Xenakis

Have your scores reviewed by other users. Comment on old and new published scores and on publishers.
Peter West
Posts: 129
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:26
Location: Cornwall, England
Contact:

Re: RE: Re: Xenakis

Post by Peter West » 27 Jan 2016, 08:17

OCTO wrote:
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?
do you mean split one beat off bar 113, or do you mean make 112 a full system?

If 113 starts a system there is a similar situation. I have tried to make the voice leading as clear as possible which is why I worked to keep bars 114 and 115 on a single system. So far in this score we have no split measures and no single measure systems. Using either method would have interrupted the visual flow more than my solution, I think.
Finale 2008/9/10/11/12/14, Sibelius 6/7.5, In Design CC 2015, Illustrator CS4

User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1081
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Xenakis

Post by OCTO » 27 Jan 2016, 08:31

Peter West wrote:If only Xenakis had used 2/4 instead of 4/4!
:idea: Just an idea!
Why not to use 2/4 or even 1/4 and hide bar-lines if you would to split staff?
Emphasizing on IF YOU WOULD...
Peter West wrote:do you mean split one beat off bar 113, or do you mean make 112 a full system?
Split the last beat off bar 113.

:?: :?: Sorry for an odd question, but don't all you believe that Xenakis notated it unnecessarily difficult? Almost everything could be written in two systems, sometimes probably adding one more. Would the music sound than different?
Just curious what you think.
Last edited by OCTO on 27 Jan 2016, 08:39, edited 1 time in total.
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)

Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Xenakis

Post by Knut » 27 Jan 2016, 09:15

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.
Dotted quarter seems entirely appropriate to me for version B, but I agree that for A, splitting the measure after the second beat is a better option.
John Ruggero wrote: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.
Since the split does not affect the page reflow, I'm not entirely sure either. I must have been tired. :)
Anyway, suppose you had a page break between systems 2 and 3. Would you still keep the version B?
OCTO wrote: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.
Sorry, I don't follow.
My question wasn't, 'which version has the perfect spacing?', but rather, 'Do you prefer the bar to be split or not?'
How would version C look like in terms of measure flow from system to system?
OCTO wrote: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).
Given my original question, using the same algorithm for both versions was kind of the point, but maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
Peter West wrote: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!
Thanks, Peter!

When working as an engraver, I've always been very careful about this. My problem though, is that I find A easier to read than B (i.e., version B looks, to me, a bit like trying to avoid hyphenation when its appropriate), so I'm trying to develop a better sense of what an actual qualified musician would prefer. Based on the responses, this might seem pretty straight forward, but for me, it's not.

The original layout looks even better to me, though, but that's neither here, nor there.

User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1081
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Xenakis

Post by OCTO » 27 Jan 2016, 09:28

Knut wrote:
OCTO wrote: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.
Sorry, I don't follow.
My question wasn't, 'which version has the perfect spacing?', but rather, 'Do you prefer the bar to be split or not?'
How would version C look like in terms of measure flow from system to system?
In a way I don't have any particular opinion about splitting measure in this example (not knowing exactly what it represents, how it is placed on a page, what instrument plays...). But if I look just at the BW-balance, in my opinion, I like when it is split, but I don't like the next row (no 3 in A) which is to loose.
I connect measure splitting with spacing and balance, therefore my answer includes 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)

Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Xenakis

Post by Knut » 27 Jan 2016, 09:50

OCTO wrote: In a way I don't have any particular opinion about splitting measure in this example (not knowing exactly what it represents, how it is placed on a page, what instrument plays...). But if I look just at the BW-balance, in my opinion, I like when it is split, but I don't like the next row (no 3 in A) which is to loose.
I connect measure splitting with spacing and balance, therefore my answer includes spacing. ;)
I see.

It represents two possible layout options for the first few systems in Xenakis' Homage à Ravel at the same format Peter's working with. Thus, the instrument playing is piano (RH only).

It seems to me that we are in agreement about what warrants a measure split, and that our view is somewhat different from that of John and Peter.

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

Re: Xenakis

Post by Peter West » 27 Jan 2016, 11:20

When there are no rules there will always be controversy (just like when there are rules!)
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, 11:22

OCTO wrote:
Peter West wrote:If only Xenakis had used 2/4 instead of 4/4!
:idea: Just an idea!
Why not to use 2/4 or even 1/4 and hide bar-lines if you would to split staff?
Emphasizing on IF YOU WOULD...
Peter West wrote:do you mean split one beat off bar 113, or do you mean make 112 a full system?
Split the last beat off bar 113.

:?: :?: Sorry for an odd question, but don't all you believe that Xenakis notated it unnecessarily difficult? Almost everything could be written in two systems, sometimes probably adding one more. Would the music sound than different?
Just curious what you think.

If I were to split the bars I would use short bars appropriate to the split and hide the time signatures. The problem with using ¼ or 2/4 bars and hiding bar lines is that Finale still includes the space after (invisible) bar line before the first note. It can be removed, but is not worth the effort.
Finale 2008/9/10/11/12/14, Sibelius 6/7.5, In Design CC 2015, Illustrator CS4

User avatar
Alexander Ploetz
Posts: 22
Joined: 08 Oct 2015, 01:55
Location: Dresden, Germany
Contact:

Re: Xenakis

Post by Alexander Ploetz » 27 Jan 2016, 12:48

Regarding the five-stave system:
I am not familiar with the piece, so could you please give a short explanation why this is necessary? Looking at the provided example, I can see some enharmonic "collisions" that would have to be dealt with when notating the material in the normal grand stave, but I would think that this in the end is still much more advantageous than the current version, engraving-wise as well as when considering readability.

Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Xenakis

Post by Knut » 27 Jan 2016, 13:02

Alexander Ploetz wrote:Regarding the five-stave system:
I am not familiar with the piece, so could you please give a short explanation why this is necessary? Looking at the provided example, I can see some enharmonic "collisions" that would have to be dealt with when notating the material in the normal grand stave, but I would think that this in the end is still much more advantageous than the current version, engraving-wise as well as when considering readability.
The 15ma indication makes it necessary to extend the system with one extra staff, at least, but 5 seems excessive to me too.

User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1081
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Xenakis

Post by OCTO » 27 Jan 2016, 13:34

Peter, why not to investigate a new edition, with reduced staves?
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)

Post Reply