the format has been around longer than copy shops available to the
home user. although this could have been a justification later on.
but i find the extra play you have with 9x12 or 9.5x12.5 to be
extremely valuable for the layout of parts. letter size always
causes problems for elegant layo
Most of my Kalmus parts are (approximately) 10x13 with (approximately) 1
inch margins all around. Kalmus is an American company, but they mostly
just reprint European editions.
Computers take the "approximately" out of the equations, but 10x13 with 1
inch margins is very much within the Kalmus nor
>Eh, what's wrong with 10x13? It is extremely standard in orchestra parts.
... in the states perhaps.
>I am surprised the site list 11x14 as "second best". 11x14 is awful...
it (or B4) can be very useful for performance scores (say 3-5 or so
players) but not for individual parts.
>I also don'
Music paper sizes between 9x12 and 10x13 came into use long before there
were photocopiers. I think it is because it is a good match to available
real estate on a music stand.
10x13 parts fit inside standard band and orchestra folders without any
problems, claims here to the contrary. Some organiz
At 7:09 PM + 11/1/12, Lawrence Yates wrote:
>Here in the UK, most photocopiers work on A4 or A3. We always believed
>that publishers used the unusual (to us) sizes so that the music couldn't
>be easily copied.
Interesting theory. I've always assumed that
this was a size produced by folding
Here in the UK, most photocopiers work on A4 or A3. We always believed
that publishers used the unusual (to us) sizes so that the music couldn't
be easily copied.
On 1 November 2012 18:49, David H. Bailey <
dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com> wrote:
> On 11/1/2012 8:43 AM, Robert Patterson wro
On 11/1/2012 8:43 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
> Eh, what's wrong with 10x13? It is extremely standard in orchestra parts. I
> am surprised the site list 11x14 as "second best". 11x14 is awful, because
> it does not fit in standard orchestra/band folders. 9x12 is essentially
> equally as common as 1
At 7:43 AM -0500 11/1/12, Robert Patterson wrote:
>Eh, what's wrong with 10x13? It is extremely standard in orchestra parts. I
>am surprised the site list 11x14 as "second best". 11x14 is awful, because
>it does not fit in standard orchestra/band folders. 9x12 is essentially
>equally as common as 1
On Thu, November 1, 2012 2:06 pm, Robert Patterson wrote:
> No: acid free Hammermill Accent Opaque 70# offset "natural white".
> I got it from Xpedx, but it was a few years ago.
Xpedx left the consumer market a few years ago, didn't they?
But thanks for the tip -- I did find something similar, 14
No: acid free Hammermill Accent Opaque 70# offset "natural white".
I got it from Xpedx, but it was a few years ago. In retrospect I think I
got 750 13x20 sheets on that batch, plus some number of 11x17. I can't
recall the exact geometry now. I may have ordered 500 of the big sheets.
But the price
On Thu, November 1, 2012 10:29 am, Robert Patterson wrote:
> The last time I had 20x13 made I bought the minimum which was 250 sheets of
> a large printer size (in the range of 30x40, but I don't recall the exact
> dimensions). Anyway, I ended up with 1000 sheets of 20x13 and about an
> equal numbe
The last time I had 20x13 made I bought the minimum which was 250 sheets of
a large printer size (in the range of 30x40, but I don't recall the exact
dimensions). Anyway, I ended up with 1000 sheets of 20x13 and about an
equal number of 11x17 after they cut it for me. Total cost: $190.
On Thu, Nov
On Thu, November 1, 2012 9:54 am, Robert Patterson wrote:
> Right, but to have properly bound parts of 9x12, you need 18x12 to print
> on. Is that also a standard art size? If so, I am curious where you get it.
It's a stock art size, but it's expensive. Jampaper has it at about $115 for
500 sheets
Right, but to have properly bound parts of 9x12, you need 18x12 to print
on. Is that also a standard art size? If so, I am curious where you get it.
I use 20x13, which I have custom cut. It's a bit more expensive, but not
out of this world. Anyway, as you say, these days the move is towards PDF
de
On Thu, November 1, 2012 8:43 am, Robert Patterson wrote:
> Eh, what's wrong with 10x13? It is extremely standard in orchestra parts. I
> am surprised the site list 11x14 as "second best". 11x14 is awful, because
> it does not fit in standard orchestra/band folders. 9x12 is essentially
> equally as
Eh, what's wrong with 10x13? It is extremely standard in orchestra parts. I
am surprised the site list 11x14 as "second best". 11x14 is awful, because
it does not fit in standard orchestra/band folders. 9x12 is essentially
equally as common as 10x13, so I would say those are the two sizes we
should
On Thu, November 1, 2012 7:43 am, SN jef chippewa wrote:
> musicians are used to 9x12, that would be a more
> appropriate format. and has been a standard for
> very long. i don't think 10x13 is so large that
> the lines (systems) would start to get too long
> to read, but why not use a standard t
the problem you are talking about has nothing to
do with page format. if the music is too small a
percentage it will be too small in any format to
read. ideally you would notate at the proper
size for the final format of the printed parts.
any orchestra musician who can't read the part
bec
I'd like to put in a word in favor of 10x13 paper. It is the standard size
that many orchestra librarians use and prefer. Letter-size looks small on the
music stand and is often hard to read. Anything bigger than 10x13 often won't
fit under a stand light.
But I disagree (if I read it correc
19 matches
Mail list logo
