NOTATIO

Henle has release their own iOS and Android app.

http://www.henle-library.com/en/about-the-app.html

Thoughts?

(This should probably be in the Other section. Sorry about that)

What a great idea! And the app is probably great too. It's the edition that I have a problem with.

John Ruggero wrote:What a great idea! And the app is probably great too. It's the edition that I have a problem with.

Care to elaborate slightly? I know this might not be the right subforum.

I am kinda surprised they're allowing printing from the app. I figured that would be locked down.

DatOrganistTho wrote:

Care to elaborate slightly? I know this might not be the right subforum.

I have already alluded to some of my issues with Henle is several previous posts, but here is a summary:

1. the piano fingering is sometimes unidiomatic
2. the editing seems to tilt too much toward the German 1st editions when there are variant readings (in Chopin, at least)
3. the slurring is modernized without informing the player in the text
4. the engraving in the hand-engraved Henle editions is beautiful, but, to me, cold
5. the engraving in the new computer-engraved Henle editions has problems, as has been pointed out in a post at the MM Forum
http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6&m=460614
I prefer the Wiener Urtext editions because they don't have these issues. The editors are renowned performers or experts in the music they are editing. However, Henle is often my second choice when the Wiener Urtext is not available.

John Ruggero wrote: 4. the engraving in the hand-engraved Henle editions is beautiful, but, to me, cold

Funny, I've had that same thought before. Henle was the first publisher I noticed and led me to look into the world of engraving, so I kind of lean towards them. But there was definitely a point, when comparing to others, particularly Bärenreiter, that Henle's style (although definitely not their 'font') was like the Helvetica of music engraving—definitely well done*, but just… there.

This is an over simplification, but I think a lot of it has to do with their beam angles. When I'd recreate a score of theirs, if I would switch back and forth between their angles and angles with more slope, there was definitely a lot more of an organic quality to the music with the latter. Their more flattened beams avoid the visual distortion of staff lines between multiple beams, but the trade-off is a bit of lifelessness.

I understand the draw. For a while I couldn't stand that bit of distortion (which is when I noticed the opaque beaming of IMC scores). But I've gradually come to accept it for a little more motion to the overall look.




*I feel bad having to quantify this by saying I mean their earlier, hand engraved editions.

I also prefer beams that follow the contour of the notes (see the thread on beaming) and are not so flat, but I haven't noticed anything unusual about the Henle beaming. Perhaps others will voice their opinion. I think that it might be the machine-like precision that one sees in the old Henle that gives me a cold impression. I also like Baerenreiter which appears less precise and more human to me, like the Wiener Urtext. It is interesting though that very precise engraving does not have to be cold, as one sees in the work of several forum members.

John Ruggero wrote:DatOrganistTho wrote:

Care to elaborate slightly? I know this might not be the right subforum.

I have already alluded to some of my issues with Henle is several previous posts, but here is a summary:

1. the piano fingering is sometimes unidiomatic
2. the editing seems to tilt too much toward the German 1st editions when there are variant readings (in Chopin, at least)
3. the slurring is modernized without informing the player in the text
4. the engraving in the hand-engraved Henle editions is beautiful, but, to me, cold
5. the engraving in the new computer-engraved Henle editions has problems, as has been pointed out in a post at the MM Forum
http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6&m=460614
I prefer the Wiener Urtext editions because they don't have these issues. The editors are renowned performers or experts in the music they are editing. However, Henle is often my second choice when the Wiener Urtext is not available.

I can agree that the older editions (which I guard now, if they are in my possession) of the G. Henle are better, but not cold. ATD! The editions now are deplorable. I have the Rachmaninoff Preludes and Etudes and at that level it should be perfect (everyone knows how easy it is to miss details in Rachmaninoff), but it is sadly not the case. Lots of inbalance IMO.

cGilmore wrote:

John Ruggero wrote: 4. the engraving in the hand-engraved Henle editions is beautiful, but, to me, cold

Funny, I've had that same thought before. Henle was the first publisher I noticed and led me to look into the world of engraving, so I kind of lean towards them. But there was definitely a point, when comparing to others, particularly Bärenreiter, that Henle's style (although definitely not their 'font') was like the Helvetica of music engraving—definitely well done*, but just… there.

This is an over simplification, but I think a lot of it has to do with their beam angles. When I'd recreate a score of theirs, if I would switch back and forth between their angles and angles with more slope, there was definitely a lot more of an organic quality to the music with the latter. Their more flattened beams avoid the visual distortion of staff lines between multiple beams, but the trade-off is a bit of lifelessness.

I understand the draw. For a while I couldn't stand that bit of distortion (which is when I noticed the opaque beaming of IMC scores). But I've gradually come to accept it for a little more motion to the overall look.




*I feel bad having to quantify this by saying I mean their earlier, hand engraved editions.

Agreed! There is certainly something warmer about Bärenreiter, especially their stuff from the 70s (I love Schubert's Impromptus from that year).

I don't find Henle's editions particularly cold either, just very different from everything else (in a good way). Their music font has less contrast and gives a cleaner (i.e., less inky) impression with somewhat sharper edges than many others. Combined with the exceptional precision of the engraving, this might come across as cold to some, especially in their computer engraved editions.

Their beaming style matches their font style perfectly, although I find the plate engraved editions to be somewhat more dynamic than the computer set ones in this regard. Wiener Urtext and Bärenreiter's beams seem more or less just as flat to me, and I think one could argue that these relatively modern 'german' publishers have developed a similar style of beaming.

In contrast, Durand's beams are very steep, even exceeding the recommendations of Ted Ross in many cases (which of course is on the steeper side as well). Personally, I prefer this style, but it requires a lot more manual work in a computer based setting, for the reasons mentioned already.

There is also an argument to be made that the flatter, Henle style beams are more appropriate for the music the above mentioned 'german' publishers, arguably, are best known for, namely urtext editions of polyphonic baroque music. While steeper beam angles can give a positive reflection of the melodic contours in a monophonic context, in polyphonic music, with two or more rather busy voices sharing a staff throughout an entire piece, steep beam angles can render a much more chaotic impression.