I've been through various threads on this issue and am now looking for a way forward. (There is much discussion, no solution as such.) Perhaps this is even a call for a feature in the future?
When I create a Treble 8vb clef, the music is played as if on a regular non-transposing clef. I read that Sibelius' view on this is that transposition by an octave is a function of the instrument, not the clef - a position with which I fundamentally disagree (as an advanced theory postgraduate with special focus on how music is written) because it is a transposing clef and therefore shifts the HEARD position of middle C. I know that Sibelius can manage it because if one creates a Tenor Voice part from scratch, it transposes like a boss. However, my question is about creating a new part or a special section in an existing part.
Anyway, I have come to see it as simply a limit on Sibelius' functionality which no other music notation software seems to have. In Finale, for example, transposing clefs actually transpose and respond to the "View in Concert Pitch" event.
But argument aside: is there a simple way to set a transposition-by-octave property on a clef or stave once I've created it?
Additionally (I simply can't find this anywhere): if I create a special clef in the middle of a line (say, to save writing too many ledger lines), is there a way to make the playback happen in the correct register?
With thanks! Please don't take my tone above as aggressive, but rather frustrated to the core. When one becomes accustomed to a logical flow in one environment, discovering that the new product doesn't have the toolpath is rather vexing.
There is no way in Sibelius to get a clef to transpose by an octave. For instance, in the case you quote, the Tenor singer transposition is determined by the Tenor singer instrument, regardless of the clef: it will work whether the octave is marked on the clef or not.
If the transposition you seek is permanent throughout the whole of a staff, then you should be able to define it in the Instrument definition. If you want only a short section of staff to transpose by an octave, then you can use an 8vb line (which you can hide if you do not want it seen).
Gould recommends using 8vb/8va lines rather than octave-transposing clefs because players are more likely to notice the lines than the little additions clinging to the clef.
--
Sibelius 8.4/7.5.1/7.1.3/6.2/5.2.5, PhotoScore Ult 8.0.4, Dolet 6.6 for Sibelius, Windows 10 64-bit 16GB. Desktop no-name, Microsoft Surface Book.
I think the hidden 8va/8vb line is the answer for a section mid-piece. I'll give the Instrument Definition thing another whirl when I have some time over the holiday. I spent aaaages on that once before and Sibelius didn't save my efforts; the next time I tried to call up the Tenor Marimba, both the Marimba family and its instruments had disappeared.... a problem for another day, I guess! :)
Thanks once again for the quick response. I still can't agree, though. What is the point of having the Treble and Treble 8vb clef as different clefs if the software doesn't observe the one and only difference between them? I agree with Gould for a phrase, but this isn't only a phrase issue. The function of ANY clef is to position the stave with respect to middle C (or whatever reference pitch). In the case of the Treble, it's the first ledger line below, for the Bass, the first above. For the Alto, the middle line and for the Treble 8vb clef, it's the second space from the top.
Does Sibelius ever get congratulated on taking this stance? In my opinion, having read a great deal on the forum about this, the software has only been criticised for it. At the least, please could it be something that the user can set under Preferences?
What the Sibelius developers used to say by way of explanation is that, in practice, there are many instruments for which music is published which, by convention, do not show the theoretically correct octave transposition in the clef (e.g. piccolo, guitar, double-bass, and even the Tenor singer in some older scores). Sibelius has to be flexible enough to engrave such editions, so it just ignores the transpositions shown or not shown in the clefs, and concentrates on getting the octave transpositions correct in the Instrument definitions, so that the transposition works whether or not the user has specified the theoretically correct clef.
--
Sibelius 8.4/7.5.1/7.1.3/6.2/5.2.5, PhotoScore Ult 8.0.4, Dolet 6.6 for Sibelius, Windows 10 64-bit 16GB. Desktop no-name, Microsoft Surface Book.
I guess every writer has at least one issue with the software, which is otherwise (mostly) robust! :) I guess you can please some of the people some of the time. Your job must at times be thankless! :)
I remember when the octavating clefs did transpose in the early versions of Sib, and this was the only way you could get guitar and bass staves to playback in the correct octave. I'm sure glad that I don't need to use such antiquity now.
MuseScore still does the same thing for guitars (you need to specify an octave transposing clef for guitars, which they believe is the correct notation). This is why I don't use MuseScore.
> What is the point of having the Treble and Treble 8vb clef as different clefs if the software doesn't observe the one and only difference between them?
There's no point at all in having them in any form of music notation, IMO.
I doubt whether any hand-copyists would have wasted their time adding little 8s and 15s to clefs, but once somebody has made an engraving punch, it became just as easy to include them as not.
And once somebody writes some computer software that can print them, everybody else has to tick the same box on their "product features list", so they become an indestructible weed.
There are a few situations where it's NOT obvious which octave the notes are supposed to be played (for example whether 18th century scores with horns in B flat were intended for "alto" or "basso" instruments) - but there is absolutely no value in adding little 8's to vocal tenor parts or guitar music IMHO. If a guitarist or a singer is so clueless that they try to perform the part an octave too high, that's their personal problem!
I am a tenor and much prefer to see the treble clef with the little 8.
However, I don't need it in order to tell me which octave to sing in. Rather, as extra help in locating my part when changing systems. This is especially so when the composer is chopping and changing the voices taking part. I look for "T." and also the little 8.
It's fine if your part is the top- or the bottom-most, but us in-betweeners need all the help we can get to identify our line. I occasionally have to put a mark at the beginning of each system, but have not yet had to resort to highlighting my part in day-glo yellow that some people use....
Cheers,
JohnF
--
Music Editor / Engraver
Sib.v.8.4.2; user since Acorn Sib7; Photoscore Ultimate 8.0.4; GPO4.02
MacOS Sierra 10.12; iMac 27-inch Retina 5K 4 GHz Intel Core i7; 24 GB 1600 MHz DDR3; 2nd Dell 27-inch monitor
One shouldn't assume singers are only reading their own part. If one is reading a choral score with a complex layout one must either glance at the clefs, read long or short names in the right margin, or (in non-polychoral works) rely on SSSSSSAAAAAATTTTTTBBBBBB always having the 2nd brace of multiple staves from the bottom always assigned to tenors, an assumption that can break down with hidden empty staves.
Surely "Tenor" or "Tnr" or "T" preceding a treble clef is adequate in establishing the transposition of that staff. I don't quite understand, however, why individual choir members have to read their part from a full vocal score. Instrumentalists seem to cope OK with just their own dots and rests to worry about.
Adrian: I'm an experienced singer and instrumentalist and I can read whatever on whatever. However, for most choral singers that I know, they read the other parts in addition to their own; as Richard points out. Unlike other instrumentalists, most singers can't just press a button or combination and be sure that the result will be a F# or D or whichever note. Rather, singers use the other parts as reference when making an entry after rests, both for pitch and rhythmic placement. Some choirs even encourage sections at rest to sing another part softly in order to remain fully engaged.
"I don't quite understand, however, why individual choir members have to read their part from a full vocal score. Instrumentalists seem to cope OK with just their own dots and rests to worry about."
I've had experience of both scenarios.
Most choir members are amateur and many have less confidence than, say, woodwind or brass players, even amateur ones. When it comes to entries and to pitching notes, it is very helpful to know what the rest of the choir is doing.
--
Chris Crawley (composer and horn-player) using Sibelius 7.1.3, NotePerformer, Windows 10 64-bit, Intel Core i7 3.30GHz, 64GB RAM, DacMagic 100
When I play euph or tuba, I couldn't care less what the cornets are playing, but when I sing, I like to be able to get a feel of where the other parts are in relation to my line.
--
Win 10 Pro, 1.6GHz Intel i7 Quad core, 8GB,7TB 7200rpm HDD, Scarlett 6i6, Sib 6.2,7.5, 8.3 NotePerformer, Miroslav Phil, Harmony Asst, GPO, COMB2, EWQLSO Plat, EWQLSC,
Si me castigare vis, necesse est me intellexisse.
The "octave clefs" have been purely decorative alternatives for other more common clefs in Sibelius, for a very long time. They do not work correctly, and they probably never will. One of the main developers of Sibelius used to post here and give some strangely circuitous excuses that missed the point entirely. He's now developing a different program, and when I asked on that program's forum, he danced around the issue but failed to answer the direct question on the subject.
On this forum, he always used to go off on a tangent about how transposition is a property of the instrument, not the clef. But an "octave clef" is not about transposition. It's a specific symbol, that indicates that a specific note is represented on a specific line (or more rarely, space) of the staff. Like pretty much every other clef used for pitched instruments or singers. It's not rocket surgery, unless you want to meander off into transposition land and ignore the simple function of a clef.
There are several work-arounds, such as applying an instrument transposition, or a hidden 8va line, but none of them really do it right, which would be a very simple thing to do. If you could define your own clefs, you could make a proper octave clef, but I don't know how to do it, or if it's even poss
--
Cause
The "octave clefs" lost their transposition properties when instrument definitions were introduced into Sib. It makes sense to keep all instrument transpositions in one place. The octave clefs are relics from a bygone era, to be used if you so wish. Most tenor and baritone singers know that a regular treble clef on their part means that the written notes are to sound an octave lower, just as piccolo players know that their written notes are to sound an octave higher.
"It makes sense to keep all instrument transpositions in one place."
The "octave clefs" are simple clefs, and no transposition is involved. It makes sense to keep instrument transpositions with the instruments, but it also makes sense to provide any clefs that people use; even ones that some people scoff at. The use of the octave clef for tenor voice is alive and well; middle C is on the third space, no transposition required. A G-clef with an 8-shaped descender is broken if it places middle C on the first line below, and that broken clef is what Sibelius offers, rather than the real, functional clef, which would be very simple to provide. Or it would have been when there were competent developers.
@Laurence - I have had to do that in some scores, where the publisher/editor swaps between separate lines and combined choral (T&B) lines in the same work!
With regard to the use of an 8ve clef, I never actually think about it. I know what range my voice has in my head and the clef itself is kind of irrelevant. I never look to check whether it has an 8 under it or not. I just have to know if it's a G or an F!
The clefs are provided in sibelius, but you just have to make sure the instrument you are using is one which has the built in transposition.
--
Win 10 Pro, 1.6GHz Intel i7 Quad core, 8GB,7TB 7200rpm HDD, Scarlett 6i6, Sib 6.2,7.5, 8.3 NotePerformer, Miroslav Phil, Harmony Asst, GPO, COMB2, EWQLSO Plat, EWQLSC,
Si me castigare vis, necesse est me intellexisse.
The arguments here seem to be grouped into three categories:
1) What-I-feel is. This type of argument dominates this thread. As they say, opinions are like a**holes; everybody's got one but nobody wants to look at anybody else's.
2) Sibelius does it this way, so it must be right. Sibelius says transposition is a function of the instrument, yet it clearly has clef position capability because the alto C, tenor C, treble G and bass F clef all seem to pitch Middle C correctly. Most of those in support of this don't seem to care about octave clefs, and support their convictions with arguments from category (1). This argument seems unbelievably weak to anyone who's used a different product, on the forums of which this subject has literally never come up. No-one has EVER asked for an octave clef which doesn't apply the octave.
3) The octave-clefs-matter argument. I guess those who use these clefs frequently and believe that they DO make a difference must just sit quietly aside and be silenced by the force of those telling us that they don't. An oppressed minority, squashed by those who've made it abundantly clear that they neither care for these clefs nor think they have any place in written music.
It's been a lively debate, but I haven't changed my stance on the value of the clef. I'm really disappointed that Sibelius doesn't have this feature, but I'll survive. Hey, I'm really disappointed that Sibelius is so horrible to use on a laptop without a numpad, but I made my own hardware, wrote my own driver and now it works fine enough despite the disappointment. I'm sure I'll find a way to make it work.
"Fortunately, tenor singers don't jump around between tenor and bass clef,"
Some of us live in another world, I guess (that's much too easy to say this week).
In my experience, the very best instrumentalists will often prefer playing chamber music from scores spread over 4 stands, even when offered parts with perfectly arranged page turns. And singers don't have the excuse of full hands.
"He's now developing a different program, and when I asked on that program's forum, he danced around the issue but failed to answer the direct question on the subject. "
That put me off, too, though of course I'll bein-ter-est-edto see how ithand-lesly-rics.
The very best way, is to memorize your part, such as is the way with concert pianists. This of course involves hours of individual practice, rehearsal and performance. In my younger days after a few weeks on tour, I was able to play the whole gig w'out even opening my book. Nowadays, I can't even remember which song I arranged just yesterday. It's frightening. P.S. Who won the election? It's slipped my mind.
