Odd spacing in some computer-generated score files.

[M.J.E.]

     Maybe it's not important, but I'm curious: with many scores prepared on a computer by the composer (as against a publishing house) I have noticed a very strange phenomenon: most of the music is spaced on each system normally, but the last system contains just one bar with a single chord or maybe two or three chords, spaced very widely to fill the entire system.
     I would normally think a composer would plan the spacing of music to fit evenly on all systems, without a single one left over with so little content on it - it would usually be trivially easy, before printing out the score (or setting the computer file in its final form), to adjust a few earlier systems slightly, putting just a little more in earlier systems, so that the final bar could be inserted at the end of the previous system, thus reducing the total number of systems by one. But with these scores, this doesn't seem to have been done.
     I see this too often for it to be mere coincidence (if the composer just lets the music end where it wants to with respect to distribution onto systems), and I assume composers don't deliberately set out to have an almost-empty final system. I realize that some software automatically spacse music on systems and dynamically alters this as the music is altered; so I am wondering if some music notation software, maybe owing to a bug, tends to make the final system have just one bar (and the final bar is often just a single chord, or maybe two or three chords).
     Does anyone know about this? - I'm just curious about it. Are there particular programs that tend to do this? And why don't composers manually alter it before making the computer file final, upon seeing this inadequate spacing? Is it really that difficult to change?
     Just wondering...

Regards, Michael.

[KGill]

Well, I don't know about the latest versions, but every Finale release I've ever used has done that by default through its questionable auto-spacing. It is pretty easy to fix by using one of the Page Layout tools to force a certain number of measures on any given staff system, but perhaps some who are not so used to the software haven't yet discovered this option.

[coulonnus]

Finale has its own forum for questions like this: http://www.finaleforum.com/
You might recommend the contributors to join it. I imagine other typesetting systems have their own forums.

[steltz]

Many times when I've had to play parts like that it's been where arrangements were pretty much still being finished and printed on the first day of the rehearsals, i.e. there has been no proofreading. People seem to think that we'll just cope . . .

[coulonnus]

Are there particular programs that tend to do this?

Is there an engraving file available with the scores you're talking about? Then you can know which program was used.

[M.J.E.]

     Thanks for the comments. They seem to confirm my suspicion that it was due to a rather poor software default - although I'd think any self-respecting composer would find out how to correct it before presenting their scores to the world. I look at lots and lots of scores, especially piano music, looking for interesting things to try out - and I have to say that poor engraving, like this, does tend to put me off a bit - which may not be entirely rational, because sometimes I see this even with scores that do look skilfully composed - but I can't help at least slightly being influenced by it.
     I care about any score I produce looking as good as possible and looking quite professional, so I couldn't possibly release to the world anything that had such obvious flaws in it - so I must admit to not understanding why some composers seem quite happy to do so. It's possible that I am an extreme case at the opposite end: almost obsessive about neatness and correctness. But I would strongly suggest that, in their own interests, composers take care over this: just as I find with myself as a reader and potential performer, I think people may judge works adversely (possibly unreasonably) owing to a sloppy or unprofessional appearance; so composers will help their own reputation if they take care to produce professional-looking scores (even if they are not professional in fact).
     Another thing that I tend (again, possibly unreasonably) to be put off by is clearly wrong enharmonic notation, such as using G-natural instead of F-double-sharp in keys such as G-sharp minor, where the natural is clearly totally incorrect (leaving aside special cases like where the minor subdominant triad of the relative major key - that is, E minor - appears, where G-natural *would* usually be correct - but I'm talking about a simple leading note in dominant 7th harmony - D#7). Maybe some composers mistakenly believe eliminating double-accidentals makes the music easier to read, or maybe it's another poorly-chosen software default that the user doesn't change. But to the contrary: to me, at least, the correct enharmonic notation always makes the music easier to comprehend, even if it requires double-sharps or double-flats.
     I can't say what the engraving files were for the pieces I was referring to - usually they were not present along with the .pdf file. But it does sound as if a Finale spacing default is likely the commonest cause of the issue I mentioned.

Regards, Michael.

     

[coulonnus]

although I'd think any self-respecting composer would find out how to correct it before presenting their scores to the world.

In France we have the saying: A beautiful calligraphy is the science of donkeys.
Would Beethoven have been so productive if he had spent more time writing beautiful manuscripts or if he had done the engraving job of his publishers? The score engraving has to be done by someone else!

[coulonnus]

 I care about any score I produce looking as good as possible and looking quite professional, so I couldn't possibly release to the world anything that had such obvious flaws in it

I'll be happy to examine scores you've produced. Are there any on imslp?

[coulonnus]

     Maybe it's not important, but I'm curious [...] I see this too often for it to be mere coincidence

Maybe it's really not important but I see too often computer-generated scores - from baroque to living composers - with a tiny notation to avoid collisions. On p.2 of this score http://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No.1 ... rt,_Franz) you can see that not only the spacing between systems varies to accommodate ledger lines but also the inter-staff spacing for the same reason.

And on p.4 you can see that the spacing between 16th notes has been adjusted to accommodate accidentals. It seems many computer-assisted editors want to avoid these additional works. Providing a "correct" score is almost as difficult as composing "correct" music

But at least these typesetters provide clever page turns. I see too often printed, expensive, copyrighted scores with reckless page turns.

[Eric]

Actually, Beethoven did care about his publishers and their editions, Coulonnus, very much indeed, so invoking him in this context is foolish!

(Consider the complaints he made about the Mollo editions - unfortunately the earliest now existing - of the quartets Opus 18 nos. 4-6 ; and the effort he put - to a point of "stop the presses!", according to Ferdinand Ries - to get the slow movement of Op.106 "just right", inserting the 2 bars at the beginning of the slow movement at the last moment and rather, I'm sure, to the annoyance of the publishers (ok, not quite the same thing ).