Fonts for Lyrics

[David Ward]

It turns out I was responding to a spam e-mail added yesterday(?) to an old thread, but I'll leave my response here (unless people would rather I deleted it).

* * *

Recently I've found Adobe Garamond Pro seems to suit my needs as a composer. Here it is on a page from a modest piece for two voices and piano which, all being well, is due to have its premiere in November (https://composers-uk.com/davidward/news-links/).

[David Ward]

[…]

ChatGPT spam (with a fake benwiggy quote containing a link to a webshop (?)) detected.

Heavens! Yes, spam.

I somehow didn't notice the link… I hope I would not have been foolish enough to click on it, not that I have any wish to acquire a ‘durag’ (whatever that is).

[benwiggy]

Garamond is of course a classic typeface; but it does have a comparatively small body height -- modern fonts tend to have bigger bodies and smaller ascenders, which keeps legibility at small sizes. The small counters of 'e' and 'a' can be hard to discern, too. And it's not that compact along the horizontal axis.

But on your page, it's at a good size and works well.

I'd try to show a little bit of an extension line in those tied notes: bb. 60, 63. I did a bit of work for a publisher recently; and while their output is not generally anything to shout about, they were insistent that there was always the slightest bit of an extension line, even if it meant moving the later note a bit, or the line slightly overrunning by a hair. I thought it quite a good practice.

[benwiggy]

Nepomuk, if I may, is actually very good at lyrics.

Various Caslons and Centurys also fit the bill.

[Schonbergian]

I'd try to show a little bit of an extension line in those tied notes: bb. 60, 63. I did a bit of work for a publisher recently; and while their output is not generally anything to shout about, they were insistent that there was always the slightest bit of an extension line, even if it meant moving the later note a bit, or the line slightly overrunning by a hair. I thought it quite a good practice.

As a singer, I would disagree - it just adds more clutter if the extension line is not clearly necessary, and the slur shows syllable assignment anyways.

[David Ward]

I'd try to show a little bit of an extension line in those tied notes: bb. 60, 63. I did a bit of work for a publisher recently; and while their output is not generally anything to shout about, they were insistent that there was always the slightest bit of an extension line, even if it meant moving the later note a bit, or the line slightly overrunning by a hair. I thought it quite a good practice.

As a singer, I would disagree - it just adds more clutter if the extension line is not clearly necessary, and the slur shows syllable assignment anyways.

Interesting that there seem to be directly opposing views here.

I'll leave it as it is for now, but if I get the chance (and remember) I'll ask whether the singers performing the piece have any preference.

[benwiggy]

I'll ask whether the singers performing the piece have any preference.

As with typography and graphic design, the best communication goes unnoticed by the reader -- they tend to notice only its absence, or in direct comparison of two alternatives.

I was singing in a choir a while ago, and everyone was complaining that a score 'seemed a bit confusing', but they couldn't work out why. It was only when I pointed out that it used lines instead of hyphens, and no extension lines, that they noticed!

[tisimst]

David's example page is interesting because it reveals another related problem, which makes all the difference of whether or not a lyric extension line is necessary on, for example, "rain" (m. 60). The entire page feels a bit busy, but not because of its density. It feels extra busy because the slurs and ties are near the same thickness as the staff lines, confusing the eyes as to which lines are which! In m. 60 specifically, the slur is almost invisible, making the ready second guess what they are seeing! This would certainly suggest the usefulness of the extension line there if nothing else were to change. However, I tend to agree with Schonbergian that short extension lines (i.e., 3 staff spaces or less in length) can reasonably be omitted for two reasons:

1. If the slurring and ties are clear. It is well accepted that notes slurred together or tied signify a continuation of the syllable (generally, yes I know there are exceptions). If the slur or tie is short, the extension can be safely omitted without sacrificing clarity.

2. If adding the extension line it doesn't cause unnecessary disruption of the rhythmic positions of the notes. The syllables often already do this, but there's no need to make it worse by adding a short extension line!

That being said, I can understand if a publisher would prefer to always have one visible even if it's a short one. It is technically correct to always have one. There are times, though, when it can be unnecessary. My 2 cents.

[David Ward]

In m. 60 specifically, the slur is almost invisible, making the reader second guess what they are seeing!

Would angling the slur like this make it clearer?

It is actually rather more visible on the printed copy than in the screenshot. That said, given the increasing us of iPads &c (especially by singers it seems) the point raised by tisimst is apposite and noted.

[benwiggy]

It is technically correct... There are times, though, when it can be unnecessary.

The golden rule of Music Engraving!