John Ruggero wrote: ↑08 May 2017, 22:28
In the Bach example the offset voice is a subordinate voice and is yet the fastest one at the moment. This was in response to OCTO's second rule
"2. That voices that consist of shorter rhythmical values should have note-spacing priority."
which I have taken to mean that he would not offset notes of the fastest moving voices as a general rule.
Sorry, John. I took the movement as an indication that the middle voice was carrying the theme. This, of course, was wrong.
I took OCTO's rule to be concerned with space compensation for any offset notes, not the offset itself, which explains the confusion. If you are right, I would disagree with OCTO's rule. If I'm right, I'd say that his rule touches upon an important point which we have yet to consider in this thread (although it's been discussed in other threads previously).
John Ruggero wrote: ↑08 May 2017, 22:28
You are right in your objection, Knut. It is hard to frame rules without a lot of thought since the possibilities are endless. It is clear why Gould et al have not spelled all of this out. So I guess my rule is like OCTO's, a rule-of-thumb: when there is a choice, offset a secondary voice(s). But maybe I am wrong and it is not a general principal.
Our disagreements in this thread would certainly indicate that. I am still determined, however, to formulate some personal guidelines for this, even though it seems that they are bound to be controversial.
John Ruggero wrote: ↑08 May 2017, 22:28
No. 2 looks fine to me, the principal voices are over each other and it also conforms to OCTO's second rule.
As a standalone example, I agree that it's at least in line with standard practice, but it's inconsistent with the practice in the first example. I would have moved the l.h. eight note to align with the ones in the r.h., especially since this would reflect the MS.
John Ruggero wrote: ↑08 May 2017, 22:28
No. 4 I agree. The situation is dire because the inner voices in the RH will not nest well inside the octaves. I would experiment placing the middle voices on the downbeat RH chord on the other side of the octave like the others to see if it would work.
I tried it, and it didn't work for me.
John Ruggero wrote: ↑08 May 2017, 22:28
No. 5 This looks normal to me, so I don't agree that the RH notes should line up with the C in the LH. I have always seen it as they have it, and it is the Finale default. But I probably misunderstand you.
I'm not entirely sure what I was thinking here. Probably it was a momentary laps of reason. It is nevertheless relevant with regard to example 3:
John Ruggero wrote: ↑08 May 2017, 22:28
No. 3 this looks like a mess to me. I would have offset the second half of the RH measure like the first, and the first half of the LH like the RH.
Again, your analysis would be more in line with current practice as well as default software behavior, but I'm not entirely sure I agree.
Your second alteration would be fine by itself, but your first would require you to extend the stems of the r.h. downstem voice and increase the visual distortion.
This touches upon my (misplaced) quarrels with the last example in that, as you can see from the last chord, the r.h. upstem voice is aligned with the F rather than the default G. As I've pointed out previously, I think it makes sense to make use of this horizontal 'wiggle room' created by the second in the l.h. to even out the distortion.
The MS reflects the engraving, except that Debussy offsets the first r.h. downstem note to the right, which makes the whole thing more consistent and retains the whitespace between the notehead and the dot as a bonus. This last thing, however less important it may be in piano music than in other contexts, is nevertheless desirable.
.