[WORKBENCH] Brahms Op. 119, No. 1

[Knut]

Ah, I understand now. I try to avoid placing brackets or parentheses on the staff or having them cut through anything.

As do I. Luckily, I've come up with a solution for the intensity marks which bothered me in the Brahms. I'm saving it for my next and, hopefully, final version.

You'll really like the Chopin, Knut. For me, there are three essential editions of piano music: the Bischoff/Bach WTC, the Schenker/Beethoven Sonatas and the Badura-Skoda/Chopin Etudes.

I'll definitely check out the other two as well. The Bischoff, it seems, is only available in a low quality reprint at the moment, unfortunately.

[Knut]

More erata:

m. 49: Courtesy natural on last r.h. B is missing in all sources.

[John Ruggero]

Thanks, Knut. I would not add that courtesy natural in my own version, nor the the one on the following E in the melody and many others because they don't pass my "would I have any tendency to play that as a B#" test. But I will certainly add it to the Critical Report if your wish.

I should have remembered that the Bischoff edition of all of Bach's Keyboard music was re-engraved (Alfred-ized) by Kalmus several yeas and ruined in the process. I think that the original German version of some of it was available online at one point and will look for it. Of course, I am recommending this and the Schenker from the point of view of the editing rather than the engraving.

The Russian "reprint" supposedly of the Bischoff at IMSLP is nothing like the original, which is well-engraved and has the source material presented in extensive footnotes on each page..

[Knut]

Thanks, Knut. I would not add that courtesy natural in my own version, nor the the one on the following E in the melody and many others because they don't pass my "would I have any tendency to play that as a B#" test. But I will certainly add it to the Critical Report if your wish.

No need.

I haven't really done a thorough proof, and just spotted this one while tweaking beam angles. But I see now that there are indeed some other similar cases in the piece. I agree on second thought that these are clearly understood from the harmonic context, so including courtesy accidentals for these notes would probably seem a bit too systemic and unnecessary.

I should have remembered that the Bischoff edition of all of Bach's Keyboard music was re-engraved (Alfred-ized) by Kalmus several yeas and ruined in the process. I think that the original German version of some of it was available online at one point and will look for it. Of course, I am recommending this and the Schenker from the point of view of the editing rather than the engraving.

The Russian "reprint" supposedly of the Bischoff at IMSLP is nothing like the original, which is well-engraved and has the source material presented in extensive footnotes on each page..

Thank you for this information. If you find a copy of the German version, please let me know.

[John Ruggero]

Knut, I am finally looking through your beautiful engraving and admiring so many of the aspects that you have mentioned in your critique of mine. It has a more open look that I would like to attain and will do some experimenting with reduction and proportion to see if I can achieve it. It is also nice to finally see your font on display in a complete piece. This font is a great achievement. I also think that your combination of text and music fonts form an excellent ensemble.

Here are a few minor things that I noticed for your final round of corrections along with some comments:

The composer and opus number look a little high to me and might be closer to the music and further down from the title so that one's attention is not taken away from the title. The copyright notice also looks a little too close to the music given the space you have below it.

m. 7 There is a missing treble clef at the end of this measure.

m. 11 There is a missing bass clef at the end of this measure.

m. 10 The brackets look a smidgen close to the hairpins, but mine are too far away. I don't think that the brackets and hairpins should form one symbol.

m. 12 The RH 18th beam beam is too close to the top rest.

m. 14 I am glad that you like the Aut. business!

m. 16 I would preserve the original lower case italics for the tempo changes and use less bold dashes. But this may now be the fashion and/or a style feature. But those dashes are pretty bold!

m. 17 It is truly unfortunate that the first measure of the next section is orphaned at the end of the line, as in the first edition. But placing it on the next line could lead to crowding. Layout is a difficult matter here.

m. 22 In the MS the cresc. starts on the first LH G#, so it is really unnecessary to break the bar line as in the first edition. I would not break a bar line unless absolutely necessary. For example, I don't see a need for it in m. 27.

m. 24 This use of smaller brackets occurred to me also yesterday, and I think that I will use it in my next version. But did you decide against parentheses?

m. 30 I am not fond of sloping hairpins, especially here! (The one in 7 is OK.)

m. 33 I think that you have accomplished this much better than the first edition so that it is not objectionable at all. Maybe I should change mine? Yet I am still not convinced.

m. 45 Very clever slur! And here the broken beam is a necessity.

While the shape of your slurs is flawless, I prefer that they point a little more toward the center of the note head. Comparing m. 55-57 in the two versions shows our different perspectives on this.

[Knut]

Knut, I am finally looking through your beautiful engraving and admiring so many of the aspects that you have mentioned in your critique of mine. It has a more open look that I would like to attain and will do some experimenting with reduction and proportion to see if I can achieve it. It is also nice to finally see your font on display in a complete piece. This font is a great achievement. I also think that your combination of text and music fonts form an excellent ensemble.

Thank you so much for taking the time to review my work so thoroughly, John, and of course for your kind words and positive feedback. I agree with almost all of your thoughts, and appreciate them greatly. You can get pretty blinded by your own work with such a process, so any well founded critique is invaluable.

At the risk of sounding apologetic, I will say that a few of the issues you point out are results of the first step of this process; to copy the first edition engraving pretty closely. I would probably do certain things a little differently if the process didn't start with this exercise.

Nevertheless, let me reply to each of your points with a comment of my own:

The composer and opus number look a little high to me and might be closer to the music and further down from the title so that one's attention is not taken away from the title. The copyright notice also looks a little too close to the music given the space you have below it.

I agree on both counts. I usually have the composer's name centered between the title and the music. In this case, however I had it centered between the initial Tempo marking and the title, which made it a bit high. The last line of the copyright should go below the bottom margin, so that it is in equal distance form the edge of the page to the page numbers, which go above the top margin. In this case, it didn't.

m. 7 There is a missing treble clef at the end of this measure.

m. 11 There is a missing bass clef at the end of this measure.

Thank you for spotting this. I am tempted to blame this on the beams over the barlines for this (or even the Patterson plug-in itself), because they make certain objects behave weirdly. I'm not sure if this is justified, though.

m. 10 The brackets look a smidgen close to the hairpins, but mine are too far away. I don't think that the brackets and hairpins should form one symbol.

I agree. You'll see a space saving 'personal touch' to these brackets in the version below, and I hope you like it.

m. 12 The RH 18th beam beam is too close to the top rest.

Agreed. It's actually a little difficult to decide on the best remedy in this case, but I think I got it.

m. 14 I am glad that you like the Aut. business!

Thank you for suggesting it.

m. 16 I would preserve the original lower case italics for the tempo changes and use less bold dashes. But this may now be the fashion and/or a style feature. But those dashes are pretty bold!

This is indeed a style feature and as such, probably mostly a matter of taste. This is my personal preferred style, adopted from Durand, and their dashes are just as bold! I can see why you would prefer to keep the italic style because of it's presence in the first edition, but I prefer the Durand style because it keeps everything related to tempo in the same font, and thus is instantly recognizable. The Brahms probably isn't cluttered enough with expressions for this to be necessary, but Durand used this style for everything back in the day, so I went for it.

m. 17 It is truly unfortunate that the first measure of the next section is orphaned at the end of the line, as in the first edition. But placing it on the next line could lead to crowding. Layout is a difficult matter here.

I agree with you, but I think the engraver of the 1st edition went with the best solution possible.

m. 22 In the MS the cresc. starts on the first LH G#, so it is really unnecessary to break the bar line as in the first edition. I would not break a bar line unless absolutely necessary. For example, I don't see a need for it in m. 27.

I didn't notice this discrepancy in the MS, but given the correct placement of the cresc. marking, I agree with you that breaking the barline is unnecessary. The same thing goes for the fp in m. 27, which broke the barline unnecessarily in both the 1st and the complete editions.

m. 24 This use of smaller brackets occurred to me also yesterday, and I think that I will use it in my next version. But did you decide against parentheses?

Not exactly. I used square brackets mostly as an experiment, and to gauge the reaction. Also, I believe square brackets are more commonly used for editorial purposes than parenthesis. Since they were featured in your Chopin Edudes example, and since you didn't seem wild about the idea of using parenthesis exclusively (apologies if I misunderstood you), I wanted to at least try it, and in this case, I think it turned out fine.

m. 30 I am not fond of sloping hairpins, especially here! (The one in 7 is OK.)

I do like them if they are appropriate, but I agree that this particular case, a horizontal hairpin is preferable.

m. 33 I think that you have accomplished this much better than the first edition so that it is not objectionable at all. Maybe I should change mine? Yet I am still not convinced.

Thank you, that's reassuring!
Like with angled hairpins, I really like cross beams if they are appropriate and aesthetically pleasing. Both demands need to be fulfilled for me to consider them (provided it is actually possible to use conventional beams instead). In this case, I think the conventional version is more appealing because of the deviation in the stem lengths that a cross beam inevitably will produce. Except for the clef change, I really don't see any advantage to a cross beam either, but this may very well be due to ignorance on my part.

m. 45 Very clever slur! And here the broken beam is a necessity.

Thank you!

While the shape of your slurs is flawless, I prefer that they point a little more toward the center of the note head. Comparing m. 55-57 in the two versions shows our different perspectives on this.

I suspect that the way I handle slurs has more to do with Finale's limitations than anything else. By now, I'm so used to seeing them this way, that they don't bother me, which might be a shame.

Anyway, I've tried to edit them according to your preference to the best of my ability in the version below. I'm not completely sure I got them all (Finale crashed at the moment I was done), but I'm pretty sure you'll find some improvement.


And here is the latest version with some of my own edits in addition to John's excellent points above.

Intermezzo-Corrected-02p1.jpg (727.72 KiB) Viewed 7084 times

Intermezzo-Corrected-02p2.jpg (848.63 KiB) Viewed 7084 times

[John Ruggero]

Thank you for taking my comments so seriously, Knut. I am doing the same with yours, and I hope that I can be as successful with them as you have been with mine! I love the slurs and the rest too in your new version!

I have further reduced the score to 95% with a good outcome, and reduced the accidental distances to exactly .25 space which is definitely better although at times the accidentals do seem a little close. You had mentioned that the distance should be between .25 and . 5 space, so I am a little puzzled since it had been set to the Finale default of .333 space.

You had said that the dots were too close to the notes. I only noticed this in the few places you mentioned. 43 etc was one of those. The problem here was that the dot was running into the flag as In the first edition, so I had moved it in. I notice that you went the other way with the dot which I had tried but didn't work with my measure width. I am going to have to change the whole line spacing for those two dots!

But I am not sure how to proceed with your suggestion about the accidentals being too close to the bar lines. I have Document Options>Notes and Rests>Spacing before Music: 1 space. Spacing After Music: 0 space. Is this the correct setting? Or is there some other setting that would position the accidentals closer?

Thanks again Knut. I am beginning to think that this has been the best use of my engraving time in a long while.

[Knut]

Thank you for taking my comments so seriously, Knut. I am doing the same with yours, and I hope that I can be as successful with them as you have been with mine! I love the slurs and the rest too in your new version!

Thank you, John. That is very good to hear. What did you think of the mixed size brackets around the intensity marks? This solution saved me some vertical space, and looks good to me, but I don't think it is a common solution.

I have further reduced the score to 95% with a good outcome, and reduced the accidental distances to exactly .25 space which is definitely better although at times the accidentals do seem a little close. You had mentioned that the distance should be between .25 and . 5 space, so I am a little puzzled since it had been set to the Finale default of .333 space.

I use 6.5 mm. system reduction, which might very well result in around the same size.
The ideal distance for the accidentals depend on the spacing of the music, but in this case, I'd say that 0.25 spaces should be enough. Naturals and flats require a little less space than sharps. On chords, you also have the option to move accidentals closer together, which can be a big help visually, and save you even more space.

You had said that the dots were too close to the notes. I only noticed this in the few places you mentioned. 43 etc was one of those. The problem here was that the dot was running into the flag as In the first edition, so I had moved it in. I notice that you went the other way with the dot which I had tried but didn't work with my measure width. I am going to have to change the whole line spacing for those two dots!

I think the specified measures were the only problematic ones. If there isn't room to place the dots after the flag, consider substituting the flag with a shorter one (I think Maestro has some options) and place the dot below it.

But I am not sure how to proceed with your suggestion about the accidentals being too close to the bar lines. I have Document Options>Notes and Rests>Spacing before Music: 1 space. Spacing After Music: 0 space. Is this the correct setting? Or is there some other setting that would position the accidentals closer?

Here are the settings I used in Document Options for Accidentals and Notes & Rests. Hopefully, they will improve some of your spacing issues:

Skjermbilde 2016-04-27 kl. 10.28.05.png (175.29 KiB) Viewed 8014 times

Skjermbilde 2016-04-27 kl. 10.28.18.png (212.66 KiB) Viewed 8014 times

[John Ruggero]

Knut wrote:

What did you think of the mixed size brackets around the intensity marks?

I think they are fine. I see nothing wrong with different sizes for different situations.

I use 6.5 mm. system reduction, which might very well result in around the same size.

Our two engravings now look very similar. (Maybe I am flattering myself.) And I didn't copy yours, I swear.

I did wonder if the 95% page reduction had ruined all those nice line settings we established.

On chords, you also have the option to move accidentals closer together

I assume this would be by eye, which is the way I have always done it, but wondered if there were settings that would make it happen automatically.

consider substituting the flag with a shorter one (I think Maestro has some options) and place the dot below it.

A shorter flag! The things one learns here! Actually, I think I did OK with just a little finessing.

Thanks for the settings, the new ones were the -.5 and the .5.

For some reason, the -.5 for the accidentals didn't do anything. They didn't budge. As I mentioned I now have the other settings at .25, but I see that yours are .33 which was what mine were when you said that the accidentals were too far from the notes! Maybe .25 is too close?

That .5 space at the end of the bar is something that we need to discuss, and I wish that other forum members would chime in. The FInale default is 0, but we know about those defaults.

Here's my thinking: the bar lines are not frames for the music. They only for orientation and shouldn't disturb the spacing, so the music can flow and not be stopped by them. The bar lines could be removed and one couldn't tell that they had been there. When I tried the .5 space, there was suddenly too much space. Was this because I had already done some hand adjusting?

[Knut]

I did wonder if the 95% page reduction had ruined all those nice line settings we established.

I use many of the same settings as those established on this forum, and have not changed any of my default line settings for this particular engraving.

I assume this would be by eye, which is the way I have always done it, but wondered if there were settings that would make it happen automatically.

Yes and no. TG-Tools has it's Shift Accidentals plug-in that I use a lot. It does not work on cross layered accidental stacks, however, so these have to be done manually.

A shorter flag! The things one learns here! Actually, I think I did OK with just a little finessing.

My font currently has 3 different versions of the 8th note flag with different lengths to handle such situations, among others.

For some reason, the -.5 for the accidentals didn't do anything. They didn't budge.

Did you try respacing the measures? You may have to, unfortunately.

As I mentioned I now have the other settings at .25, but I see that yours are .33 which was what mine were when you said that the accidentals were too far from the notes! Maybe .25 is too close?

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, when I commented on this issue. Adjusting the settings under under Document Options/Accidentals (or any other setting for that matter) unfortunately cannot address this, so your only option is manual labour.

That .5 space at the end of the bar is something that we need to discuss, and I wish that other forum members would chime in. The FInale default is 0, but we know about those defaults.

Here's my thinking: the bar lines are not frames for the music. They only for orientation and shouldn't disturb the spacing, so the music can flow and not be stopped by them. The bar lines could be removed and one couldn't tell that they had been there. When I tried the .5 space, there was suddenly too much space. Was this because I had already done some hand adjusting?

I follow tradition in this case, I think, because there is a tendency in plate engraving to add a little extra space at the end of tightly spaced measures. To me it does not make much sense to apply spacing as if the barlines weren't present. They are there after all, and they do indeed disrupt the flow of the music, framing it metrically. I would also imagine that not taking the barlines into account would lead to some pretty undesirable results, considering system breaks.

Anyway, as for the Spacing After Music setting, I adjust this according to the music at hand to give myself the least amount of manual work in the end. If the spacing is very tight and/or there is a lot of 16th or smaller value notes at the end of the measures, I tend to give the measures some extra space at the ends globally. I then subtract this extra space if needed on a measure by measure basis in the tweaking stage. Normally, I have this setting at 0, though.