NOTATIO

p.s. I have definitely proble with the first , it is to much white in the middle (hole!), and particularly in comparing to .

OCTO wrote:I have concerns about the term "distinguished" - in my opinion it should not be to much distinguished so that it pops-out, instead it should be "complementary distinguished", so that nothing disturbs reading, yet they are as a complete font very distinguished.

I totally agree. It's definitely a balancing act.

In the case of the noteheads, though, I don't personally feel that these stand out to the point of being distracting, but that may be because I'm used to them, an herein lies a problem with music font design:

Designing a font is (or at least could be) a very lengthy process. After a while you get used to the minor mistakes which may be inherent in the designs, and they don't come across as 'wrong' anymore. This, in addition to taste and individual preference, which may even change as you go along, makes it very difficult work, and even more difficult to finish!

Once I wanted to publish a theory book but I was unsure what font (type, size, combination) would be the best for that purpose. So I made a small booklet with several chapters with different versions and gave it to my students. After a while, I asked them to look carefully at the print, at the symbols, what they feel about the musical examples etc.

If it was just a question of taste than the result would be pretty equal. But no, the most of them choose one publication as the most beautiful / easy to read /etc.
So I highly recommend to do it with musicians who never look after font difference. Just give them different scores that have different fonts and let them play. After they have played ask them questions, but slowly introduce what you mean, they will be very confused, I promise...
I really love this way!

In other words, you "beta test" your publications. Excellent!

Dear Knut,

I have printed your file and one thing I have noticed quite immediately: When I commented the angle of horizontal lines in , I meant the following: in combination with ledgered noteheads, the bottom horizontal line of seems to be to high, therefore I have an optical illusion that the accidental is placed to high. However, I don't get the same impression for your symbol.

OCTO wrote:When I commented the angle of horizontal lines in , I meant the following: in combination with ledgered noteheads, the bottom horizontal line of seems to be to high, therefore I have an optical illusion that the accidental is placed to high.
However, I don't get the same impression for your symbol.

Thanks, OCTO!

Sadly, this is an inherent illusion in most accidental shapes, even less angled ones, so reducing the angle will not get rid of this.
In the original manuscript, this particular sharp is placed off centre to compensate for this effect. The Durand screenshot in your opening post clearly shows the illusion to (more or less) the same degree as with my own font, but since the note and accidental isn't located outside the staff, the effect isn't as apparent.

Here's the same passage with the less angled sharp in the Maestro font:
My point to having this particular relatively steep angle for both sharps and naturals, is that it's the same angle used for the black and half noteheads. This way, the accidental becomes harmonious with the noteheads, which is easier on the eyes.

You could of course argue that the angle is too steep overall, but personally I don't think so.

It's interesting how Durand, at least in the specific case of Tzigane, slightly repositions sharps that fall on ledger lines to compensate for the effect that OCTO is talking about. I've never been aware of this before, and the few alternative publishers I've checked, do not bother with this.

Knut wrote:It's interesting how Durand, at least in the specific case of Tzigane, slightly repositions sharps that fall on ledger lines to compensate for the effect that OCTO is talking about. I've never been aware of this before, and the few alternative publishers I've checked, do not bother with this.

Interesting... very interesting.
Is it something that has to do with the shape of the ?
This edition has very angled and maybe that is the reason?

Praise for the Analog engraving! Hats down!

OCTO wrote:
Interesting... very interesting.
Is it something that has to do with the shape of the ?
This edition has very angled and maybe that is the reason?

It's definitely motivated by the angle of the sharps, and upon further study, I've found that it's not a unique feature to this particular Durand edition. Durand's sharp is pretty steep, yes, but no more than some other renowned publishers (Peters, Salabert, Bärenreiter), none of which seem to follow this same practice.

Anyway, While there are certainly some publishers which sharps are much more moderately angled, most seem to deviate only slightly from Durand's model. I personally don't think a very minor difference should make a difference either way, and I find it curious why so few others seem to do this as long as we're talking about manual engraving.

Doing this kind of shift automatically might be something Daniel and his team should concider?

Fascinating! This never occurred to me before, and the optical illusion issue is obvious on close inspection. I suppose it might be relatively simple for an application to align a single sharp in the Durand style, above. But what about chords, mixed accidentals, etc.? How can this be codified for more complex cases?