Re: [workbench] Brahms Op. 119, No. 1
Posted: 25 Apr 2016, 18:47
Sorry for interrupting, but here is the first row in my first use of MuseScore!
A Forum devoted to the Practice of Music Notation
https://notat.io/
John Ruggero wrote:Knut, thanks so much for the care with which you are doing this. I will correct the the ties etc. which makes me nervous that the 2% reduction and additional margin may have changed some things. I noticed this with some the brackets and will need to recheck the entire piece. But I am glad that you are now happier with the L-R margins, and I agree that the top number margin could be lower. It is also a vestige of my letter size template.
I am trying not to miss any of your corrections, but didn't really understand the one about the accidentals, which is terra incognito and which I will now delve into. I also will definitely bring up anything that I disagree with and not just leave it unaddressed, for my own information and also because it might be helpful to all.
Really! I've never seen that in plate engraved scores before. If it does occur in some editions, I don't agree with it, and I'm glad it's not a more established feature.John Ruggero wrote:So far, the only correction that I don't agree with concerns the width of the steep cross-beams. I do prefer that they be thinner, and believe that I have seen this in hand engraved music but can't find an example at the moment. There should be examples in Bach and Chopin engraving.
I'm looking forward to reading the report as well as your reactions to my effort above.John Ruggero wrote:I am concerned right now about getting a "Critical Report" online in a coherent fashion and have some more comments to make in it (not actual edits), so I may not post a new version for a while. I also want to finally look over your version.
That's an excellent start, OCTO. Keep at it!OCTO wrote:Sorry for interrupting, but here is the first row in my first use of MuseScore!
shot 13.png
Thanks, John. Those are very interesting examples, and upon seeing them, I too can recall coming across something similar in works by Bach.John Ruggero wrote:Knut, there are many examples of thin beams for space reasons in cross-beamed and non-crossbeamed notes in early editions of the Chopin Prelude no. 1, two can be seen at the following. Clicking on the arrows will show more:
http://www.chopinonline.ac.uk/ocve/brow ... =5&range=1
http://www.chopinonline.ac.uk/ocve/brow ... =1&range=1
I consider m. 11 in my engraving to fall into the same category. M. 33 is a little different and is such a unique case that it is had to find a precedent for it, but I to my eye, slightly thinner beams are more pleasing.
None of this of course, has to do with the general matters of computer beaming as discussed by D. Spreadbury etc.
In the WU edition of the Chopin Etudes the cue staff measures generally give alternate readings of notes and markings from the MS or sketches. It is very helpful to see the evolution of Chopin's markings as one layer casts light on the other. There is a lot of detail in his music and he often could not decide on definitive notation for it.Do the cue staffs on one of the pages represent errors of pitch?
I am not advocating this style for the Brahms, but the Wiener Urtext uses no more pages than any other standard edition of the Etudes! The best page layout for these pieces has been set for many years in many editions, and the WU doesn't deviate from it. Pretty amazing, isn't it? This is definitely an edition for an engraver to study. I prefer it to all other editions because it is a pleasure to play from as well as its authenticity.The main problem with this solution is the extra space it requires for each page.
I don't understand this, possibly because I am still hand copying with a computer and don't rely as much as I should on computer settings for placement.My main issue with square brackets is that they require a larger shift in the placement of some objects they apply to, particularly the intensity marks. Ideally, these should be placed consistently regardless of wether they are bracketed or not, but the closing bracket will cut through the slurs if they aren't shifted vertically. None of the alternatives look very good to me.
John Ruggero wrote: In the WU edition of the Chopin Etudes the cue staff measures generally give alternate readings of notes and markings from the MS or sketches. It is very helpful to see the evolution of Chopin's markings as one layer casts light on the other. There is a lot of detail in his music and he often could not decide on definitive notation for it.
That is very interesting indeed. As I don't own a single Wiener Urtext edition, this is likely to be my first. Thank you for turning me on to it!John Ruggero wrote:I am not advocating this style for the Brahms, but the Wiener Urtext uses no more pages than any other standard edition of the Etudes! The best page layout for these pieces has been set for many years in many editions, and the WU doesn't deviate from it. Pretty amazing, isn't it? This is definitely an edition for an engraver to study. I prefer it to all other editions because it is a pleasure to play from as well as its authenticity.
This has nothing to do with settings.John Ruggero wrote:I don't understand this, possibly because I am still hand copying with a computer and don't rely as much as I should on computer settings for placement.My main issue with square brackets is that they require a larger shift in the placement of some objects they apply to, particularly the intensity marks. Ideally, these should be placed consistently regardless of wether they are bracketed or not, but the closing bracket will cut through the slurs if they aren't shifted vertically. None of the alternatives look very good to me.
Indeed! I think that was it, and I really appreciate you taking the time to answer them all.John Ruggero wrote:I hope that I didn't miss any of your other questions, Knut. This is quite an involved business.
I guess so. Luckily, though, even the most personal opinions seem to result in something more collectively interesting on this board.John Ruggero wrote:As far as the beam thickness, I guess it comes down to a matter of taste as with so many things.
Ah, I understand now. I try to avoid placing brackets or parentheses on the staff or having them cut through anything. And I would use dashed slurs instead of enclosing them if necessary.The rounded shape and thin, semi vertical ends of parenthesis lend themselves better to close placement and even cutting through other objects without being too obstructive