NOTATIO

What is the preferable staff size of the choral music with piano reduction:
- vocal part/choir: minimum staff size - or preferable staff size, text font size?
- piano reduction: staff size?

I think 6.00 to 6.50 mm staves are *usually* OK for this (for both the vocal and the piano staves - any cue staves showing extra material from the full score would probably be noticeably smaller). I'm less sure about the best text font size.

In Ted Ross's book, his vocal examples tend to make the text x-height roughly the same as one staff-space. Since x-height is relative to the font used, it would take a small amount of trial and error to match that.

Based on his explanation of staff sizes, David's recommendations seem to be about right (6-6.5mm or 17-18.4pt) or even as small as 5.5mm or 15.5pt for choral works.

Ross also mentions that the old "Cadenza" size (4.7mm or 13.3pt) was used for reduced staff sizes in traditional Violin+Piano scores. I don't see why this wouldn't apply to Vocal+Piano Reduction scores.

tisimst wrote:the old "Cadenza" size (4.7mm or 13.3pt)

That’s so close to Elaine Gould’s figures for Rastral 7 (4.8 mm, 13.6 pt). Could they be one and the same?

I'd say that being 0.1mm different constitutes them as the same thing. That's definitely within the margin of error with my measurements of Ross's staff size examples.

The only problem of the reduced piano score is that a pianist must accompany the choir: isn't 4.7mm to small?

OCTO wrote:The only problem of the reduced piano score is that a pianist must accompany the choir: isn't 4.7mm to small?

Oh, sure, but that's not what it means. It's referring to the individual parts' scores that shows both a violin and piano part. The piano part's score shows the violin part, but at a reduced staff size while the piano part is at a normal size. The violin part's score shows the piano part at a reduced size while showing the violin part at the normal size.

If both the choir and pianist rehearse from the same score, then both parts should be at the same size--around 6-6.5mm or 17-18.5pt. Sorry for the confusion.

tisimst wrote:

OCTO wrote:The only problem of the reduced piano score is that a pianist must accompany the choir: isn't 4.7mm to small?

Oh, sure, but that's not what it means. It's referring to the individual parts' scores that shows both a violin and piano part. The piano part's score shows the violin part, but at a reduced staff size while the piano part is at a normal size. The violin part's score shows the piano part at a reduced size while showing the violin part at the normal size.

If both the choir and pianist rehearse from the same score, then both parts should be at the same size--around 6-6.5mm or 17-18.5pt. Sorry for the confusion.

Haha, we confuse the word reduced. I mean not reduced staff size, but reduced orchestral sound into the piano part.

tisimst wrote:"Cadenza" size (4.7mm or 13.3pt) was used for reduced staff sizes in traditional Violin+Piano scores. I don't see why this wouldn't apply to Vocal+Piano Reduction scores.

Now that I reread this for content instead of getting stuck on a detail, I should mention that all of the piano/vocal scores I can remember using different staff sizes had the piano larger and the voices smaller. This is logical because lyrics tend to take up more horizontal space than notes, and useful (if sometimes vexing to singers) since singers can read the music a bit closer to their faces than a pianist.

MJCube wrote:

tisimst wrote:"Cadenza" size (4.7mm or 13.3pt) was used for reduced staff sizes in traditional Violin+Piano scores. I don't see why this wouldn't apply to Vocal+Piano Reduction scores.

Now that I reread this for content instead of getting stuck on a detail, I should mention that all of the piano/vocal scores I can remember using different staff sizes had the piano larger and the voices smaller. This is logical because lyrics tend to take up more horizontal space than notes, and useful (if sometimes vexing to singers) since singers can read the music a bit closer to their faces than a pianist.

That is very correct. I think I will go with David's suggestions.