[WORKBENCH] Brahms Op. 119, No. 1

[OCTO]

Here is the new Notatio Critical Report listing errors and other information about the Brahms Intermezzo op. 119 no. 1 for engravers interested in engraving this piece and others. Comments and corrections are welcome.

Very well done, John! I am impressed!
I like your use of small snippets in the text, it revelas more than just text.

[John Ruggero]

Thanks, OCTO, I appreciate that. "One picture is worth a thousand words." The 3 small snippets from the autograph were actually Knut's suggestion; originally, I had them together as one larger one.

[buster]

Well, here's my first attempt at it so far. As you can see, i took certain liberties in my engraving. I took this not as "recreate the output" but instead "interpret however you wish".

First three measures: instead of the kneed beams from upper staff to lower, I placed it all on the lower staff. I think it accentuates the falling pattern of the notes better. I'm not familiar with this piece, and I haven't seen any editions of it, it's just what I am thinking.
Measure 11: redo the beam between the A# and B which looks awkward to me.
Measure 15: moved a voice from the lower staff to the upper staff, so that it more closely resembles the previous measures.
(I don't have the hairpins yet and it's done only up to the double bar. This is Lilypond 2.18.2 btw.)

[John Ruggero]

Welcome to this endeavor, buster. It looks very nice and I hope that you will finish it and contribute it to this thread. I am assuming that you would like some comments:

1. One needs to indicate which notes are played by the RH in measures 1-3 etc. Brahms' notation is the standard way of doing this. Yours is interesting from the analytical point of view, but nonstandard. In any case, your would need to provide hooks or RH, LH symbols to yours, which is cumbersome and why it is always done as Brahms has it.

2. The openings of the hairpin pairs should meet exactly in 4-5 and 7-8. I see that mine in 4-5 could also be improved and will do so.

3. Your redistribution in 15 is what an educational edition might do to make things "easier" for players who are unaccustomed to reading RH notes on the lower staff. While your change is relatively harmless, I have always preferred the classic system of avoiding ledger lines in such situations. But yours seems perfectly acceptable to me.

4.The LH slurs in 1-3, 9-11 the RH slurs in 7-8, and 13-14 and both staves in 16 need better shaping (mostly they are too bowed) and all the slurs look too thick to me. This latter aspect of the LilyPond slurs has been discussed in previous threads.

5. The distance between the staves on the third system is too great. Better shaping of the slurs in 16 would enable the staves to come closer together.

[odod]

i am trying so hard .. i could not stand .. this piece just amazing
feedback please

[Knut]

i am trying so hard .. i could not stand .. this piece just amazing
feedback please

That's a good start, odod. It's a great piece indeed, so I can understand why you couldn't resist.

There are some issues with spacing, placement and the notation in general, most of which have been addressed in one way or another in relation to the discussion earlier in the thread. I'd encourage you to take a look at it.

The most obvious thing not yet adressed are the cross staff beams in mm. 1 and 9. The secondary beam should go underneath the primary beam in both cases.

Good luck with the rest of the process!

[John Ruggero]

Hi odod. You are off to an excellent start. What software and fonts are you using?

What stands out immediately, besides what Knut mentioned, is:

1. the first line should be indented
2. wrong notes on line 4 measure 4
3. spacing issues because of the cross-staffing in measure 1-3 and several other places like the beginning of line 5
4. the staves seem a little too far apart to me throughout. I know that there are good reasons for this at times, but I think that you are exaggerating what is really necessary. There is no urgent necessity for the staves of line 4 to be that far apart, for example.
5. 16th rests could be better placed.

If you put in measure numbers at the beginning of each line, it could be easier for me to give you more detailed suggestions.

[odod]

Hi odod. You are off to an excellent start. What software and fonts are you using?

What stands out immediately, besides what Knut mentioned, is:

1. the first line should be indented
2. wrong notes on line 4 measure 4
3. spacing issues because of the cross-staffing in measure 1-3 and several other places like the beginning of line 5
4. the staves seem a little too far apart to me throughout. I know that there are good reasons for this at times, but I think that you are exaggerating what is really necessary. There is no urgent necessity for the staves of line 4 to be that far apart, for example.
5. 16th rests could be better placed.

If you put in measure numbers at the beginning of each line, it could be easier for me to give you more detailed suggestions.

Hi Sir, i am using Sibelius with my own font (i hope it looks okay)
Okay .. noted that sir
since this is only the 1st page i thought i am gonna deal with layout after all the notes been written ..
and trust me, its quite elaborate task in Sibelius

i am trying so hard .. i could not stand .. this piece just amazing
feedback please

That's a good start, odod. It's a great piece indeed, so I can understand why you couldn't resist.

There are some issues with spacing, placement and the notation in general, most of which have been addressed in one way or another in relation to the discussion earlier in the thread. I'd encourage you to take a look at it.

The most obvious thing not yet adressed are the cross staff beams in mm. 1 and 9. The secondary beam should go underneath the primary beam in both cases.

Good luck with the rest of the process!

whoaa .. i didnt noticed that .. thank you Knut for pointing that beam problem in mm1 and 9 .. Brahms is playing with us (i guess his pedal was broken :P)

i think first measure had a wrong note .. i put the D to B ..

[John Ruggero]

odod wrote:

i am using Sibelius with my own font (i hope it looks okay)

It looks great. By your "own font" do you mean one that you designed yourself or a commercially available one? It looks familiar to me, but I am not sure what it is.

[odod]

odod wrote:

i am using Sibelius with my own font (i hope it looks okay)

It looks great. My your "own font" do you mean one that you designed yourself or a commercially available one? It looks familiar to me, but I am not sure what it is.

i made my own sir, based on Henle's style ..