Reggie
2018-07-26 01:06:51 UTC
For those of you who engrave orchestral music in which the strings often have
your typical divisi a2 or a3
Suppose a performance is coming up and you need to print parts from the full
score.
So when you go to engrave the individual parts for any of the strings for
example, (say Violin I), would you:
a) always leave the Violin I "as is" and just \new Staff the violin variable
as it appears in the full score regardless of divisi complexity /
independence
--*(Violin I all on one staff for part)
b) only leave the Violin I as is from the full score if it's a simple score
and not that complicated of a separate part
--*(Violin I all on one staff for part, but only if it's not too complex of
a division rhythm-wise and for not that many measures in the score)
c) always input all divisi as separate variables from the beginning and
actually partcombine the divisi of the same instrument, so as to have
multiple staves if need be on the part version.
--*(Violin I from the start of engraving has already been pre-variabled into
2/3 divisi with a ton of spacer rests throughout the whole part until the
sections needed, then input the divisi notes, then go back to normal, etc -
at the end, use partcombine on the part, etc.)
How do you approach printing string parts for a modern orchestral piece,
regarding divisi? Does it depend or is your approach constant?
Most of the music I am engraving has divisi similar to that of the 19th
century, where it's not too separate of a part difference but some upcoming
projects I will be working on have rather diverse divisi spreads within the
same string part.
So I wanted to begin the project 'correctly' before getting too deep in and
realizing I couldn't do parts easily. You can't really [easily] do a
partcombine with just one variable taht has temporary voices on it.
Thanks
--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
your typical divisi a2 or a3
Suppose a performance is coming up and you need to print parts from the full
score.
So when you go to engrave the individual parts for any of the strings for
example, (say Violin I), would you:
a) always leave the Violin I "as is" and just \new Staff the violin variable
as it appears in the full score regardless of divisi complexity /
independence
--*(Violin I all on one staff for part)
b) only leave the Violin I as is from the full score if it's a simple score
and not that complicated of a separate part
--*(Violin I all on one staff for part, but only if it's not too complex of
a division rhythm-wise and for not that many measures in the score)
c) always input all divisi as separate variables from the beginning and
actually partcombine the divisi of the same instrument, so as to have
multiple staves if need be on the part version.
--*(Violin I from the start of engraving has already been pre-variabled into
2/3 divisi with a ton of spacer rests throughout the whole part until the
sections needed, then input the divisi notes, then go back to normal, etc -
at the end, use partcombine on the part, etc.)
How do you approach printing string parts for a modern orchestral piece,
regarding divisi? Does it depend or is your approach constant?
Most of the music I am engraving has divisi similar to that of the 19th
century, where it's not too separate of a part difference but some upcoming
projects I will be working on have rather diverse divisi spreads within the
same string part.
So I wanted to begin the project 'correctly' before getting too deep in and
realizing I couldn't do parts easily. You can't really [easily] do a
partcombine with just one variable taht has temporary voices on it.
Thanks
--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
