Espressivo font

Music notation symbols, fonts, font sources and font creation, SmuFL.
Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Espressivo font

Post by Knut »

OCTO wrote:Looks well!

Two things: I think that thin lines are to thin or to say, bold are to bold. Something in-between for my taste I would like more...
Another: what if you have the accidentals somehow bigger, if 24, try with 25 or 26. Just as a test.
Do you feel the same about the dynamics as well? Se viewtopic.php?f=2&t=33#p431 for the full range.

I don't agree with enlarging the accidentals for several reasons. Their size and proportions are one of the most important space saving factors in the font, along with the noteheads. Also, length of the vertical stems are sized to go clear of the staff line by a hair. Simply increasing the font size, eliminates this feature.

In addition, the font contains some 150–200 glyphs based on the standard accidental shapes. Any changes to these fundamental characters would spread through the entire accidentals range, something I would very much like to avoid at this point.

Fortunately though, most scoring applications let's you choose the exact font size for each separate category of symbols, so the user is free to deviate from the standard 24 points if desired.
User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1742
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Espressivo font

Post by OCTO »

Knut wrote:
OCTO wrote:Looks well!

Two things: I think that thin lines are to thin or to say, bold are to bold. Something in-between for my taste I would like more...
Another: what if you have the accidentals somehow bigger, if 24, try with 25 or 26. Just as a test.
Do you feel the same about the dynamics as well? Se viewtopic.php?f=2&t=33#p431 for the full range.
No, these are very nice.
Knut wrote: I don't agree with enlarging the accidentals for several reasons. Their size and proportions are one of the most important space saving factors in the font, along with the noteheads. Also, length of the vertical stems are sized to go clear of the staff line by a hair. Simply increasing the font size, eliminates this feature.
I just wanted to see how it could look! ;)
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 27.3 • Sibelius 2023.5• MuseScore 4+ • Logic Pro X+ • Ableton Live 11+ • Digital Performer 10+ /// MacOS Monterey (secondary in use systems: Fedora 35, Windows 10)
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Espressivo font

Post by John Ruggero »

It is beautiful, Knut.

We do have a different slant on this. I actually prefer a difference between the dynamic markings and the text expressions, with the text expressions lighter in appearance, for the reason that I mentioned earlier, that I view them as helpful hints that should not carry the "weight" (pun intended) of the notes etc. or even the dynamic markings.
Last edited by John Ruggero on 06 Jan 2016, 18:24, edited 1 time in total.
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Espressivo font

Post by Knut »

John Ruggero wrote:It is beautiful, Knut.

We do have a different slant on this. I actually prefer a difference between the dynamic markings and the text expressions, with the text expressions a lighter in appearance, for the reason that I mentioned earlier, that I view them as helpful hints that should not carry the "weight" (pun intended) of the notes etc. or even the dynamic markings.
Thank you!

I have a lot of sympathy for this kind of thinking. As a composer, with an improvisational background, I tend to keep text (and other markings) to a minimum, not only because they are secondary to the music, but also to encourage freer interpretation.

However, while many modern composers still adheres to this view, others require a much more detailed level of control. In these cases, I don't think text indications could be looked upon as merely 'helpful hints'. It depends on the music and the composer, I guess.

I'm also inclined to disagree that expressive text (italic type) should be given any less attention than the precise level of dynamics. After all, such text often give crucial indications as to the manner in which to play a piece or section. Other times, this text style is applied to key fluctuations in dynamics or tempo, no less important than any other marking, at least the expressions of stationary dynamic level.

For most classical music, I agree that a lot of symbols, beyond those used by Bach, are superfluous or at least warrants segregation. However, for a lot of modern music, often demanding detailed control, not to mention the means to indicate contrasting ways of playing similar passages, this is not necessarily the case.

Anyway, do you find the text font to be too bold, or the secondary dynamic characters to be too thin?
User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1742
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Espressivo font

Post by OCTO »

Knut wrote:Anyway, do you find the text font to be too bold, or the secondary dynamic characters to be too thin?
If you are asking everyone, not just John, I would say that if you make the textual font less bold and more fat on thin lines it would be, in my opinion, more balanced - within itself and with the secondary dynamics.
Try to edit just glyphs for molto espressivo as a test.
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 27.3 • Sibelius 2023.5• MuseScore 4+ • Logic Pro X+ • Ableton Live 11+ • Digital Performer 10+ /// MacOS Monterey (secondary in use systems: Fedora 35, Windows 10)
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Espressivo font

Post by John Ruggero »

I find the text font to be a little too bold for my taste, but well-balanced within itself. So I do differ with OCTO on the latter point.

Is it possible that you might supply the font in several weights between regular and bold? (Perhaps there are already other names for this besides "semi-bold.") In that way, everyone could decide for themselves about the matter. For example, I might like the expressions like molto expressivo to be the lightest and dynamic markings like cresc. to be a little heavier, both a little lighter than the music font dynamics. Someone who has serialized the dynamics or whatever might want something different.
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Espressivo font

Post by Knut »

OCTO wrote:
Knut wrote:Anyway, do you find the text font to be too bold, or the secondary dynamic characters to be too thin?
If you are asking everyone, not just John, I would say that if you make the textual font less bold and more fat on thin lines it would be, in my opinion, more balanced - within itself and with the secondary dynamics.
Try to edit just glyphs for molto espressivo as a test.
Of course I am. Thank you, OCTO.

I will try a slightly less bold and contrasted version, but that will probably involve making the secondary dynamic characters bolder as well. Otherwise there will be three different weights involved between the text font and the primary and secondary dynamics, which is not balanced at all. If I use the new text font for the secondary dynamics as well, those are in danger of being too slight compared to the primary characters.

With regard to the contrast, I'm not a big fan of the very low contacting fonts, because I find them harder to read and too 'podgy'. The main thing for me is to make sure the thin lines are substantial enough to be easily legible in between staves of music. I would probably keep the thin strokes as is, but decrease the weight of the thick strokes slightly. This would give an overall less bold look, while still retaining some contrast.

Also, just to make sure we understand each other, making a thinner version of the text font will increase the difference in weight between the dynamics and the text, which in my mind makes the result less balanced, not more.

If you are in agreement with John that there should be a noticeable difference in weight between any dynamic character and the font used for expressive text, then I take it you would reduce the weight contrast of the text font and increase the weight of the secondary dynamic characters to match the primary ones.

If you share my preference for balance between the secondary dynamic characters and the expressive text, you would make both the text font and the secondary dynamics similarly less bold.
Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Espressivo font

Post by Knut »

John Ruggero wrote:I find the text font to be a little too bold for my taste, but well-balanced within itself. So I do differ with OCTO on the latter point.

Is it possible that you might supply the font in several weights between regular and bold? (Perhaps there are already other names for this besides "semi-bold.") In that way, everyone could decide for themselves about the matter. For example, I might like the expressions like molto expressivo to be the lightest and dynamic markings like cresc. to be a little heavier, both a little lighter than the music font dynamics. Someone who has serialized the dynamics or whatever might want something different.
Good to know, John.

If I understand you correctly, you would also prefer the primary and secondary dynamics to be of the same weight (as opposed to the current situation) while decreasing the weight of the text font?

Making several weights is of course possible, but it involves a lot of additional work. In time, I will probably supply at least two weights, one for regular staff sizes and one for small, kind of like the regular and caption weights of a professional text font. This would, however, be motivated by the desire to keep weights even across staff sizes, and anything beyond that would, at least presently, be beyond the scope.
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Espressivo font

Post by John Ruggero »

Knut wrote:
If I understand you correctly, you would also prefer the primary and secondary dynamics to be of the same weight (as opposed to the current situation) while decreasing the weight of the text font?
I am sorry if I am confused or have confused the terminology, but to me the primary (mF) and the secondary (sempre cresc.) dynamics in your examples appear to be the same "weight" and I would prefer a lighter secondary dynamic. So, I might prefer three tiers: primary dynamic, secondary dynamic, expressive text; it is just an idea I was considering.
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Espressivo font

Post by Knut »

John Ruggero wrote:Knut wrote:
If I understand you correctly, you would also prefer the primary and secondary dynamics to be of the same weight (as opposed to the current situation) while decreasing the weight of the text font?
I am sorry if I am confused or have confused the terminology, but to me the primary (mF) and the secondary (sempre cresc.) dynamics in your examples appear to be the same "weight" and I would prefer a lighter secondary dynamic. So, I might prefer three tiers: primary dynamic, secondary dynamic, expressive text; it is just an idea I was considering.
There might be other or better terms for this, but since I didn't know them, I took a shot and tried to explain my terminology in an earlier post.

Primary dynamic characters = :forte or :piano
Secondary dynamic characters = :ri, :sfo, :ze or :me
Expressive text = any additional italicized text marking immediately following or preceding the dynamic marking, including subito, crescendo and diminuendo

It is interesting that you, and perhaps OCTO as well, perceive the primary and secondary dynamic markings to be the same weight, and I can then understand why you might be confused by my terminology and questions. While there isn't exactly a big difference, there certainly is one, perhaps the low resolution pictures. make it less noticeable.
Post Reply