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 »

I totally agree that serifs in music should have less of a contrast. Actually, Modern 20 is way too contrasted for my taste, even in printed text, but that's beside the point. I guess the question is simply how much difference there should be. Sans serifs generally have a very different design from the ground up, compared to the particular style of italic we're discussing. My personal opinion is simply that you cannot apply typical sans serif weight contrasts to such an italic without compromising legibility and the integrity of the shapes. If minimal contrast is what you prefer, then you should use a font with a different design altogether. That said, there might still be room to decrease the contrast without compromising the design in this particular case.

Anyway, I certainly appreciate all your thoughts and feedback. It is invaluable for me to get instant feedback as I'm going along, even though I don't always agree with it. Thank you!

I've done some print outs along the way, of course. If you'd like to give it a try when the design is more complete, that would be great.
Last edited by Knut on 07 Jan 2016, 21:22, edited 2 times in total.
Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Espressivo font

Post by Knut »

OCTO wrote:ADDON, concerning"e"
In my humble opinion the left side has much more power than the right side.
A-ha! I see what you mean, and I agree.
Thanks!
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Espressivo font

Post by John Ruggero »

I am still trying to understand why the angle difference doesn't both me at all when the m is bolder. Perhaps it is because the font weight unifies the secondary and primary elements.
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:I am still trying to understand why the angle difference doesn't both me at all when the m is bolder. Perhaps it is because the font weight unifies the secondary and primary elements.
That would be my best guess as well.
Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Espressivo font

Post by Knut »

Here's yet another attempt:
Skjermbilde 2016-01-08 kl. 05.38.05.png
Skjermbilde 2016-01-08 kl. 05.38.05.png (167.94 KiB) Viewed 9560 times
I've tried accommodating OCTO's continued desire for lower contrast by making the vertical strokes a little bit thinner. It works, but this is pushing it, in my opinion. If the overall reaction is positive, however, these weights might end up being applied to a regular weighted style, while my first version has the potential to serve as a semibold for those in need of more thickness and contrast.

In addition, I've increased the angle of the text font and secondary dynamic character, to make them all match. Not that much increase was needed, so it turned out OK, even though I think the prior angle was more readable.

I've given the e a bit more weight on the right side, but the shape will need some more tuning before it's to my liking. So will the spacing and kerning, by the way, so you don't need to comment on that.
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Espressivo font

Post by John Ruggero »

Knut, sorry for the long delay. I think that this version satisfies the different demands of weight and angle very well and is quite readable.

I prefer contrast of some kind, whether weight, size or angle, between the complete dynamic symbol and the text expression, so that they do not run together as one symbol. But I think that you may prefer more homogeneity.
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
User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1742
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Espressivo font

Post by OCTO »

Knut, I think it is pretty nice now.
If you can provide a PDF so that we can print out would be good.
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)
Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Espressivo font

Post by Knut »

John Ruggero wrote:Knut, sorry for the long delay. I think that this version satisfies the different demands of weight and angle very well and is quite readable.

I prefer contrast of some kind, whether weight, size or angle, between the complete dynamic symbol and the text expression, so that they do not run together as one symbol. But I think that you may prefer more homogeneity.
No problem!

Well, what I prefer is either a larger contrast between different text styles to really set them apart from each other, or entirely even weights across styles. The kind of marginally thicker weight compared to the regular roman style (which in itself is on the thicker side) is not really my cup of tea. Even if I were to use a thinner regular style (e.g. Times New Roman), the contrast to the italic would not be enough to satisfy me entirely.
OCTO wrote:Knut, I think it is pretty nice now.
If you can provide a PDF so that we can print out would be good.
I've attached a pdf of the same snippet.
Let me know if you would like to test the font first hand.

I'm toying with the idea of accompanying the italic with a regular roman of matching hight and weight. This would essentially be a version of New Century Schoolbook, most likely with rounded edges, and condensed enough to work for lyrics as well as text expressions. The current weight of the italic would produce a set of fonts quite a lot thicker than usual for text larger than 9 pt (fixed size). Because of this I'm contemplating having the current version of the italic be the basis for a caption version for staff hights below 5.5 mm, while reducing the weight slightly to match the boldness of the roman in the example for the version intended for larger staff sizes.

To my mind, the ideal structure for a musical text font family would be as follows:

Regular (for text 10 pt. or larger)
Regular Caption (for text smaller than 10 pt.)
Italic (for text 10 pt. or larger)
Italic Caption (for text smaller than 10 pt.)

Another eight styles of higher contrasting, semibold and bold versions for the different point size ranges could potentially be included as well.

Please let me know if you have any thoughts on this matter.
Attachments
Menuet italic Snippet.pdf
(49.73 KiB) Downloaded 363 times
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Espressivo font

Post by John Ruggero »

I like it even better in the PDF, Knut. The precision and beauty of the lines of the various forms is really exceptional at every degree of magnification. And of course I checked your G clef exhaustively for bumps! (-: NONE even at 6400% And your black note heads are perfection.

BUT…(my students used to call me the "but"- man.) So for the buts, which are possibly more valuable to you, as ill-informed as they are, than the well-deserved praise.

The Big But: I actually liked your G clef inline much more than in the PDF because of the "fattening" effect. So, I would prefer that your G clef be slightly broadened; it is too slight. (Please don't hit me!) Think "pleasingly plump'!

The Little But: the lone slur is too curved for my taste. I only mention this because I think that a discussion on slur shape is in order in a new thread. The ties are very nice; but might also be less curved.

A Minute But: I think that were I using your font, I would use the text expressions in the next smaller size. Hopefully that wouldn't be too small. I still desire a great differentiation etc etc etc.
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:I like it even better in the PDF, Knut. The precision and beauty of the lines of the various forms is really exceptional at every degree of magnification. And of course I checked your G clef exhaustively for bumps! (-: NONE even at 6400% And your black note heads are perfection.
Thank you for the flattering words, John! Much appreciated.
John Ruggero wrote:The Big But: I actually liked your G clef inline much more than in the PDF because of the "fattening" effect. So, I would prefer that your G clef be slightly broadened; it is too slight. (Please don't hit me!) Think "pleasingly plump'!
I have to say, I don't agree. If anything, I think the clef is a tad too wide, especially at the eye. This may make it come across as a bit too thin. Narrowing the counters is often just as effective as widening the strokes. Too my eye it looks very balanced with the rest of the font.

However, I am thinking of replacing the current clef with the one below. It's a slightly tweaked version of the Durand clef from the early 1900s, and fits very well with the font overall. My only reservation is that this is Durand's design (albeit, it's no longer in use, to my knowledge), not mine.
Skjermbilde 2016-01-20 kl. 06.14.34.png
Skjermbilde 2016-01-20 kl. 06.14.34.png (34.5 KiB) Viewed 9455 times
John Ruggero wrote:The Little But: the lone slur is too curved for my taste. I only mention this because I think that a discussion on slur shape is in order in a new thread. The ties are very nice; but might also be less curved.
You're right. This was an old test engraving with old default settings. All I did was change the default music font and text fonts. (Notice the offset staccato dot as well.)
John Ruggero wrote: A Minute But: I think that were I using your font, I would use the text expressions in the next smaller size. Hopefully that wouldn't be too small. I still desire a great differentiation etc etc etc.
The roman is New Century Schoolbook at 12 pt., while the italic is 14 pt. My italic currently has a cap hight similar to Times New Roman, while New Century Schoolbook's cap hight is quite a bit larger. If I'm not going to include a roman version with the italic, the chosen Cap hight and x hights may be some kind of lowest common denominator between commonly used roman types. The main thing is that the hight, width, weight and spacing plays well with other fonts at the same point size. Beyond that, you are of course free to choose whatever point size you want for your text.
Post Reply