Best way to layout a 2 page score
I realise that this is trivial but just wondering whether there is a convention for it: I have a score which takes 10 "rows" of measures. Is it better to lay this out as 2 pages of 5 rows each or as 6 rows on the first page, (can't fit 7), and 4 rows in the second page?
Comments
In my opinion it's a very subjective decision what looks better and it's more reader friendly (and it should be possible to fit 7 rows on the first page by decreasing the scaling via format->page settings...).
In reply to In my opinion it's a very… by kuwitt
Fair enough. The 6-4 just looks a bit unbalanced to me so I'll change it to 5-5. Decreasing the scaling may fit 7 but I don't think that my eyesight would thank me!
In reply to Fair enough. The 6-4 just… by yonah_ag
For me it depends on the individual score, for example the containing instruments, note durations, dynamics signs, lyrics and other elements - and with each individual score I'm playing around with scaling, staff/system distances, breaks and so on - so I don't think there exist a general rule.
In reply to For me it depends on the… by kuwitt
Makes sense. I'll just use my own eyes to make the judgement.
Title
4
6
Title and 4 rows on first page
6 rows on 2nd page
In reply to Title and 4 rows on first… by underquark
Thanks for the suggestion, I will try it too.
What I had been doing was using a vertical frame at the top of page 2 to match the title area on page 1. This way there's a symmetry about the pages when viewed as a left and right pair, (rather than as a double sided score which is awkward).
Incidentally, this is one of my uploaded scores so if I re-upload will I lose the stats? The layout only started bugging me when I printed a hard copy but I'd already shared it by then.
Tried variations and went for 5x5 with a vertical frame at top of page 2, leaving MS to sort out the spacing.
In reply to Tried variations and went… by yonah_ag
Looks good for me.
In reply to Looks good for me. by kuwitt
:-)