If I have a division in 2 parts which then becomes a division in 3 parts before going back to unison, is it normal that if:
the first bar of the system is ‘a 2’
bars 2-4 of the system are ‘a 3’
bars 5-6 are ‘unis.’
bar 7 is ‘a 2’
Then the third staff is not shown at all and the music is just missing from the score in page view? I vaguely recall a rule here, something like “only the first division in a system dictates visibility” but I also recall that, if there is ‘unis.’ at the beginning, and ‘a 2’ later in the system, the two staves are shown throughout.
Please do not comment the possibly silliness of the above division, it is more an experiment than a real situation. I’m just trying to understand how best to plan some more-complex-than-needed string parts.
Sadly you’re right. In cases like this, which aren’t very hypothetical at all by the way, it’s often most practical to put 2 of the 3 divisi parts into one staff and add some explanatory text.
Indeed, the issue was what part to double for the third division when it wasn’t needed. In the score, in the end, the limitation is pointless because the rhythm is the same so the conductor just needs to see the chord.
I was trying to do some housekeeping with parts preparation on the horizon but it seems I have complicated my life beyond reason and added plenty of divisi and unison throughout which I will probably go back, delete and rejoin parts unless truly needed. Then, I will make a copy of the file for parts and add/remove staves manually whenever needed, or add division if it is better. Thanks @hrnbouma for chiming in, indeed it is a PITA situation.
On this point, when creating divisi in general, is it better to restore unison immediately after the end of a division or only when the unison comes into play?
When I do instrument changes, I prefer to have it come on the first note of the new instrument. I wonder if this is kind of connected at least in spirit.
If you have condensing turned off and you don’t restore the unison right away, you risk duplicating fully empty staves. But if condensing is on, the ‘unis.’ label always appears at the location of the signpost, logical or not.
In this case I am experimenting with condensing ON but it is being a bit of a hit and miss experience. In any case, I’m having to add plenty of manual ‘div.’ and ‘unis.’ playing techniques, regardless of condensing.
Is there a way to hide duplicated staves? Ideally, I’d like to replicate the attached photo from Gould, but there just doesn’t seem any way to do it. Frustrating as anything.
