
lose the extra parts and will have only
