Score Layout

Notice any big problems here? (apart from the lack of music, ha ha :P)

I looked at a bunch of scores I own for guidelines. This isn't my first time writing for orchestra but this time I want to get every detail right :)

nothing wrong with what you've got there.

It looks fine to me. I wouldn't have that many instruments in the score unless I knew for sure that I would need that many instruments. A good rule of thumb is to only write for the instruments you have plans on using. You have to think if having two of all your woodwinds, a celesta, and a harp would be beneficial to your piece or are they there to fill space.

But if you intentions are to have this arrangement of instruments and parts, everything looks fine to me. (unless I overlooked something)

Looks fine.

There are just some small details where it probably comes down to taste: Personally, I don't like the way Finale sets the instrument names. Instead of "F Horn", "Bb Clarinet" etc. I'd write "Horns in F", "Clarinets in Bb" and so on, which is the more traditional way of writing it.

Also, there are some conflicting views on how to notate the horns in a transposed score. The way I learned it and I am most used to is to always transpose the horns chromatically, without any key signature, in contrast to all other transposing instruments. This has its roots in music for natural horn, which never has any key signatures to begin with, but makes use of different transpositions to get different keys. This practice sort of carried over when people started to write everything for the valve horn in F.

But as I said, there are conflicting views of this, and there are musical traditions where it's totally customary to transpose the keys of horns like any other transposing instruments. (Band music or film music, for instance, and these days even quite some orchestral music.) Musicians that come from a more traditional orchestral experience (Mozart, Brahms, whatever) will probably be more used to chromatic transposition, whereas others with experience in band/film music and the like will be more used to playing in keys. Doesn't really matter that much though. Both should easily be able to play it any way.

P.S. One last hint if you want your score to look great: Try using a slightly different font for the title (without doing anything fancy). It makes a great difference to get a bit away from the "Finale template" look.

It's more usual for the timpani to be separated in terms of barlines from the other percussion, no doubt to separate tuned percussion from untuned.

I agree with the Timpani barline.....

in 2nd page, what is that little 8 number above the Flutes, Horns I-II, Timpani, Harp, Celesta, Violins I...? ... :unsure: sorry I never use Finale....(Sibelius only)

The Celesta is the only 8va up transposition instrument, so I guess means something else

if the percussions are something like Triangle, Snare drum, Cymbals etc... I would prefer a single line instead a staff, and specifying what instrument and not only "Percussions", that too.

Question: Two scores I'm looking at put continuous measure numbers below the score, in different formats.

I guess this makes things easier for the conductor (who will be me anyway, hehe). Should I do this, and if so, any preference between the two methods? Also, any clue how to do this in Finale?

I don't like the way Finale sets the instrument names. Instead of "F Horn", "Bb Clarinet" etc. I'd write "Horns in F", "Clarinets in Bb" and so on, which is the more traditional way of writing it.

That is the way Finale sets it. ;) I changed it because the scores I have do it the other way... they're all film scores, maybe that's the reason.

Also, there are some conflicting views on how to notate the horns in a transposed score. The way I learned it and I am most used to is to always transpose the horns chromatically, without any key signature, in contrast to all other transposing instruments. This has its roots in music for natural horn, which never has any key signatures to begin with, but makes use of different transpositions to get different keys. This practice sort of carried over when people started to write everything for the valve horn in F.

Yes, but if there is no key signature in the score, someone looking at it could easily mistake that for me not knowing that the horn transposes at all ;)

Maybe a good compromise would be to show the key in the score, but provide a part that is chromatically transposed?

EDIT: looking at my scores, there is NO key signature at all! and ALL the instruments are chromatically written out! Even in e minor the strings are written "in c" with accidentals.

I can see how this is useful for film writing (every accidental is on the page) but I'm not sure I'll follow that example.

P.S. One last hint if you want your score to look great: Try using a slightly different font for the title (without doing anything fancy). It makes a great difference to get a bit away from the "Finale template" look.

Roger that.

I'm also making all the tempo markings a bit larger to compensate for the page size. Perhaps I should move the strings down a bit to allow more room, it looks a little squished now.

It's more usual for the timpani to be separated in terms of barlines from the other percussion, no doubt to separate tuned percussion from untuned.

Done...

in 2nd page, what is that little 8 number

measure #'s.

if the percussions are something like Triangle, Snare drum, Cymbals etc... I would prefer a single line instead a staff, and specifying what instrument and not only "Percussions", that too.

There are two percussion players, otherwise I wouldn't be able to for example have a sus cymbal cresc ending with a bass drum hit ;)

Specific percussion - shouldn't that be notated on the instrumentation page just before the score, not in the score??

One final question is whether, in a professional situation (e.g. uni application) people will want to see a transposed or a CP score. I'm guessing transposed?

When I see a fff hit in percussion I'd like to know WHAT is that just by looking the name and the left of the staff ...

(unless you have very few instruments that can be remembered easily, 1 bass drum, 1 snare drum... that's it)

but I insist you should specify the percussion instrumens in the left name.

The numbers of lines have nothing to do with the numbers of percussionists... in that case you may use a brace or bracket to separate the players...

Percussion staffs are most of the cases used for percussions "sets" like several suspended cymbals, Congas, Toms, etc....

The "measure" numbers .... you mean "Rehearsal Marks" ? (so the conductor may say:let's play from K to M...) ... Those numbers are commonly boxed or if not, make them BIGGER.

One final question is whether, in a professional situation (e.g. uni application) people will want to see a transposed or a CP score. I'm guessing transposed?

The Transposed score is better for everyone, Conductor, Player,

Sys:

Specific percussion is notated on the instrumentation page so the players know what to bring onstage. In the parts, each instrument is notated in small roman letters above the staff (like arco and pizz.), like so:

There are two perc. staves because there are two players in the piece handling two separate sets of percussion (e.g. only 1 plays the triangle, only 2 plays the vibraphone).

This is the way I've seen it notated, almost exclusively, in orchestral scores, so that's the way I'm going to do it... maybe it's different in band or unorthodox perc setups.

The "measure" numbers .... you mean "Rehearsal Marks" ? (so the conductor may say:let's play from K to J...) ... Those numbers are commonly boxed or if not, make them BIGGER.

Rehearsal numbers are entirely different. For one thing, they go ABOVE the staff. ;)

Question: Two scores I'm looking at put continuous measure numbers below the score, in different formats.

As far as I know, that's mostly a film music thing, where I've often seen it. It's not typical in traditional scores. But feel free to do it either way.

That is the way Finale sets it. ;) I changed it because the scores I have do it the other way... they're all film scores, maybe that's the reason.

Oh, yeah, I just tested it and it does indeed - with one exception: C-Trumpet. Weird. Well, I guess in the end it's just another question of more traditional notation "Clarinets in Bb") or the "film music style". Again, it doesn't really matter, of course.

Yes, but if there is no key signature in the score, someone looking at it could easily mistake that for me not knowing that the horn transposes at all

Methinks such a person would be a rather silly person! I'd generally assume that a person writing a score knows how to transpose horns, unless I see a very clear indication that this isn't the case. Following an established practice is certainly no such indication. :P

And actually, someone transposing the horns chromatically even may make a better first impression for me, since it shows some awareness of peculiar instrumental traditions, in contrast to just blindly trusting Finale :D

EDIT: looking at my scores, there is NO key signature at all! and ALL the instruments are chromatically written out! Even in e minor the strings are written "in c" with accidentals.

Well, that's also often the case in music with ambiguous tonality, that doesn't want to strictly be "in a key". It's mainly a question of how much you want to emphasise the feeling of a traditional key vs. free tonality. But if a piece is really straight through in e-minor, I'd also write e-minor key signatures.

Regarding transposed scores vs. scores in C:

Again, that's a question where conflicting views exist amongst conductors. Personally, I find a good guideline what one conductor has told me once (and others agreed): Write transposed scores if it's music in more or less traditional tonality. Write everything in C if it's atonal. Between those poles, see where it fits better.

Of course, any decent conductor can read both transposing instrument parts and scores in C. But both have their advantages in certain situations: Transposed scores show you the same thing the instrumentalist sees, which can make it easier to communicate (but not always, since the performer might automatically transpose to C when talking to the conductor and vice versa). It also shows very well in which register an instrument is playing, i.e. whether the notes are extremely high and difficult, or in a comfortable register. But that's mostly a question of what kind of notation you're most used to as a conductor.

Concert pitch, on the other hand, has the advantage of making it extremely quick to gain a harmonical overview in a very chromatic or atonal passage. It is also nice if you have lots of transposing instruments which change a lot during the piece (say, the oboist changing a lot to english horn and back, clarinets that change between a, b, and eb, etc.). In such cases, concert pitch is just a bit quicker to read, which is especially important if a conductor doesn't have much time to prepare before a concert/recording.

But whatever you do: Instruments that transpose by octaves (or double-octaves), still should be transposed in concert pitch scores. (Doublebasses, Piccolo, Glockenspiel, Celesta, Crotales, Contrabassoon, etc. Bass-Clarinet being a bit a special case where some differing pratices exist.)

P.S. concerning your last score snippet: If you mean a Tamtam for the note marked "Gong", i.e. the unpitched instrument, write "Tamtam" (even if a tamtam is also a gong - we've had that discussion here before). The word "gong" should only used for the pitched variant in an orchestral score to avoid confusion. (And if you do mean a pitched gong here, don't use a percussion clef.)

It seemed to me that the staff names/instruments were too far from the actual staves/brackets. I'm talking aesthetically though, I don't know if there are any real guidelines concerning that.

I may seem inflexible but I still don't like the way of notating percussions names, It would required the conductor to keep his eyes in the score very carefully ...

imagine:

....the Tam-tam is playing ... then he (the conductor) is looking at some musician and he turns to the next page and didn't see the new name "triangle" (meaning: next notes will be played by the Triangle) and the last name he saw was the "Tam-tam", ... he sees a big fff hit is coming, (thinking will the the tam-tam) he make a big crazy motion marking the entrance of the ...... Triangle ??? :laugh: .... pimmmmmm... that was it ?... (poor guy):blush:

I think it would be better this way:

- a single line for separated percussions

- group of lines for several similar percussions

- staff for a group of similar percussions that will be played almost simultaneously (single player)

- Name in every page (at the left)

believe me, the conductor will thank you that.

QcCowboy: in the Masterclass threads

Instrument Names

Instrument names will be included on every page of the score. On the first page of your score, the name will be complete, while an abbreviated form will be used on subsequant pages. Instrument names do NOT go above the staff, regardless of how some notation software insist on placing them. The staff name goes to the left of the staff, centered with that staff. If the staff name covers two staves, then it will be centered between the two staves.

He's right.

(That picture is a 1st page, that's why the full names)

I may seem inflexible but I still don't like the way of notating percussions names, It would required the conductor to keep his eyes in the score very carefully ...

imagine:

....the Tam-tam is playing ... then he (the conductor) is looking at some musician and he turns to the next page and didn't see the new name "triangle" (meaning: next notes will be played by the Triangle) and the last name he saw was the "Tam-tam", ... he sees a big fff hit is coming, (thinking will the the tam-tam) he make a big crazy motion marking the entrance of the ...... Triangle ??? :laugh: .... pimmmmmm... that was it ?... (poor guy):blush:

Sure... BUT, shouldn't the conductor study the score enough to know WHEN that is going to happen? AND, shouldn't this mistake occur in a rehearsal... EARLY on? Should be easily fixable.

I LOVE naming, it takes up less space and while it may not look as neat, it is MUCH easier for me to see what is going on.

I'll make some changes and post a pdf tomorrow (I'll also post a .mus so anyone else who wants to use this formatting can take advantage!).

For now a separate post about the percussion issue :) -

QC says his preference is to "use a single line staff for each unpitched instrument, and a single regular staff for [each?] pitched percussion." I see the logic behind this. On the other hand this method hogs a lot of vertical space.

Imagine a fairly standard modern/film percussion section -

vibraphone, xylophone, and/or glockenspiel

tubular bells

anvil

snare

bass drum

crash cymbals

sus cymbals of various sizes including sizzle cymbal

triangle

tambourine

tam-tam and/or gong

bell tree aka mark tree

You could easily have to call for more exotic perc such as sleigh bells, castanets, etc.

Overall the vertical space would depend on how you grouped instruments - perhaps as much room as 5-8 normal staves (at least 6 in your example). That's way too much. It would make all the other parts tiny! The music is written for two players... only up to two instruments, read off of two parts, are sounding at any one time. That calls for two staves, not eight.

You could optimize by removing any percussion staves that didn't have notes. But that method is subject to your criticism - that the conductor has to keep track - only now he has to keep track on the left side of the page instead of over the note itself.

Ultimately Finale sets things up one way by default, and Sibelius another (apparently?). I guess both methods are acceptable but the three Hal Leonard editions I have in front of me use the "one (normal) staff per performer" technique.

The advantage (from my POV) of "one normal staff per part," apart from score considerations, is that a player can thump a bass drum and play a sus cymbal roll, then go play a melody on vibraphone without a change in staff/clef.

You optimize the staves out that you are not using... it's not like you're going to have 12 percussion staves at all times on every page of the score!

Sure... BUT, shouldn't the conductor study the score enough to know WHEN that is going to happen? AND, shouldn't this mistake occur in a rehearsal... EARLY on? Should be easily fixable.

If that kind of error happen, is due to the score, not matter if happen in the rehearsal or after that,...

The Conductor can fix the error yes, but the score is still wrong.

Don't trust very much in the conductor "memory"... "yes there is a mistake but he will surely remember" I don't know this work but very often the Conductor can not remember every single thing, it's just not possible, and he is "reading" always, not matter if 20 rehearsal have happened, but that "reading" is not like a student set in a chair, is like rapid looks to the paper with one eye.

(unless he knows the work like a Mahler Symphony he has listened many many times before)

Changes:

1. All instruments are now chromatically transposed.

2. Transposing instruments now read "$Instrument in $Key" instead of "$Key $Instrument."

3. On page 2+, the abbreviated names are pushed a little closer to the staves.

4. Enlarged title & changed font.

5. Created more room between families (especially above Vln I for tempo markings).

Pdf and .mus are below....

Now comes the easy part, writing a Major Work :P:P

You optimize the staves out that you are not using... it's not like you're going to have 12 percussion staves at all times on every page of the score!

In which case you have the EXACT same problem:

It would required the conductor to keep his eyes in the score very carefully ...

imagine:

....the Tam-tam is playing ... then he (the conductor) is looking at some musician and he turns to the next page and didn't see the new name "triangle" (meaning: next notes will be played by the Triangle) and the last name he saw was the "Tam-tam", ... he sees a big fff hit is coming, (thinking will the the tam-tam) he make a big crazy motion marking the entrance of the ...... Triangle ??? .... pimmmmmm... that was it ?... (poor guy)

Only now "triangle" is on the far left side of the page instead of over the triangle note itself. How is that easier for the conductor?

LOL I think we've both made our opinions clear & either method is valid. All the (conductor's) scores I have use one-staff percussion parts which means this is clearly at least as acceptable as QC's method. This isn't like the case of the guy who wanted to write violas in tenor clef. ;)

where you think the name is better ?

Personally? I like it at Both. But, I know that isn't going to happen. Over the note is better for me.

RE: Percussion

All my percussion parts clearly indicate when to change instruments ("to bass drum"), and when that instrument first plays after the change, I put an indication above the note ("bass drum"). This is in conjunction with having the instrument name on the margin. I'll post an example later.

Maybe a masterclass on engraving and notation is in order? That's a huge order, though...

Maybe a masterclass on engraving and notation is in order? That's a huge order, though...

That could be a worthwhile endevour.

but I'm not volunteering :)

I thing "over the note" texts are only for technical indications like bachetta-mallet type, or other technique matter, but if you really prefer to use that kind of percussion name change "over the note", I would say that the least you can do is to use different fonts from the other texts near to the notes, Bold text would be good, and normal for "bachetta", "metal mallet" etc....

I quoted the QcCowboy texts because he's right in that, not just because is in a thread called "Masterclass", I did not learn it from there, I already knew the names should be at the left, I really doubt that a real condutor prefers the "Over the note" way. (he will look at the left side of the staff, that's for sure)

And don't worry very much in grouping the percussions according to the number of players, the conductor doesn't care if John, Peter or Mark is going to hit the tam-tam, he wants to know when is going to happen.

Actually the Percussion Score is created later, (if you specifiy from the very begining is much better of course), most of the composers only think in what instrument are going to use and when, not how players will have to handle it.

Now if you use both ways....

All my percussion parts clearly indicate when to change instruments ("to bass drum"), and when that instrument first plays after the change, I put an indication above the note ("bass drum"). This is in conjunction with having the instrument name on the margin. I'll post an example later.

That sounds even better to me.

Engraving is very subjective; even a masterclass could only touch upon the basics. There are different requirements for parts and scores, and every publisher has different requirements regarding the minutiae of music layout.

I will say this... Sibelius & Finale's defaults only get you at best two-thirds of the way there to engraving.