NOTATIO

Anders Hedelin wrote: ↑01 Dec 2021, 20:51 use your own common sense.

That's like when your mum tells you to 'just be yourself'.

Yes, it's a fairly common baroque ordering. Perhaps because the oboes often doubled the strings.

You wouldn't give each staff an individual bracket? They just look a bit bare!

That's how it always scored in the manuscripts.

I have lots of works with one trumpet, one oboe, plus strings. How, if at all, would you bracket the top two instruments? Together? Individual brackets? Or as is?

MM have released the .1 update to their version 27.

Scoring Notes review is here:

https://www.scoringnotes.com/reviews/fi ... ws-deeper/

In short: this fixes most of the problems introduced by the somewhat partial introduction of SMuFL fonts. (Most, but not all...)

Knut has made some scripts that work in FontLab 7 here:
https://github.com/knutnergaard/FontLab ... main/SMuFL

To take things off in a tangent: we need not 'pretend' that engraving is still ... well, engraved. If computer technology lets us create results that were impossible before, then we should consider them. Notation has evolved over the centuries, and there's no reason why it shouldn't continue to do so.

Here's what I get with my current settings in Dorico, which as usual is half-way inbetween. Screenshot 3.png I agree that the dangers of 'train crossing' diagonals is over-stated, particularly in modern printing. As with all things, there's a balance to be struck between 'direction' and the cleanlin...

I guess it's the usual '2+1' rule: in the same way that sub-beats can be combined as crotchet-quaver (but not the other way round).

Very nice. I notice that the Old Henle version has the last slur ending on the first note of 117; the new Henle has it ending on the previous note.