Finale Forum

You have "fixed Size" ticked for only one of the categories.

Both parts are indeed correct. No further transposition needed.

You may indeed find this clearer, but as an orchestral librarian for over a quarter century, I predict that the vast majority of musicians would interpret this as two separate crescendi, with a drop in dynamic at the second measure.

I can't tell which staff you originally entered the notes in, but try moving everything to the other staff (and then, of course, use the cross-staff command.

This usually fixes it for me.

Peter Thomsen wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:06 am

In music notation all staff-lines are strictly horizontal, never slanted.
And all barlines, stems, accidentals, &c. are strictly vertical, never slanted.

Apparently you have never seen any works by George Crumb...

It should be pointed out that this notation is incorrect. The inner tuplet should be notated as 16th's, not 32nd's.

No problems here.

Do you have the 64 bit version?

David Ward wrote: Was that one of the pieces he wrote for the late Alan Hacker? Alan played one or two pieces of mine, including in 1976 my most extreme theatrical piece The Death of Ferdia which he genuinely seemed to like rather more than I think I did!

I believe so. It is called Hymnos.

I think any thing up to A is practical. Above that it is possible, but can be dicey in terms of intonation and blend. That being said, check out the last note of Enescu's first Romanian Rhapsody. Perfect place for a high C! There is also a high C in Strauss' Sinfonia Domestica, and Bourgeois Gentilh...

I held a tenured titled position in a large regional orchestra for 30 years (now retired).

I would not use that fingering because

a) it sounds bad

b) it is out of tune

c) The original fingering is not all that difficult unless you are a beginner.

With all due respect to Mr. Stiffler, a professional clarinetist would never do that.

However, you can just keep your right hand down for the G. I can easily alternate between those two notes at least twice as fast as you have indicated.

Mister Bebop wrote:why would anybody ever use Sibelius? Such a weak program!

Take a look at Boosey and Hawkes' new Copland edition to get your answer.

[Getting ready to duck...]

I prefer the OP's revision because you can see the middle of the measure.

Instead of a double-dotted half note, I would have notated this as a half tied to a dotted quarter.

Also keep in mind conductors like scores that easily fit in a bag or briefcase. In my opinion 10X14 is the largest you would want to go.

About freaking time!

Sibelius has been doing this since the '90's.

To be totally fair, it sounds like you are talking about D*****.

motet wrote:I imagine an alto clarinet part could be easily taken over by an alto sax?

Not really. The lowest note on an alto clarinet is (written) e-flat below the treble staff. Alto sax only goes to B-flat a fifth above that.

Maybe this thread is going into the realm of TMI?

I would say that E-flat soprano clarinets are much more common now than alto clarinets, which are nearly extinct. Most of the newer (by newer I mean past 30 years or so) repertoire doesn't use it at all. Of course there are always outliers, like the Ingolf Dahl Sinfonietta, which has an alto clarine...

...and put a word extension after "the".

For the 6th tone symbol, try the Bravura font (Google it!).

There is also a Microtonal Notation font I found somewhere that has many symbols.

Perhaps if someone in the Met Orchestra fixes a mistake in an old published edition and somehow other music librarians all get a hold of that and somehow pick the mistakes out of bowings and cuts and other things only peculiar to the Met's edition, the errata can somehow be shared, but that seems l...

Although, to answer your original question, it should be labelled "Clarinet in C".

Most professionals can transpose C parts by sight unless the music is really complicated (say, the stage band part in Wozzeck).

It depends upon the copyright laws of which country you are in. It may make a difference in the US, but probably not in Canada or the EU. In my opinion you are essentially just as protected if you keep the original copyright date and specify the date of revisions, but if you are really concerned you...

In this case, wouldn't it be clearer not to use measure repeats at all, or at least not use the measure repeat symbol for the final measure?