simile or sim.

[MarkMcD]

Hi all,

Does anyone happen to know if there is a way to get Sibelius to playback simile or sim?  It's such a laborious task to keep writing whatever it is the you want repeated.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Simile/sim. is such an awful thing to see on a score that it would be very unusual to come across a situation where the passage wouldn't just be better with the markings left written in all the way through.

How important is the playback for your purposes?

[Karl Henning]

Simile/sim. is such an awful thing to see on a score that it would be very unusual to come across a situation where the passage wouldn't just be better with the markings left written in all the way through.

It does not directly address Mark's concern . . . but indeed, I almost think it less laborious to add the markings (may reflect my facility, such as it is, in Sibelius) than to figure out how to manage a simile/sim. marking . . . .

[aleazk]

It's such a laborious task to keep writing whatever it is the you want repeated.

Can't you just copy/paste it? Ctrl c/ Ctrl v

[Mahlerian]

Can't you just copy/paste it? Ctrl c/ Ctrl v

With Sibelius, it's even easier.  Select the thing you want to copy, hold the alt button (on Mac, this is...?) and click where you want to paste it.

[amw]

Or press the "r" key repeatedly :p

But yeah, just copy and paste, don't write "simile"—that tends to subtract an extra five minutes of rehearsal time because someone will invariably forget, or ask for clarification, and probably they will end up writing the actual intended continuation into their part directly. And be moderately annoyed at you for the next 25 minutes.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Or press the "r" key repeatedly :p

But yeah, just copy and paste, don't write "simile"—that tends to subtract an extra five minutes of rehearsal time because someone will invariably forget, or ask for clarification, and probably they will end up writing the actual intended continuation into their part directly. And be moderately annoyed at you for the next 25 minutes.

This is the exact situation I have seen whenever I've been in rehearsals where musicians come across a 'simile.'

MarkMcD, I do wish to know why you'd choose to have 'simile' though. What is the context for it in whatever you are doing on your Sibelius software?

[MarkMcD]

Hi Jessop and all,

I'm referring to repeated triplet markings.  I recently wrote a piece that really should have been in 4/4 with the strings using triplets almost throughout the piece, but I took the lazy route and wrote it in 6/8 to avoid having to use (control 3) every single time.  Yes copy and paste would have been easier, but when the triplets are repeated throughout the majority of the score, it's much more common to use "simile or sim.", rather than have the score completely cluttered with triplet marks.  I wouldn't want to use it in many other situations.  Now that I have the piece more or less as I want it, I wanted to rewrite it in 4/4, but came up against this problem.

The playback is important because I don't imagine I will ever have a live orchestra play it, so the only option is an electronic playback.

Many people have also suggested having a second score that doesn't playback as I would like, but that looks correct for presentation and for the players, which I don't think is a bad idea.

Thanks for all your thoughts so far.
Mark

[Karl Henning]

I'll suggest that the 3's are not typographic clutter, but will keep things clear for the performers.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Omitting the 3s seem a very old fashioned thing to do as well. It causes confusion more often than not.

[MarkMcD]

Thanks Karl and Jessop,

In that case, I won't bother trying to omit them, and using copy, paste and re-input pitch is not such a hard slog.  Thanks a lot for your input.

Mark

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Curiously, is this an original composition of yours? I think we'd be very interested to hear it once it is done. Best wishes with your progress.

[MarkMcD]

It is an original of mine but at the moment it's presented in 6/8 as I mentioned earlier but it was pointed out to me that it is more obviously 4/4 at least for the melody, and this is why I was thinking of re-writing it in 4/4, hence the repeated triplets.

If you would like to hear it, it's in the compositions page named "Discussions in D minor"  There is a new link in one of my comments about halfway down as I have revised it since the first posting (and am continuing to revise it as new issues arise lol).

Mark

[Mahlerian]

It is an original of mine but at the moment it's presented in 6/8 as I mentioned earlier but it was pointed out to me that it is more obviously 4/4 at least for the melody, and this is why I was thinking of re-writing it in 4/4, hence the repeated triplets.

If you would like to hear it, it's in the compositions page named "Discussions in D minor"  There is a new link in one of my comments about halfway down as I have revised it since the first posting (and am continuing to revise it as new issues arise lol).

Mark

If it's 4/4 with triplets constantly, shouldn't it be notated in 12/8 rather than 6/8?  The latter is a 2-beat pattern, while the former is a four-beat pattern.

[MarkMcD]

Hi Mahlerian,

I opted for 6/8 because I wanted 1 pair of semiquaver arpeggios per bar (6 and 6) for the ostinato, so that each bar could begin with a chromatic rise or fall, but thinking about it now, 4/4 wont give me that pattern so perhaps it will have to be 2/4, or I might just leave it as 6/8 and save myself a lot of needless work.

You've commented on the piece yourself, what are your thoughts on the time signature?

[Mahlerian]

Hi Mahlerian,

I opted for 6/8 because I wanted 1 pair of semiquaver arpeggios per bar (6 and 6) for the ostinato, so that each bar could begin with a chromatic rise or fall, but thinking about it now, 4/4 wont give me that pattern so perhaps it will have to be 2/4, or I might just leave it as 6/8 and save myself a lot of needless work.

You've commented on the piece yourself, what are your thoughts on the time signature?

I haven't taken a look since a few weeks ago, so you'd have to put it up again for me to comment.

[BasilValentine]

Hi Jessop and all,

I'm referring to repeated triplet markings.  I recently wrote a piece that really should have been in 4/4 with the strings using triplets almost throughout the piece, but I took the lazy route and wrote it in 6/8 to avoid having to use (control 3) every single time.  Yes copy and paste would have been easier, but when the triplets are repeated throughout the majority of the score, it's much more common to use "simile or sim.", rather than have the score completely cluttered with triplet marks. I wouldn't want to use it in many other situations.  Now that I have the piece more or less as I want it, I wanted to rewrite it in 4/4, but came up against this problem.

The playback is important because I don't imagine I will ever have a live orchestra play it, so the only option is an electronic playback.

Many people have also suggested having a second score that doesn't playback as I would like, but that looks correct for presentation and for the players, which I don't think is a bad idea.

Thanks for all your thoughts so far.
Mark

It is simple to get rid of the 3s for a series of triplets. Select the swath of text for which you want to remove them, go to Edit > Filter > Tuplets. All of the 3s in the whole swath will be selected. Then just execute a hide command (command-shift + H) and they will all disappear without affecting playback.

Incidentally, the edit filter can be used for many repetitive tasks because with it one can individually select anything, a pattern of articulation, slurs, dynamics, etc., and then copy that pattern into a passage for which the notes are different but the articulation, slurs or dynamics are the same.

[MarkMcD]

Thanks BasilValentine,

That is really useful information.  Sibelius is such a comprehensive program and I love using it but, I've never been one to read all the instructions