Espressivo font

[Knut]

Here's a slightly thinner version with the letters suggested by OCTO.
I've change the m in mezzo forte to the altered weight as well, just to illustrate my original concept and to make the terminology of prior posts clear.

Skjermbilde 2016-01-06 kl. 22.10.26.png (168.61 KiB) Viewed 8679 times

[John Ruggero]

I am sorry for not paying closer attention, Knut. Too many threads, too many posts, too little time…

So let me start over. I prefer the weight of the expressive text in your latest version, as you would expect. But I do not think that the secondary dynamic symbols must be the same weight as the expressive text font and prefer your original version of the secondary dynamics. I think I would be comfortable with the two different weights side by side. I think...

However, the expressive text weight that you are using for "molto espressivo" is the weight that I would prefer for the dynamic markings like cresc. etc. Expressive text like "molto espressivo" I might like better in a still thinner font—I guess this would be a true italic.

So many different versions of the font might be considered bad graphic design, but when one considers the rest of what is going on on a page of music, what is another font or weight more or less?

[Knut]

I am sorry for not paying closer attention, Knut. Too many threads, too many posts, too little time…

So let me start over. I prefer the weight of the expressive text in your latest version, as you would expect. But I do not think that the secondary dynamic symbols must be the same weight as the expressive text font and prefer your original version of the secondary dynamics. I think I would be comfortable with the two different weights side by side. I think...

However, the expressive text weight that you are using for "molto espressivo" is the weight that I would prefer for the dynamic markings like cresc. etc. Expressive text like "molto espressivo" I might like better in a still thinner font—I guess this would be a true italic.

So many different versions of the font might be considered bad graphic design, but when one considers the rest of what is going on on a page of music, what is another font or weight more or less?

Thanks for the clarification, John!

When you say, 'I think I would be comfortable with the two different weights side by side.', do you mean the different weights of the original primary and secondary dynamics or the weights of the whole dynamic symbol and the thinner text font (i.e., 3 different weights)? Sorry for being pedantic, but it's important to me that I understand the feedback I'm given.

Given most of your earlier statements about your views on text fonts in music, I understand where your desire for different text fonts come from. The only problem is that this kind of weight blending is not exactly standard practice. Your enthusiastic reaction to Wess' italic font, which is considerably bolder than the roman type in the examples he posted, gave the impression that you wouldn't be opposed to using a slightly bolder font for expressive text and other italicized marks, regardless of their meaning?

If the goal is maximum legibility, indeed it would be considered bad graphic design (or typography, to be precise) to blend many weights of the same style together on the same page. Even though you could argue that the numerous symbol weights in an average music font would eliminate the need to be 'stingy' in the font department (if that is indeed the right expression), one of the goals of a font designer should be to keep all weight differences to a minimum, according to the principles of good typography. As discussed in other threads on this forum, these principles apply to music setting as well as text.

[John Ruggero]

Three different weights total: (1) original primary dynamic (2) original secondary dynamic (3) thinner text expression.

Regarding Wess's italic font and your expression text font, I would gladly use either for all expressive text markings. I was just toying with the idea of two tiers of expression fonts. Whether this is practical or not is another thing; I have never even tried it and probably shouldn't have clouded the issue by bringing it up. Your final remark definitely gives me pause. It could all look like a hodgepodge.

[OCTO]

Screen shot 2016-01-07 at 7.43.27 AM.png (35.36 KiB) Viewed 8660 times

In my opinion it is much more balanced now... I would like even less bold bold-strokes and more fat thin-strokes.

Here questions:
1. Sould the in text and dynamics be tha same size/shape? Maybe more bold dynamics and a bit "compressed" horizontally the text?
2. Example of a small disbalance between bold and thin strokes - don't you think it is to much?
3. angle is different from everything else, even from the dynamic's - is it OK to be like that?
These are just "questions" not a critique.

It must be a terrible difficult to make a proper font.

But what John suggested I think it is a great idea, maybe for Wess too:
Create a standard text font. It will include both roman (for technique) and italic (for expressions).
Create variants: bolder and thinner and as well a bit compressed (important with complex scores for space savings).

....oh yes, and it is a full time job, two months.

[John Ruggero]

What OCTO. said about the angle of the m and the F and the compression also occurred to me when I saw that new thinner version of the m. But, for some reason, I find it less of an issue in the earlier version, so I didn't mention in it.

[Knut]

Duplicate post.

[Knut]

Thank you both!

OCTO, I think we have somewhat different opinions on what constitutes balance. As I've said, I'm not a big fan of very low contrast in fonts. I understand that tastes may differ, but the majority of fonts reflect the fact that there needs to be a clear contrast for a serif font to be as legible as possible. The contrast is evened out somewhat (although usually still clearly visible) in caption type fonts for small sizes, but I would rather design a dedicated style for smaller staff sizes than rely on a caption type contrast to cover the larger, more common staff sizes, as this would look too fat, in my opinion.

1. If you read through the prior posts and discussion between John and me, you will understand why I've done this. This was the case in the first example as well.

2. Are you thinking of the e? If so, I don't see it, but will keep it in mind. The fat an thin strokes of the e is the same as for all similar shapes (o, a, b, d, p etc.).

3. This is not unheard of, but I agree that it is not ideal. It stems from the fact that I personally don't like italic text fonts with too much of an angle, while at the same time I don't like dynamic markings that are as upright as a common italic text font (usually ± 12°. Probably, it would be better to give the text font the angle to fit with the dynamics (19°), instead of the other way around. This could, however, result in a less readable text font, in my opinion. For short expression text marks, this is fine, but for more substantial text, like stage directions or translated lyrics, I think maybe this would compromise readability too much.

BTW, I see that Wess has adopted this approach, resulting in an italic angle that is too steep for my taste. For the Espressivo font, on the other hand, the opposite is true; here the text glyphs are quite a bit steeper than the dynamics. I don't really know why.

Anyway, I will most certainly experiment with the angles to see if I can make it work.

Thanks again!

EDIT: OCTO, I forgot to address your questioning of the glyph widths.

Too me, this is much the same as the issue of the angle. While it's true that many versions of the plate engraved style italic is both very compressed and very slanted compared to modern versions of the same style (Century, Monotype Modern, etc.), I do think these are both aspects that should be somewhat restricted if legibility is the primary concern. As long as I'm aiming to design a font of modern standards, good enough for professional use beyond short expressive text marks, this is something I need to consider more carefully.

[OCTO]

Knut, I agree that the legibility of the serifs are better with the contrasts, i love these in books, my favorite is Modern20. But I believe that it should be less when using in music. For instance, why aren't the text signs on roads (for drivers) serifs if it is more legible? Because of the distance. The same is for the music. I haven't printed your examples and tested it, but you can try by simulating being a contrabass player, from 1,5m distance, at 11 or 12 pt. Make two versions - a bit less and a bit more difference between boldness and test it. And yes, test it with friends. (We are also friends!!!)

Now typing on the mobile, so I cannot recall exactly which font was that I have used in a piece of mine; nevertheless, the font was extremely serif with a high contrast and now it is the score I need to edit, one of the reasons is that font. And my opinion changed after I played that piece!

[OCTO]

ADDON, concerning"e"
In my humble opinion the left side has much more power than the right side.