Xenakis

Have your scores reviewed by other users. Comment on old and new published scores and on publishers.
User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 965
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: RE: Re: Xenakis

Post by OCTO » 26 Jan 2016, 17:17

Peter West wrote:Just as I was beginning to think 4 staves would be enough...
(all previous caveats apply)

There are still some spacing issues to deal with here, I know.
Hmmm... sorry for asking, if I understand correctly, can't these extra three staffs be moved to the next system?
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 25 • Sibelius 8 • MuseScore 2 • Logic Pro X • Ableton Live 9 • Digital Performer 9 /// OS X El Capitan, (side system: Debian 9, Windows 7)

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1175
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Xenakis

Post by John Ruggero » 26 Jan 2016, 22:36

OCTO., I recently asked a general question about workflow at MM Forum and most of those who answered work as Peter seems to work, going through the music in passes, notes, then shapes, then expressions etc. with layout at the end. This would seem to be the most efficient approach given Finale's organization, but I have never been able to work this way and for that reason never work in scroll view. I may not lay the music out at the very beginning, but at some point before doing the final work, I like to have the layout in place. This might be a holdover from my hand copying days, because we always worked from complete measure to complete measure, never leaving anything out. Arnstein was adamant about that because it lead to greater accuracy.

So I really relate to your point about the layout with these pieces, especially if page turns are going to be a consideration. But Peter has been through this so many times and so successfully that it is obvious that his system works very well indeed.
Last edited by John Ruggero on 27 Jan 2016, 00:36, edited 1 time in total.
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

Knut
Posts: 855
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Xenakis

Post by Knut » 27 Jan 2016, 00:19

As I said earlier, I'm curious to hear other forum member's thoughts on measure splitting. I'm not sure if an entire thread on this is warranted, so to test the waters, here's two different redistributions of the first systems of Homage à r, original edition. For simplicity, I've left out the left hand staff, as well as the dynamics.

Version A uses a single split measure to even out the horizontal spacing. The result of B is a wider 2nd system and a very tight 3rd system. In the original, these measures are distributed across the entire first page, with one measure per system. Which one do you prefer?
LayoutTest.png
LayoutTest.png (501.02 KiB) Viewed 1724 times

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1175
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Xenakis

Post by John Ruggero » 27 Jan 2016, 00:36

B, without a shadow of a doubt. I see no benefit in reading and only potential disorientation in A.

In my experience, measures are almost always split in half in modern times, which limits them to binary compound meters. This is generally for the best. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, measures were split as needed to get as much music on the page and for page turns, which were very important then (and now.)

However, in a work like the Xenakis, any kind of splitting should be allowed for the sake of a page turn. But I don't think that it should be used to even out the spacing.
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

Knut
Posts: 855
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Xenakis

Post by Knut » 27 Jan 2016, 00:47

Thanks, John!

There is perhaps another benefit to A in that the 2nd system breaks on a longer note instead of in the middle of a run, but I don't know if this is a good enough reason for the split.

In case this was the left-hand page in a spread, and you had to split a measure to facilitate a good page turn at the bottom of the next page, I'm wondering if you consider this particular split inferior to an even split in the middle of a run, closer to the actual page turn. Wouldn't you consider even spacing an important factor in that that hypothetical case?

To my eyes, the 3rd system in version B is way too tight, obscuring the rhythm quite a bit, so then the only option is to do what Peter did: reduce the staff size and/or the size of certain elements. I find it strange that I'm personally not in tune with the general consensus on this issue. I seem to be more dependent on good spacing than usual, perhaps due to lack of reading skills.

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1175
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Xenakis

Post by John Ruggero » 27 Jan 2016, 01:53

One issue is that measure 3 is badly notated. The dotted quarter should be a quarter tied to an eighth. Then the quarter could be on line 2 and the eighth on line 3 and you could have a nice half measure split on a long note, if desired.

I am sorry but I don't quite understand the the part about splitting a measure on this page to get a good turn at the bottom of the next page. I might have to see the particular case.
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 965
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Xenakis

Post by OCTO » 27 Jan 2016, 07:04

John Ruggero wrote:I recently asked a general question about workflow at MM Forum and most of those who answered work as Peter seems to work
Without doubt I am assured in Peter's expertise for the final output - he has done my scores as well! :)

Xenakis is different. Engraving the baroque music versus this is obviously different, and so should be work in Finale.
For instance: if you believe that something is to tight in one row, splitting that measure in Finale is, in Xenakis' case, quite a work.
Therefore I would consider working on the system level rather on the layer level (first only this, second only this...).
Knut wrote:Which one do you prefer?
I would prefer C.
The only reason for this is that splitting measures is intended for correction of spacing, however, in your examples there is the same amount of music represented on the same amount of space - therefore both have some oddities.
If you want to include measure splitting, the final output of two examples should not be the same.
Knut wrote:the only option is to do what Peter did: reduce the staff size and/or the size of certain elements
Different spacing algorithms must be applied to your both examples in order to get properly spaced - I am not sure which, but you have to test it. Unfortunately, spacing in S and F is on the measure basis, which makes it harder to edit (spacing).
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 25 • Sibelius 8 • MuseScore 2 • Logic Pro X • Ableton Live 9 • Digital Performer 9 /// OS X El Capitan, (side system: Debian 9, Windows 7)

Peter West
Posts: 129
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:26
Location: Cornwall, England
Contact:

Re: Xenakis

Post by Peter West » 27 Jan 2016, 08:08

OCTO wrote:A question : regarding Xenakis, isn't it better to start engraving from the layout point of view rather first to enter all the notes and then to move it around?

If possibility permitting, I would discuss with the editor/publisher what they want and after that I would look at all pieces together, calculate pageturns, spacing (including fontsizes and fonttypes) and papersize and, after this has been done, to start engraving.
I would provide the editor small snippets to see if the font, size and spacing is well balanced before starting to enter everything.

I would use first a kind of graphical representation of the systems where the maximum/minimum horizontal and vertical spacing would be clearly defined.

Just my two cents.
We did consider two page sizes and looked at staff sizes too. I made a sample of the first system of each score to get a feel of how it would look.
Six Chansons was not a problem, 6 pieces, two of which in the original use two pages, one of those I condensed to a single page leaving the last song on a single spread.

àR we tried to reduce to a single spread, and on the whole that has been successful. Notes are in and we have a version from which we can make adjustments.

Evryali and Mists are not so easy. Once the page size has been set (to accommodate àR) and the staff size set (to accommodate some passages in Mists), The number of bars per system and system breaks are fairly much inevitable, though not invariable.

Your pre-planning method is fine and obviously is how it would have been engraved on plate, but we have the advantage of the flexibility of computer setting, which we are using to organise the remaining pieces.
Finale 2008/9/10/11/12/14, Sibelius 6/7.5, In Design CC 2015, Illustrator CS4

Peter West
Posts: 129
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:26
Location: Cornwall, England
Contact:

Re: Xenakis

Post by Peter West » 27 Jan 2016, 08:11

John Ruggero wrote:One issue is that measure 3 is badly notated. The dotted quarter should be a quarter tied to an eighth. Then the quarter could be on line 2 and the eighth on line 3 and you could have a nice half measure split on a long note, if desired.

I am sorry but I don't quite understand the the part about splitting a measure on this page to get a good turn at the bottom of the next page. I might have to see the particular case.
This is already on my list of questions for the editor.
Finale 2008/9/10/11/12/14, Sibelius 6/7.5, In Design CC 2015, Illustrator CS4

Peter West
Posts: 129
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:26
Location: Cornwall, England
Contact:

Re: Xenakis

Post by Peter West » 27 Jan 2016, 08:14

John Ruggero wrote:B, without a shadow of a doubt. I see no benefit in reading and only potential disorientation in A.

In my experience, measures are almost always split in half in modern times, which limits them to binary compound meters. This is generally for the best. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, measures were split as needed to get as much music on the page and for page turns, which were very important then (and now.)

However, in a work like the Xenakis, any kind of splitting should be allowed for the sake of a page turn. But I don't think that it should be used to even out the spacing.

I agree. While splitting the bar looks nicer if viewing the layout aesthetically, what works best for the player reading the notes has to take priority if there is a choice. A is like badly hyphenated text, it is readable, but requires interruptions in the reading to make sense of where you're at.

If only Xenakis had used 2/4 instead of 4/4!
Finale 2008/9/10/11/12/14, Sibelius 6/7.5, In Design CC 2015, Illustrator CS4

Post Reply