How much info is too much?

[Jody Stecher]

I'm still considering the optimum way to present my transcriptions of jigs, reels and hornpipes.  What do banjo players want to see in a banjo solo score? 

My thinking is that in a tutor book more info is better because the score is for learning techniques.  But when the score is for playing maybe a clean spacious page is better.  The player can make choices as to which fingers and frets and strings to use. Part of the beauty of music is that the same musical phrase can have different colors and create different feelings in the listener according to what techniques are used to create the sound. Below is an example of six ways to play the first measure of The Ship In Full Sail. The notes are the same; the effect is different and there are more than six ways.

How much guidance do the banjo players on this site want to see?  

And what about chord letters?  Some would like them to be there. Some don't. At first the chords I entered had such big letters that it competed with the musical notes. Then I found out how to reduce their size.  

Also below is a slightly revised version of The Ship In Full Sail with chords above the staff.  Does this look good or bad?

Scroll down a bit to see the full score.

[Trapdoor2]

I think simple is best. Like you said, you're not teaching, you're presenting. If you have performance suggestions (like tempo, dynamics, grace-notes, slides, etc.) put them in...we can certainly ignore them!

I would suggest a more readable format though. I prefer to have each part stand alone. That is, no repeats or voltas in the middle of a stave. For your example,  the A part would take up two full-width lines. Then the same for the B and C parts. I also like having the parts labeled...A, B, C. Half the fiddlers I know like to start on the B part. It's nice to know which is which!

[Jody Stecher]

Ah!  Musescore lined it up neatly automatically but the result was that the final measure was on a new page. So I kept squeezing measures until there was room for it all be on one page. this was for the purpose of presenting progress here.

I'll see what I can do to make it look better.   But what about the chord symbols?  To me they look like clutter but not all players have an intuitive sense about chord changes so I'm on the fence about putting in chord letters.

Trapdoor2 said:

I think simple is best. Like you said, you're not teaching, you're presenting. If you have performance suggestions (like tempo, dynamics, grace-notes, slides, etc.) put them in...we can certainly ignore them!

I would suggest a more readable format though. I prefer to have each part stand alone. That is, no repeats or voltas in the middle of a stave. For your example,  the A part would take up two full-width lines. Then the same for the B and C parts. I also like having the parts labeled...A, B, C. Half the fiddlers I know like to start on the B part. It's nice to know which is which!

[Jody Stecher]

Is there an easy way to do this? With the volta the first part has 9 measures. So one line has to have 4 measures and the other 5. How is that done, without spending a lot of time stretching out the size of each measure?  And which line should have 4 and which 5?

Most of my experience with Musescore has been in connection with a regular column I used to write for Fiddler Magazine. The most important factor was shortage  of space on the printed page.  The more compact the better. So I learned to start a B part on the same line as the end of the A part.

As to which is which, (A or B or C etc) this can only be known when the composer is known. Take Arkansas Traveler for instance. Some fiddlers start on the high part. Some start on the low part. Which ever is played first is the A part on that occasion.

In a transcription the part presented first is the A part. The next one is the B part.  That seems self-evident. What am I missing here?

Trapdoor2 said:

I would suggest a more readable format though. I prefer to have each part stand alone. That is, no repeats or voltas in the middle of a stave. For your example,  the A part would take up two full-width lines.

Then the same for the B and C parts. 

[Jody Stecher]

I tried the System Break method but that created a hideous look with 6 squeezed measures on the first line and 3 very long absurd looking measures on the second line. I'll keep messing with it.

[Jody Stecher]

OK I think I got it. How's this?

Jody Stecher said:

I tried the System Break method but that created a hideous look with 6 squeezed measures on the first line and 3 very long absurd looking measures on the second line. I'll keep messing with it.

[IAN SALTER]

I think that the two Turner books of 60 and 101 breakdowns, jigs and hornpipes etc, present the tunes in an ideal format and your score only appears to differ from those with the addition of chord symbols. 

[Trapdoor2]

Getting the page to look right is often the worst part of the job. I think you're on the right track. The only thing I'd do to this version would be to truncate the B part to 8 measures and use voltas.

To stretch/shrink a part, I apply a system break at the end of each part, then I highlight the whole part and use the Shift-[ or Shift-] sequence to let Musescore expand/contract the measures to balance. Sometimes the balance is off (4 vs 5 measures) and you have to force it one way or another with more system breaks. Sometimes I just give up.

Rehearsal marks (A, B, etc.) are just a convenience thing. Meaningless to the individual but helpful when you're playing with others. For complex stuff (like Morley, et al) I like to have them as guideposts. I also tend to delete measure numbering...unless I'm providing the music for a jam. "Now class, turn to #387 in your hymnals..."

I like having chord symbols, esp. for something I might be playing in a jam. I tend to put chord symbols in every measure simply to keep the lost souls from asking what they do when there are no chords shown...

Jody Stecher said:

OK I think I got it. How's this?

Jody Stecher said:

I tried the System Break method but that created a hideous look with 6 squeezed measures on the first line and 3 very long absurd looking measures on the second line. I'll keep messing with it.

[Jody Stecher]

Oh! I'm not aware of these books. They don't seem to be in the library here. Is there someplace they may be easily viewed?

BTW, my latest version, posted in this thread last night, has no chord symbols, except for a sneaky Am and C which evaded detection. I think they are planning to be fruitful and multiply. One year from now the score may be overrun with chords,
IAN said:

I think that the two Turner books of 60 and 101 breakdowns, jigs and hornpipes etc, present the tunes in an ideal format and your score only appears to differ from those with the addition of chord symbols. 

[Jody Stecher]

I like voltas when the 1st and 2nd endings differ by one measure.  A volta's apparently necessary partner is the numbered horizontal line above the staff showing which ending is being viewed. When four of the eight measures differ the lines above the score make the score cluttered and harder to read. Although I'm a bit dubious about this idea, you've been right about everything else so I'll do a test version and see what it looks like. 

Trapdoor2 said:

Getting the page to look right is often the worst part of the job. I think you're on the right track. The only thing I'd do to this version would be to truncate the B part to 8 measures and use voltas.

[Trapdoor2]

Links:

Turner's 60 Breakdowns

Turner's 101

I think these are good for learning arrangements/settings for 5-string banjo. They tend to be too small for my old eyes, so I usually re-set them in Musescore if I find any I like.

Miz Diane is creating a huge spreadsheet of all my music, which will essentially be a global "table of contents" (of which there is none in either Turner books). She's already gotten over 500 keyed in (10%?). When she's done, I'll be able to produce a Table of Contents for both books at the flick of a button.

[Jody Stecher]

Thanks!  In "60" each item has a second banjo part attached. And in "101" we seem to have the 19th century version of Copy and Paste. The various tunes have differing type faces, perhaps purloined from their original publications. Sure enough I found one double jig in 6/8 that looked a lot like my ongoing notation project.  Others look quite dense.

Trapdoor2 said:

Links:

Turner's 60 Breakdowns

Turner's 101

[Trapdoor2]

You have a single measure that differentiates...and it is simply up to you how you want to do it. I was just thinking out loud. ;-) I think having voltas will drive the B part to three lines of 4 measures...so it should look ok.

Jody Stecher said:

I like voltas when the 1st and 2nd endings differ by one measure.  A volta's apparently necessary partner is the numbered horizontal line above the staff showing which ending is being viewed. When four of the eight measures differ the lines above the score make the score cluttered and harder to read. Although I'm a bit dubious about this idea, you've been right about everything else so I'll do a test version and see what it looks like. 

Trapdoor2 said:

Getting the page to look right is often the worst part of the job. I think you're on the right track. The only thing I'd do to this version would be to truncate the B part to 8 measures and use voltas.