NOTATIO

Hi Both

Thanks for your observations. This is my pre first proof checking copy, so as it came out without corrections.
Indeed I missed the stem extension. I'm not sure how the editor wants the last bar done yet, so this is a "do something, change it later" version.

Apart from that, I'm copying the original version but using Durand house style for accidentals, beams and so on, therefore it is not the same cosmetically. The editor has not yet had his input.

Thanks for your support, kind comments and observations.

Evryali starts tomorrow, then after that the horror that is Mists.

Peter,

looking at your test pre proof again, I'm wondering if the horizontal spacing and distribution couldn't be much improved with the occasional split measure. With the consistency of time signature and long beam groups, I would think this could be an improvement without compromising clarity.

What do you think?

Peter, what are the musical fonts?
I see multiple different fonts. I am not sure if they fit each other.
Accidentals look like SCORE, Maestro clefs, Maestro Wide or so noteheads... Flags?

I have to say I agree with OCTO.

Based on what you've said about the Durand custom fonts and house style, I'm guessing the clefs, flags, dynamics and fermata are taken from Maestro, while the accidentals and noteheads are custom made or from a different commercial font. (Score is indeed a very good reference for the accidentals, by the way, so the source may well be Musegraph's Vienna font.)

Together, these elements does seem unbalanced to me too, but since I know you have to comply with the publisher's house style, I didn't bother mentioning it in my initial post.

Following up on the casting off:

After reviewing the original score and your attachment, a visual calculation (just for fun) gives me 14 systems in total, presupposing 4 split measures within the first 8 systems and a scaling factor of ± 1.6. I think this should give you plenty of room between systems, even at 6mm (exactly), B4, and without reducing the size of individual elements.

Just something to consider, I guess.

I'm interested in the secondary beam break issue. Sibelius can break all but the primary beam, but it has never been able to leave more than one beam unbroken while breaking others (short of faking it with a line).

Thanks for your observations. The layout needs some consideration. The original version was a stand alone publication with a 3 page spread. These new versions are to be in a single book, therefore no flap pages if possible. For this reason I have abandoned the original spacing and tried, where possible, to use a more proportional one, but there are just too many notes. Some split measures may be possible. This version will now go to the editor so that he can see for himself the problems with this layout and advise me how he wants to deal with it. For now I'm just hammering in notes and getting it blocked out for visuals.

The font for most things is Durands DSE01 font, which I believe is based on Score, but it doesn't have clefs, so I'm using maestro for now, but following previous discussions on here I may change that.

Day 1 of Evryali. nothing difficult in Finale here, but extremely time consuming. The original generally has 2 bars per system, I'm trying where possible to get 3, but it is a bit tight and makes avoiding accidental collisions quite challenging. The attached is the end of a hard days work, as I entered it, no print out, no checking, so there will be problems. I'll do a thorough check before it goes to first proof, of course.

MJCube wrote:I'm interested in the secondary beam break issue. Sibelius can break all but the primary beam, but it has never been able to leave more than one beam unbroken while breaking others (short of faking it with a line).

Breaking beams in Finale is easy and allows all or any beams to be broken anywhere in a group. Generally one wouldn't, but if there are 5 beams one could break the 2nd and 4th for example.

Breaking the primary beam is not done in the same way as breaking secondary beams. In fact breaking the primary beam breaks all beams.

It is also possible to extend all or any beams. Combining both of these tools allows huge flexibility, though there are still some blind spots. I have, very rarely, needed to draw a line to replace a beam, but I imagine only once or twice in 25 years.

Knut wrote:Peter,

looking at your test pre proof again, I'm wondering if the horizontal spacing and distribution couldn't be much improved with the occasional split measure. With the consistency of time signature and long beam groups, I would think this could be an improvement without compromising clarity.

What do you think?

I agree, but generally split bars are an absolute last resort. I wouldn't do it without consulting the editor, with one exception here where it was clearly impossible to fit all the notes onto a system. If it is required I can do it.