NOTATIO

odod wrote: ↑23 Nov 2019, 06:37 whoaaa this is fantastic resource, thank you so much

+1
Very interesting, thank you.

odod wrote: ↑14 Nov 2019, 15:31[...] @john .. thanks for the explanation as always you have a wider knowledge than us ..

+1, Thank you John.

@ odod: Thank you, nice, but this does not help to understand the beaming rule... :( @ John: Thank you very much for your detailed answer. However, there are still some things I don't understand; If I follow you, I should write: BWV1001.png Which is not what Bärenreiter edited. Or? Did I miss someth...

What are the rules for subdividing beams? [...] the number of beams separating the groups [should be] equal to the duration of the groups they separate [...] Fine. But, when do beams should be divided? See Bärenreiter edition of the BWV 1042: https://www.baerenreiter.com/resource/public/products/BA5...

Here's a LP version: Baerenreiter_BA11820_p1.png Tweaks are: --- titles font; --- indent size; --- G clef; --- bar numbers font and placement; --- grace notes slur thickness; to stick as close as possible to the Bärenreiter edition. Compare to Dorico's output, staff-staff spacing is much reduced (so...

So that everyone is reminded: https://musescore.org/en/node/249356 Baerenreiter has published work made in Musescore, FEI. In my opinion it looks just OK, but nothing particularly beautiful. I would do it differently. So would I. ;) E.g. articulation and dots placement, stem lengths (as John said)....

Here's a try using LilyPond (Noteheads and clef are tweaked):

OCTO wrote: ↑04 Oct 2019, 10:41[...] And also I don't think there should be accidental/line kerning except crowded situations. [...]

See also: viewtopic.php?p=2468#p2468

See also: https://lilypondblog.org/2013/06/thickness-of-lines/

See: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=531