[WORKBENCH] Brahms Op. 119, No. 1

[John Ruggero]

Knut wrote:

I think there's been a misunderstanding. I was referring to the space between an accidental and the preceding note, not the space between a note and it's accidental

Sorry I misunderstood, but I am sure glad I asked. I put the setting back to .33 and it looks better again. So you meant that there should be at least .25 to .5 space between an accidental and the previous note. I will look through my engraving from that point of view tomorrow.

there is a tendency in plate engraving to add a little extra space at the end of tightly spaced measures….I would also imagine that not taking the barlines into account would lead to some pretty undesirable results...

I did exaggerate a little for effect. I meant to say that if the bar lines were removed, there would be only a little evidence of their previous existence, but not a lot.

Ross actually deals with this and mentions that there is a school of thought that thinks that "no consideration should be given to the bar line in so far as space is concerned, that it tends to isolate each measure and disrupts the flow of music and becomes disturbing." He then goes on to say that he disagrees with this and recommends doing what he says most plate engravers do: one space is allotted before the first note of each measure.

While I tend to agree a little with the school of thought Ross disagrees with, my Finale setting is indeed set to 1 space between the bar line and the first note, cut down from the Finale default of 1.33 spaces.

I looked through the rest of Ross's description of note spacing but could find no recommendation for adding an extra 1/2 space at the end of a measure. He seems to be saying that there is a fixed amount of space for each note in the measure and that if a measure were divided into 6 notes without accidentals, for example, the distance after each of those notes would be the same, which is what I have always assumed.

But you are talking about exceptional measures, ones in which the measure is packed with many notes. Those are just the ones in which the music flows more quickly from one measure to the next, and thus the ones in which I would not want to add much extra space. But I certainly wouldn't want to cram the notes too closely to the bar lines either and would adjust that by eye.

So I think our thinking is pretty much the same, but you might like a little more space at the end of such measures than I.

[Knut]

But you are talking about exceptional measures, ones in which the measure is packed with many notes.

Not really, This tendency is very common, even under pretty standard spacing conditions, whenever there is a 16th or smaller value note at the end of a measure. Ted Ross may not address the issue (although many of the examples in his book certainly reflect it), but it's very easy to find examples of this in the literature, and the Simrock and Breitkopf editions of Brahms are no exceptions.

It must be said, though, that the opposite is also true, especially if the rhythm of the music is fairly regular, and I think it's safe to say that the decision must be made based on the music at hand.

[John Ruggero]

Here is the new Notatio Critical Report listing errors and other information about the Brahms Intermezzo op. 119 no. 1 for engravers interested in engraving this piece and others. Comments and corrections are welcome.

4/30/16 Version 1B with corrections

[tisimst]

That's a fantastic commentary, John! Nicely done.

[John Ruggero]

Thank you very much, tisimst!

[John Ruggero]

This is my corrected "final" version of the Brahms Intermezzo. I plan to make future corrections in this file to avoid separate postings.

4/30/16 Version 3B with corrections from erelievonen

[erelievonen]

It's been extremely interesting to follow this thread. Thank you, John and Knut in particular. If I can find the time, I'd love to try and make my own version of the Brahms Intermezzo.

Although there still appears to be some proofreading to be done with both John and Knut's scores... I haven't checked the entire piece in either of your versions, but these few already caught my eye:

John:
m. 11 3rd 16th in cross-beamed voice must be f# not a#
m. 23 r.h. sharp missing on lower e#
m. 61 l.h. tie missing between f#-f#
m. 65 r.h. tie between c#-c# should better curve upwards (in order to avoid the sharp below)

Knut:
m. 13 r.h. last 16th: lower voice must include both d and f#
m. 23 r.h. sharp missing on lower e#

John's critical report is also highly valuable - thank you John for all your work. I just wish that the typographic quality of that particular document was also on the same high level that has been demanded - and achieved - in this thread from music typesetting...!

[Knut]

It's been extremely interesting to follow this thread. Thank you, John and Knut in particular. If I can find the time, I'd love to try and make my own version of the Brahms Intermezzo.

Although there still appears to be some proofreading to be done with both John and Knut's scores... I haven't checked the entire piece in either of your versions, but these few already caught my eye:

John:
m. 11 3rd 16th in cross-beamed voice must be f# not a#
m. 23 r.h. sharp missing on lower e#
m. 61 l.h. tie missing between f#-f#
m. 65 r.h. tie between c#-c# should better curve upwards (in order to avoid the sharp below)

Knut:
m. 13 r.h. last 16th: lower voice must include both d and f#
m. 23 r.h. sharp missing on lower e#

John's critical report is also highly valuable - thank you John for all your work. I just wish that the typographic quality of that particular document was also on the same high level that has been demanded - and achieved - in this thread from music typesetting...!

Thanks, erelievonen. It's been a very interesting discussion and project so far.

And thanks for the corrections. I've done another pass, and I think those were the last two mistakes. A 'final' version is attached below, and like John I will update this link from now on if necessary.

Regarding the commentary, this is indeed great work on John's part, and while there's always room for improvement, I don't see any major faults with the typography. This is a music notation forum after all, and as a supplement to the score, which is the important thing in this context, it gets it's points across beautifully in my book.

[John Ruggero]

Thank you, erelievonen, for your comments. And thank also for taking the time to look it all over. I will make your corrections in the file above plus the spacing error I just caught. I think I am going to need some away time before I can see it clearly any more.

I will look the report over from the typographical point of view and will be making corrections and additions to it as we go.

I certainly hope that you can add an engraving to this project. It would be of great benefit to have as many different versions as possible and from all points of view.

[John Ruggero]

Knut, thanks as always for your words of support.