Clef design comparision

[wess-music]

Knut,

you are definitely right about the "usual" and distinctive G-lef utilised by Henle.

Here are comparative picture of 3 Clefs – from 1998, 2001 those seen on Henle site and my version of it from this winter (2015).
The last one was generated by tracing image's shapes (source: 1981, Mendelssohn "Lied ohne Worte") using high resolution micro photograph lens with ration 1:2 (because of the crop factor, otherwise is 1:1 on fill frame).

As you can see, the ascender and descender of both clefs (originally used by Henle) are pretty narrow.
The ascender and descender in my interpretation are not seen on the picture, because they are properly attached (too high and low) to match right positions of "8" sign for "ottava alta" on top and "ottava bassa" on bottom.

For convenience I added staff as a back ground (multiply image)

G-Clefs 1998 2001 2015.png (140.65 KiB) Viewed 9626 times

__________________

And here is a sample from Fuga Nº 10 with the previous "ordinary", however not distinctive, G-clef.

Bach - Fuga 10.jpg (308.9 KiB) Viewed 9623 times

[Knut]

Wess,

is your second example really from the 2007 edition. This looks like plate engraving, whereas the edition I have was obviously computer engraved.
My guess is that yours is a kind of special edition, reprinted in 2007, but engraved much earlier.

[wess-music]

Wess,

My guess is that yours is a kind of special edition, reprinted in 2007, but engraved much earlier.

Yes, it is plate engraved, but not common style for Henle.
Possibly, as you guess, reprinted compilation.

[John Ruggero]

Wess, I find your "ordinary" clef in several Henle editions of piano works in my library: Beethoven Klavierstuecke (1958), J.S. Bach English Suites (1958) J.S. Bach Fantasies, Preludes and Fugues (1970) Schubert Dances vols 1-2 (1956) and I suspect many others in my library that I don't have access to at the moment.

I think we are not looking at anything special, but simply the standard Henle clef from this period. I agree with you that it is one of the best, especially when upright, and I prefer it greatly over their present clef, which while well-proportioned, is less natural-looking, even in your interpretation.

[John Ruggero]

I think I understand the rationale behind the huge eye in the later Hence G clef: to wrap the spiral more tightly around the G line. The height of the symbol generally causes a rather loose spiral in the middle which makes the clef look like it is falling apart.

In looking back over all the clef designs in this thread, my favorites are Wess's "old" [edit} Henle interpretation, Prokofiev's Cleffy upright, and Knut's final version. To me, the Henle and Knut have the most unity. The old Henle and the Cleffy have the most breath while still preserving lightness. So I quess, I agree with Wess that the old Henle may be my favorite, yet Knut's solves the spiral issue better and almost as well as the new Henle without the eye looking absurdly large. If Knut's were broader and not quite as thick at its thickest, it might be my favorite. If the Cleffy's "shading" were more beautiful, it might be my favorite. But right now it is the Henle.

Wess, is your Henle clef for sale? I am desperate for a good G clef.

[Knut]

Close, but no cigar …
Anyway, thank you, John. Unfortunately there isn't room to make the clef lighter without compromising the weight balance relative to other symbols.

Actually, while I understand that there can be many preferences with regard to a single symbol like the treble clef, as a font designer, I find it interesting that none of the opinions expressed in this thread seem to take the aesthetics of the larger symbol set or font into account when judging whether or not a clef (or any other symbol for that matter) is bad or good, better or worse.

Henle's current treble clef design for example, wouldn't fit neither in shape or weight with many available music fonts out there, yet, within Henle's own symbol set, which is pretty unique in many ways, it seems to me like a very good match. Of course there will always be examples of shapes that easily can be criticized independently, but generally I would say that to determine whether or not a symbol is too wide or too narrow, too bold or too thin, one has to look at it in it's intended context.

Maybe I'm getting too picky from dealing with music fonts so much, but I would think that incorporating a single symbol like the treble clef into another music font easily could break with a cohesive aesthetic. To make it work, one would in most cases at least have to adopt an entire set of clefs, but even then, the weight balance between clefs and time signature numbers for example, could easily be compromised.

One could of course (rightly, in my opinion) argue that there are many music fonts available where this kind of harmony isn't terribly apparent in the overall design. Nevertheless, it is an important quality in general font design, and one of the factors which makes me admire the Henle house style (among others).

[John Ruggero]

Knut, I am sorry about the cigar. I was hoping to spur you on to perfection, because, in truth, I have yet to see the Holy Grail of G clefs. No one can understand, I am sure, how difficult this process is until they have attempted it themselves. I wish that I could have a shot at it, but don't have the tools.

It is indeed unfortunate that we cannot judge these symbols in context. I have tried substituting various clefs with the Maeastro font and understand exactly what you mean. None of them really look good in the new context, and I always I come crawling back to the Maestro clef, which I do not like at all, yet, strangely enough, works best.

Perhaps at some point you will post an example of your whole font at work and that will help us understand some of the issues involved.

[Knut]

Knut, I am sorry about the cigar. I was hoping to spur you on to perfection, because, in truth, I have yet to see the Holy Grail of G clefs. No one can understand, I am sure, how difficult this process is until they have attempted it themselves. I wish that I could have a shot at it, but don't have the tools.

Thank you for the encouragement! I will probably not meet your expectations, unfortunately, not in this font, anyway. Apart from the already mentioned weight issue, The font is inspired by the classic look of Durand and other well known french publishers. The treble clef is one of the more accurately reproduced symbols in the font, and I think I'd like to keep it that way, even though it might not be perfect.

Perhaps at some point you will post an example of your whole font at work and that will help us understand some of the issues involved.

I will definitely do that. In the mean time, take a look at later scores by Debussy or Ravel. The treble clef featured in most of those is very similar.

Knut

[John Ruggero]

Knut, Your cousin Durand is one that I could definitely live with. It falls in to the "slight but pretty category" to fit the font, but is a little broader than yours.

Here is a clef that is quite similar, but not published by Durand; in fact I like it a little better. Anyone care to guess? I will give a hint: this is a publisher that is being overlooked in present discussions of engraving and doesn't get enough credit for its beautiful work in the past:

Publisher X:

Chopin.jpg (20.96 KiB) Viewed 9541 times

Durand (Sorry about the quality)

Ravel.jpg (22.81 KiB) Viewed 9535 times

These could almost be the same clef, but the general style and font of publisher X is heftier than Durand, so it is interesting that the clef works in both cases.

[Knut]

Might be Salabert or Shrimer, but I'm not sure.

Yes, the clefs from Durand and publisher X are both bolder and a bit broader than mine.