I looked this up but couldn’t find a specific post about it.
Rehearsal marks are system objects, and as such can be made to appear on certain layouts and not others. However, this happens as a whole. I couldn’t find a way to selectively show/hide one type of system object alone. Rehearsal marks can’t be hidden at the properties panel either, in write or engrave mode.
Tempo markings should appear on both score and parts, whereas many recording performers find rehearsal marks in their parts annoying and useless, preferring simple bar numbers. Is there a way to have rm on the score but not on the parts?
Question simply must be asked: why include rehearsal marks at all if your ensemble neither welcomes nor uses them? What good does a rehearsal mark in a full score serve if none of the parts include those marks? It makes no sense.
You can also have rehearsal marks display as a bar number with this Engraving Option:
Many composers prefer that system. I’m in agreement with Romanos though that there’s not much point to rehearsal marks if they can’t be referenced by all in a rehearsal.
Well, “it makes no sense” is a pretty strong statement. In fact, it makes total sense in a +500 measure piece when you are conducting, know the structure of the piece by its sections, and want to navigate through it quickly in rehearsal. Performers may not need to see those, you can just instruct them to go to precise bar numbers (which they prefer), but it’s definitely a good aid for oneself if that’s how you’re accustomed to study/prepare your scores, specially long ones.
That said, I guess the answer to “Is there a way to have rm on the score but not on the parts?” is no.
No. It’s true.
The moment a conductor, during a rehearsal, is not aware the rehearsal marks are missing in the parts, everyone gets confused, wastes time (and often money), loses confidence in the edition, and/or gets annoyed. Parts must reflect what’s in the score.
No, it’s not. I’m the composer, I’m the conductor. This particular case, if you need to know, is about a recording of film music in suite format . Not some edition of a concert piece to be published and conducted by others. It’s about preparation and efficiency. And I’ve been told by performers in the past, in the context of pieces I was supervising too, “we do understand it may be helpful for you as composers/conductors, we just find bar numbers more easily on the part”. I still find those letters useful structure-wise (as many others do). As simple as that.
To be honest, I find it a bit amusing (and condescending too) to question certain methods so adamantly, as if your own experience, which may be in totally different contexts, was the only truth. If there is no way to do in Dorico what I am requesting (and the selective hiding of system objects is not so far fetched, by the way) then the answer is a simple no, or hopefully something more technical about the software, not a lecture in music.
Questioning the questioner and the question instead of addressing the matter is what makes no sense to me. Patronizing is not what this forum should be about, I think. Let’s keep it courteous.
This is an interesting subject.
From a performers view it can be more efficient to use the Rehearsal Mark system than the Bar Number system.
Older, classical editions, without bar number system (yet), use logical, musically structured Rehearsal Marks. If you play and rehearse from these editions, you would in rehearsals start “at Letter G” or “three bars before Letter K”. This is much more efficient (believe me) than searching for the bar number. This also leads to a more efficient and rather “musical” way of rehearsing. The Bar Number system leads the conductor to think, he can start at any point that he wants. This quite often lead to situations, where not every musician can find the starting point in time; for example “please start at measure 198” - which is somewhere in the middle of a 35 bar rest for a wind player - regularly leads to confusion and musicians starting to hate the conductor, as he does not give enough time to find the starting point (and later blames him to not come in at the right spot). I am a fan of “3 bars before Letter K”.
You can leave yourself the type of notes (letters, titles, what have you) by using shift x text and applying a border.
Since you’ll want to do it multiple times, I suggest making a custom paragraph style which you can then apply a key command to. You can even style it to be identical to rehearsal marks.
You can achieve what you want very simply. Just enter your structural hints as boxed staff text on your top instrument, then hide them in that single instrument’s part layout.
That said, I fundamentally disagree with the idea. Most conductors use a blue pencil to mark up their score!
In a lot of theater and film music every measure is numbered, so measure numbers are an easy way to save time (or effect a rescue in a live performance). I still recal hearing the conductor calling out the measure numbers to the pit orchestra to catch up when Margaret Hamilton came in ahead of cue in “A Little Night Music” years ago.
Still, this is a discussion forum, and folks shouldn’t get huffy if they ask for something non-standard and others point it out.
I agree, in these environments it makes totally sense to use the bar numbers. Are resting instruments also being presented with consecutive bar or measure numbers?
Instruments that have multi-measure rests customarily have the range of resting measures indicated in parentheses (or not) under the multi-measure rest.
I agree totally…This happens quite often and is rather annoying. Everyone has their preferred methods and logic for doing certain things a certain way and doesn’t need to be blindly criticized for their particular modus operandi when they don’t know the specifics.
Case in point…This comment is condescending and irrelevant to the thread.
Grainger2001, you are right. At the same time it’s good to hear strong opinions from “the practical world” of music making. I myself caught up on quite a few good ideas this way.
This is a good example, Derrik. How long does it take to figure out “please start at bar 47”?
This is still confusing, especially if there were longer rests.
Better would be “please start 4 bars before 51”
Apologies if my comment sounded condescending. If it’s guaranteed you’re the only one ever to conduct it, then maybe it doesn’t matter. And there may be other text elements that don’t appear in parts, like stage directions or instructions for the conductor alone. But those are not rehearsal marks.
Not at all. The request specifically related to to the composer/conductor having different information from the players. The OP also explained that the score would not be published. I was simply pointing out the historic practice of conductors marking up their personal score with such notes. To my mind the parallel is exact.
As @Derrek points out: this is a discussion forum. Until we know the level of experience, the particular use case, genre, sub-genre, even nationality, and who knows what other information, it is entirely helpful to point out standard or expected usage; or whether an entirely different procedure might be a better method of the getting the result desired.
And indeed, once technical procedures have been dealt with, many discussions then turn to more rarified deliberations of best practice vs tradition, or completely tangential matters.
The OP is not the only person who may read and learn from the answers.
I’ve certainly learnt things from comments on these forums. Sometimes I’ve changed my practices accordingly, and sometimes I’ve persisted in spite of them. Either way, it’s good to know.
There is no way that everyone can know everything about music making, and many of us have held silly beliefs or incorrect habits at one time or another. I’m appalled when I look back at scores I engraved in finale years ago; I was very young, didn’t know the standard rules of engraving, and finale did very little to guide me in correct practices. There are also many composers who get silly ideas about how to notate something in a ‘unique’ way that no one would understand when there is a perfectly legitimate alternative that would be widely or even universally understood without the need for lengthy front matter.
If I posted something here and was making a weird mistake, I would certainly want people who are more informed than myself to let me know there’s a better way!
Lastly, if the OP had simply said, “I’d like to leave myself notes at major sections that I don’t want to appear in the parts” we would have never had this discussion. The OP specifically mentioned REHEARSAL MARKS which are quite literally intended to orient EVERYONE during a rehearsal. That is what they are for.
So I still maintain, whether the op (or anyone else) likes it or not, such a request is illogical. But having received more information about their needs, two or three of us have now detailed a way to achieve the desired result.
This forum is a welcoming place writ large, but it is not inappropriate to pose the question I did, and not every post can be roses and unicorns. I’m sorry if it rubbed a few people the wrong way. Welcome to the internet, I guess.
