open string "0" size/height

[MichelRE]

I need to include the "0" for an open string, but the only examples I'm finding are either above/below the staff, or on an open string that happens to fall on a staff line.

What happens with an open string that lies in a space? how large should the "0" be? I don't want it to look like an open notehead (I AM using a numeral font), but the number tends to require more space than is available between two staff lines. Either I make it bleed onto the upper line, or the lower.

[OCTO]

Is it possible to send a screenshot of what you mean? I can't imagine what is the issue.

Usually, the font for representing an open string is 0 (zero) is a common font for fingering (usually bold), and yes, it is larger than one staff space.

[MichelRE]

because it's part of a double stop, I have to place it beside the note, rather than below/above.
in the example you posted, all the numerals are "on" staff lines.
I will get a picture and post it in a bit.

my problem is it's a string crossing: the open string is a higher string (the E string), but the fingered note is higher (a G) and on a lower string (on the A string).

I originally wanted to put the notes so that the A string notes are stem down, and the E string notes are stem up.
But the ties became a mess.

The "0" symbol also looks a bit skinny and "pointy" to me, and I don't like the way it sits inside the staff lines on each side. but placing it ON the staff line (ie: staff line going through it) places the 0 too high or too low, where it either conflicts with the tie, or it becomes somewhat ambiguous about which note it belongs to (even if logic clearly says it's the E string).

[MichelRE]

I feel stupid insisting on the open string symbol being beside the note....
I tried it below and it seems to look fine. Do you think this would work?

(by the way, I've come across at least one website that puts a letter "o" as the symbol for "open string". I know this is wrong, but it's still weird to see.)

[OCTO]

As a violin player, I would strongly suggest using 12pt bold font (guess Times N R) for the fingering. It is easier to read.

Also, you don't need the zero on the second tied note, and perhaps even not on the second phrase.

Writing non div. is essential here as well.

[OCTO]

And yes, the second example is more clear, below the note.

[OCTO]

...and since it is non div. (that must be confirmed, or people will discuss on the rehearsal) it is better to write in a single layer (voice) than in two separate voices.

[MichelRE]

thank-you Octo.
I was repeating the open string marking on the tied note since Gould seems to encourage doing so for tied notes.
and no need for divisi in this particular case, it's a solo violin passage.
I'll probably remove the 2nd open string marking, then, since it is rather obvious that it's a similar repeating pattern, and the logic would dictate that the E remains an open string.

[OCTO]

I was repeating the open string marking on the tied note since Gould seems to encourage doing so for tied notes.

Interesting, if you could point this at what page it is in Gould - I am curious to see.
(p.s. here I am very curious to learn more, and not to argue
So far, in all violin scores I have checked now there was no single repetition of fingerings for tied notes. I understand that as it would be an redundant information.

and no need for divisi in this particular case, it's a solo violin passage.

ah, that's clear!

[MichelRE]

AHA! Octo, I was mistaken, she does NOT suggest that the fingering (or open string) be repeated on a tied note.
I was misremembering a comment about repeated notes being marked as such in certain contexts to ensure that a note isn't taken on an alternate string when the open string is desired.
(it was from page 395 that I was misremembering it)