UPDATED in 5th post:6/8 Version of my other post.

[LSL2026]

Ok, I’ve redone this in 6/8 and it solves the whole ties issue, plus, there’s no super strong reason for it to be 3/8 - it was just what I originally came up with and went with.

Monotony on D 68.pdf

(76.98 KiB) Downloaded 195 times

This BTW is MuseScore using FinaleMaestro, which thanks to OCTO and digging around, I was able to use the Flags, 8th Rests and smaller, and flats from Leland.

The difference in the Maestro flags isn’t that noticeable until you get to 16ths and below. So the 8th rest “knobs” are thinner than Maestro’s, and the flags are just a bit beefier with more of a slight outer curve.

I also adjusted line widths throughout: the default for Finale was pretty light, and Leland heavier, so I sort of split the difference - the heavier Lealand flags seemed to need a more substantial stem than the wispy Maestro one, so stems, staff lines, bar lines, ledger lines (and their width) have all been adjusted beyond the defualts that Maestro comes up with.

I’d like any feedback on the general “look” of it now.

Some questions:

1. Originally, with the 3/8, there were 3 measures. MS was placing the notes kind of funny - the last 8th note in each measure was humorously far from the barline after it! I was able to space these better, but I figured by making it 6/8, I could put a whole 6/8 measure first (essentially adding another 3/8 measure). This compressed the groups more but I still had to adjust some. But does it look ok as not a pickup measure (half measure)? It’s a modern piece so I don’t really mind, but if it looks odd I could make it a pickup half measure.

2. In m.5 the 8th rest looks very close to the staff line, but it’s the default position. I could move it down a space. But then it looks a bit far away, BUT:

3. Look at m.11. That one would have been the same place as m. 5 but because of the ones before and after I moved it down for consistency. I think it looks OK in that context - but I”m not as sure about the other context so any thoughts on that - move it down for consistency with the others (2 systems later…) or leave it where it is. And also, the one in 11, leave it where it is, or put it “where it’s supposed to go” (up)?

4. I posted an issue I noticed with an interval of a 2nd and a flag intersecting the upper note (displaced to the right) but if you’re here, it’s in m.28, l.h. I could lengthen the stem a bit, but is it OK as is?

Dang it, this is one of the maddening things about MuseScore - two identical ideas, m. 19 and 23 but the 2nd one’s slur is placed differently. Ugh, gotta go fix that now.

[frames]

I'd prefer the pickup measure instead of a full 6/8 bar for the first 3 notes.

I would try to fit more bars per system and maybe more systems per page: the first system looks really s p r e a d o u t to me, and even with the constant eighth notes, 4 bars per system and 4 systems per page has too much white space for me.

I have no qualms with the eighth rest placement as it is.

The slur is different in mm. 19 and 23 due to the note spacing. I don't particularly like the curve and placement of either slur though, so that's something I would fix in both situations.

I think the tempo indications are maybe a little too precise? There's a lot of a slight ebb and flow, and while the computer playback can accurately reproduce the very slight metronome marking differences, I'm not sure a human could really produce an accurate accelerando from 44 to 46 in the span of three beats as directed in mm. 11 & 12. If this was a film score I'd be totally okay with those tempo markings since it would be done to a click track, but since this is a solo piano piece my instinct is to be more vague and let the performer do what feels natural.

I also think specifying non-accents so much is a little redundant; to me the accented chords occur much more rarely than the non-accented chords, so my assumption as a player would be to not accent by default and bring out the accents when they happen. If you only want a slight accent on some chords, maybe a tenuto marking would be more appropriate?

At the end, I think the "without pedal..." text is redundant since the pedal has been fully lifted at the end of the previous system. If you feel like it needs to be restated, I'd just write a simple "no ped.". I think a lot of the performance directions (like dynamics and tempo changes) are a little wordy in general and in my experience being too specific can often have the opposite of the intended outcome.

[LSL2026]

This gives me lots to ponder, thanks.

I agree with your statements and it’s funny because, if I were looking at someone else’s piece I would probably make similar comments!

Here was my thinking (not saying it was a sound way of thinking though!):

I did want that “typical” ebb and flow that players are likely to do - pushing ahead a bit on a cresc., pulling back a bit on a decresc., but I also wanted a difference between the “holding back” in one instance over another - and rather than put in “rit. and “allargando” or somehing like that, I felt the modifiers “slightly” and “more” or “more obviously” would convey the distinction.

Most of the other things I’m seeing as “cautionary” - after a note is accented in the same point in the phrase a couple of times, it might be seen as a typo or omission that it’s not present and people play it anyway. So it’s a warning that, “yes, this time, it’s not just left off, it is in fact no accent”.

I did question that too - to me, like many, a Tenuto is a “durational” accent, not a volume one, and I wanted a volume one. I did also think about the tenuto marks over the “bring out LH under slur” section - or an accent or tenuto-accent on the highest D in that phrase.

But I’m like “what’s a “half accent” symbol?….

I didn’t feel like dynamics or hairpins would cover it… - Maybe I should just some alternate symbol and put a performance note in…

I get what you mean about interpretation and I’m with you - most of the time less is more.

So I’m going to have to have a think on this.

As far as the tempo indications, that’s why they’re in parentheses - I’ll probably just spell that out in a performance note. At this tempo, 44 to 48 is a bigger difference than we’d realize, but it is subtle still.

Can you tell me (or give me an image) of how you’d do those two slurs? I wasn’t really happy with the arc, but seeing something better would help me know which way to go.

[OCTO]

Try this for your text font:
viewtopic.php?p=3616#p3616

[LSL2026]

Ok, afer pondering, @frames is right.

I never liked the first 3 measures, and I wasn’t really happy with the density of the 3rd page, and I was just kind of aribitrarily keeping it “one phrase to a system”.

Now, I will say, I find a LOT of music “too cramped” which in ye olden dayes was because they were trying to fit as much per page as possible and keep the number of pages down and so on.

With digital stuff today, and with bluetooth page turners, I don’t see this as as big a necessity as it once was.

That said, I was able to scale this down to two pages and it wasn’t too cramped for me (though that’s what I named this PDF

Thank you thank you thank you frames for making me take the advice I usually give to others - which is line up the new sections or phrases to start a new system, or if you can’t split them in half at a barline, and so on.

I also simplified and removed many of the markings - it was “over marked” in that regard.

Ultimately, this is to be part of a collection of other works, so a “2 pager” is good and it fit pretty well.

____

Need some thoughts on:

1. L.H. slurs in 19-20 and following - they’re not the same now, nor the same as they were before, but any examples of a good solution appreciated.

2. I moved all of the tempo indications to the first “element” in the measure rather than beat 1, primarily because in this new arrangement, so of the terms were too long to fit (which is one of the reasons I often err on the side of fewer measures per system or starting phrases at a new system so a tempo modification doesn’t go past the right margin). I fee like, if a marking can’t be aligned with beat 1, then it should be aligned with at least some other musical element - a barline, the first accidental, etc. Tell me if that’s crazy. At least it’s consistent.

3. How does the parenthetical “continuation” of the 8va look? That’s not editable in the same way other text is and has some “code” for the symbol. I need to see if there’s an alternate symbol with the parentheses and I can just plop that in with the right code - otherwise I’d have to create this from an available symbol, or do it in type, with the dashed line made to match - not impossible at all but cumbersome. At first I haded that the parentheses were “off” but now just glancing at it on the PDF I’m OK with it.

___

I just realized I don’t need as long a final pedal marking so I just need to get rid of it in m 38

I’ve left the original 3 page version up from post #1 if anyone wants to compare.

[LSL2026]

Try this for your text font:
viewtopic.php?p=3616#p3616

So this is essentially identical to TNR but with more space after the F, and before the J.

Maybe when italicized, there’s also more space before the F as well?

But that’s all I can really see. I’ll try it in the score and see what happens, but I suspect unless there’s an f or j in the text, it shouldn’t make any difference (just tried it, and it’s “tighter” by a little bit).

Here’s something funny - I’ve never noticed the funky Z in TNR Bold Italic but it doesn’t do the same thing in just plain Italic!

Yours does it in both - which is more consistent. Though I’m not sure I like the funky z…

ooh I like the percent and ampersand better!

[OCTO]

Try this for your text font:
viewtopic.php?p=3616#p3616

So this is essentially identical to TNR but with more space after the F, and before the J.

It is equally-emboldened.
Times (NR) is too thin.