First engraving project with Dorico

[kingcharlesvii]

Hi all, I'm new here today! I've had a look around and I'm already excited to get more into the engraving sphere.
I've been composing for a decent amount of time now (about 7-8 years) and I will be studying composition at a conservatoire in the UK from this September.
Until recently I have always used Sibelius as that is what I started on and what I was taught on, but then when it came time to renew this year I was tempted by the educational discount PLUS the competitive crossgrade discount for Dorico and had heard really good things about it.
Anyways... I'm going off topic...
I have been improvising my own transcription of Schubert's Standchen (apologies for missing accent) from the Schwanengesang, with Liszt's transcription as inspiration, and decided that my first project with Dorico should be to notate and then engrave a score of my improvisation that I would be reasonably happy if it were to get published at some point in the (very distant!) future.
The main issue I can see is alignment of dynamics in bars 71-85, but I'm new to engraving and just sort of made it up based on my experience as a concert pianist and composer.

I would be very grateful for some constructive criticism and any pointers towards resources you have found helpful.

Sorry for the waffling!
-kingcharlesvii

[David Ward]

It looks quite good, but I suspect that there are things which the engraving experts (I don't regard myself as one of their number) on this forum will suggest should be improved.

Which conservatoire is it you are due to attend?

[John Ruggero]

Welcome to the forum, kingcharlesvii! Sorry for the delay, but I've been under the weather. The engraving is generally quite good. A few points regarding the layout and other matters:

1. You wouldn't want two orphaned systems on the last page in a published version of your arrangement. So if you you do five or so measures per system on the first page, and lay out the rest nicely, you can make a complete last page.

2. Be sure there are good page turns on page 1 and 3. At this point, page 1 is OK but page 3 isn't.

3. What are those strange markings in ms. 25-32 and elsewhere. Caesuras? Breath marks? Not accustomed to seeing those used like that in a piano piece. Better to use a standard articulation marks if you want noticeable breaks in the legato. And actually better to leave it to the taste of the player. The slurring is really sufficient.

4. Have you inadvertently repeated m. 36 as m. 37?

5. I would write the first quarter note of m. 62 and the left hand notes as regular-sized notes since they are presumably played in time. Then an eighth and quarter rest in the upper part of the left hand to complete the 3/4 measure, possibly with fermatas under the bass note and over the quarter rest if the measures are leisurely. If the free measures are intended to continue in an appoximation of 3/4 time, that is, with the second and third beat expanded, then no fermatas. M. 66 same and without time signature.

6. M 71 etc. I would put the all the pp's above the staff to show that the echo is in another voice.

7. m. 104 right hand as regular-sized notes. Then small notes in 105.

8. "Schubert" would be at the top on the title page in large letters. Then the title and subtitle, then something like "concert transcription for piano solo by Charles Geday".

[kingcharlesvii]

Hi John, thank you for your very detailed response, and I hope you feel better soon.

1. I think the problem is that the cadenza bars are taking a lot of space and I think the numbers of bars and systems on most of the pages is about right. So what if I were to create a page break at m. 100 so the last page would have 3 systems instead of 2? Is that enough on the last page?

2. I've changed the frame break so the page turn is now onto m. 81.

3. The marking are breath markings from vocal music. I think they are the right kind of marking for the effect I want to acheive but I may be overlooking other markings - do you have any others suggestions?

4. The repetition of m. 36/37 is intentional as it's in the original.

5. I've changed the scale of the tied notes in the right hand and all notes in the left hand. I don't think fermatas are needed because it's a fairly brief cadenza.

6. I've changed the position of upper voice dynamics but the slurs introduct problems with horizontal alignment of dynamic markings, so what I have tried to do is keep the spacing between the notehead or slur and the dynamic marking the same instead.

7. Changed the scale in m. 104

8. Changed the title page content.

I attach the updated version for your convenience.

Thanks!
-kingcharlesvii

[kingcharlesvii]

It looks quite good, but I suspect that there are things which the engraving experts (I don't regard myself as one of their number) on this forum will suggest should be improved.

Which conservatoire is it you are due to attend?

Trinity-Laban

[John Ruggero]

Hi John, thank you for your very detailed response, and I hope you feel better soon.

Thank you!

1. I think the problem is that the cadenza bars are taking a lot of space and I think the numbers of bars and systems on most of the pages is about right. So what if I were to create a page break at m. 100 so the last page would have 3 systems instead of 2? Is that enough on the last page?

The first two pages look a little too full to me. There is really no good reason why you should have to have only three systems on the last page and good aesthetic reasons why the music could be laid out more spaciously. (and a more spacious layout is now in fashion). Look at published music by well-known publishers. It is relatively rare that piano music doesn't have at least 4 or more systems on a page. 5 or 6 is standard.

Also, the first page of music could have the author and title information at the top, which would give you one more system on the last page.

2. I've changed the frame break so the page turn is now onto m. 81.

The page turn on page 3 is on m. 76 in the copy (version 6) I am looking at. And m. 81 wouldn't be a good turn either. The page turns are quite easy to find in this piece. Almost any measure in which the right hand has a dotted half note.

3. The marking are breath markings from vocal music. I think they are the right kind of marking for the effect I want to acheive but I may be overlooking other markings - do you have any others suggestions?

As I mentioned, the slurring really says it all. If you have some very special effect in mind, what you have written may not be understood by many pianists and may need a footnote or other explanation.

4. The repetition of m. 36/37 is intentional as it's in the original.

Sorry, I should have realized that it's in the Liszt arrangement, not in Schubert's original. It really needs a dynamic as in the Liszt arrangement to clarify that it is an echo.

5. I've changed the scale of the tied notes in the right hand and all notes in the left hand. I don't think fermatas are needed because it's a fairly brief cadenza.

Great!

6. I've changed the position of upper voice dynamics but the slurs introduct problems with horizontal alignment of dynamic markings, so what I have tried to do is keep the spacing between the notehead or slur and the dynamic marking the same instead.

You might break the slur after the first triplet to show the echo. It's an interesting case. You probably connect 1215 between the two groups, but musically the echo could be set off with a break.

7. Changed the scale in m. 104

Looks good. The trill indication in m. 105 could be misleading, that is, as if the trill restarts in m. 105. Either a simple trill line or with the second tr in parentheses.

8. Changed the title page content.

Excellent!

[Fred G. Unn]

Just a few quick general comments:

Even with an elaborate title page, there typically is a larger title above the first system. Since you seem to be going for a Henle-inspired look, just look at how they handle it.

nuages.png (301.11 KiB) Viewed 381 times

Having bar numbers larger than the page numbers throws off the proportion of the page too IMO. Again, here's a Henle example of sort of the standard proportions.

bar.png (608.24 KiB) Viewed 379 times

As you are using lining figures here, the kerning on the bar numbers is not great. If your font contains proportional figures, Dorico 6 now allows you to select that in Paragraph Styles / Bar Numbers / OpenType Features.

liningfig.png (109.14 KiB) Viewed 382 times

I find all the up-bow markings unusual, distracting, and unnecessary as well.

[kingcharlesvii]

Hi John and Fred,

Thank you both for your continued analysis of my engraving.

I have:
- Adjusted the number of systems on each page to (hopefully) make it more even and to give more weight to the final page
- Added the title etc. to the first page of music. It was there in a previous version so I must have somehow changed the page template to Default instead of First.
- Adjusted the page turns, but I'm not quite sure what you are intenting John. To me as a pianist I would be happy with them as I have them now (see attached version 7).
- Swapped the breath wedges out for breath commas, as I really want the pianist to emphasise the break between slurs in order to reflect the original lyrics of the Schubert at that point. I have done some reading and decided that a footnote would be too complicated to create so I will either end up adding a note at the front of the score, or just leaving it with the marks and assume that anyone playing this repertoire would know what a breath mark is.
- Added missing echo dynamic marking
- Changed the system break position in order to make the final trill clearer.
- Made page numbers larger to balance better with bar numbers.

[John Ruggero]

That's a lot better, although I myself would prefer 5 or fewer measures per system throughout as possible.

I guess we can agree to disagree about the breath marks.

The page numbers now look a little big to me.

As I mentioned, measures in which the right hand part has a dotted half note make good page turns in this piece. So, for example, measure 59 etc. is a good place to turn the page, except that you have it on page 2 which a left page and not a page one would turn on. For me (I am a pianist) m. 74 is not a good page turn because the right hand has only one beat to turn the page, and to make it worse it's in the middle of a softer section that one wouldn't want to disrupt.

When I lay out piano music, page turns dictate the entire layout of the piece so that players who are physically turning pages with their hands (not a foot pedal) can play the music with complete enjoyment. So my first step is to identify the best places to turn the pages and make sure that those places come at the bottom of pages 1, 3, 5 etc.

I know that a lot of published piano music has bad page turns because older publishers tried to limit the number of pages for economic reasons. This is now obsolete, and the best publishers try to incorporate the best page turns into their publications because it is a selling point. Incidentally, if you look at piano solo music published during the 19th century, you will see much better page turns than during the first part of the 20th century. This was because pianists generally played from the printed music and demanded good page turns. That is, almost the same quality of page turns that are used today in all orchestral and chamber music parts. Of course, that was not always possible, again from the economic viewpoint. However today there are no economic issues.

The last page has too much space at the bottom and not enough between the systems. Dorico can get rid of that for you. If I remember correctly, you just bring the bottom of the frame up to a certain point and the page magically evens out to the degree you wish. Of course, 4 systems on a page requires more space between the systems and possibly some widening of the staves in each systems to create a good black-white balance on the page. That is why, 5 or more systems per page is preferred in piano solo music.

[Schonbergian]

As a singer, I wouldn't breathe twice with the commas but simply taper at the end of the word to show the lyric phrasing without breaking the vocal line - in other words, exactly what a decent pianist would do when presented with the slurring alone.