A Swedish Song From 1903

[Marsilius]

1. Along with the lyrics, the two cresc. indications look a little too big to me.

2. There is an error regarding the triplets on the second and third systems on the second page. There should be no eighth rests following the quarter notes. The quarter notes are intended to hold full value. What appear to be eighth rests are actually the "3" of the triplet indications that have been written on the note side in conjunction with the triplet slurs, in the old style of doing triplets. Since these slurs do not appear to be legato slurs, you might just eliminate them since since you are placing the "3" on the beam style in the modern way.

3. The slurs should point to the first and last note heads, not the stems. As a result they are a little too long. See ms. 4-5 for example.

Wow, thanks for the proof reading!

Do you have an opinion about the mF in the 2nd measure of the last system of the first page of the ms? The piano has a previous mF indication followed by a cresc (hairpins) culminating in the mF. Or is the first mF really a mP?

[John Ruggero]

You are very welcome, Marsilius.

Yes, it's certainly hard to distinguish the composer's mf and mp from each other, also not uncommon during this time.

However, context is helpful. One observes that throughout the piece, the voice and piano dynamics are generally alike. So in m. 12 both have mp after the cresc. from p in m. 11. But there appears to be something amiss with the mf (less likely mp) in m. 17. Shouldn't that be a f along with the voice? One might argue that composer doesn't want the piano accompaniment to cover the voice at a climactic point and marks it down to mf. But that is not the case at other similar moments elsewhere in the piece. So I would guess that this mf (or whatever) should be changed editorially to a f.

[liuscorne]

Is anyone bothered by some of the idiosynchrasies of the music typeface (maybe it's just me)? The in the time signature being too low; being slightly too low; looking a bit "crooked"; and especially the weird looking connection of the upstem flags with the note head ... I'm generally not a fan of wide flags; but here it seems to be not just a matter of taste but in some cases a matter of readability.

[Schonbergian]

I've used this typeface in the past and honestly cannot attest to ever having issues with "readability" with the symbols that you pointed out.

[tisimst]

Is anyone bothered by some of the idiosynchrasies of the music typeface (maybe it's just me)? The in the time signature being too low; being slightly too low; looking a bit "crooked"; and especially the weird looking connection of the upstem flags with the note head ... I'm generally not a fan of wide flags; but here it seems to be not just a matter of taste but in some cases a matter of readability.

I completely understand what you're saying and don't blame anyone for liking or disliking any of my fonts or individual symbols in them. This font is one of the more stylistic options, which inevitably is going to be polarizing based on individual taste. Right or wrong, readable or not, everything you see (that comes from the music font anyway) comes from real scores of the era. So, don't blame me (just kidding). It's a fun, romantic style--easily one of my favorites I've made even though I generally prefer to use others by default.

[Anders Hedelin]

In m. 34 of the MS there's just a half note in the right hand of m. 34 - the last quarter is missing. Harmonically, in this style, tt's very unusual that a I64 chord, as at the beginning of m. 34, should not be followed by a resolution into a V7 chord before the cadential goal, I (m. 35). The three last notes of the left hand (A G E) bears this out. Probably a 'proof-reading' error.

[John Ruggero]

In m. 34 of the MS there's just a half note in the right hand of m. 34 - the last quarter is missing. Harmonically, in this style, tt's very unusual that a I64 chord, as at the beginning of m. 34, should not be followed by a resolution into a V7 chord before the cadential goal, I (m. 35). The three last notes of the left hand (A G E) bears this out. Probably a 'proof-reading' error.

The correction definitely can't be a dotted half note as shown in the engraved version.

It's also possible that there is a quarter rest missing, and the composer has allowed the expected resolution to be implied by the left hand and vocal part rather than actually present to allow the introductory music to reenter in the next measure without an upbeat as when it first appears in m. 1.

Impossible to know for sure. Is this the only source for the piece? A footnote should explain the issue in the final engraving.

[OCTO]

I completely understand what you're saying and don't blame anyone for liking or disliking any of my fonts or individual symbols in them. This font is one of the more stylistic options, which inevitably is going to be polarizing based on individual taste. Right or wrong, readable or not, everything you see (that comes from the music font anyway) comes from real scores of the era. So, don't blame me (just kidding). It's a fun, romantic style--easily one of my favorites I've made even though I generally prefer to use others by default.

I support this. Many of the scores I love (and typefaces within) are because they are not perfect in micro-meter, but somehow "human", manually punched.

[Marsilius]

Here is a new version. I have tried to take all your comments into account.

As for the composer, he does not follow all the rules of his day, either because he can't, or because he feels free to do as he likes. Note for instance measure 30 and 31: at the end of 30 both the bass and melody have a G and in the next instant they both have B.

This is the only source I know. It is from the Musikverket in Stockholm. They take care of Frans von Heland's archive. I belive there is no old engraving.

[John Ruggero]

I think that is is much improved, Marsilius, and your solution to the problem in m. 35 might be the only viable one given the situation. Perhaps the composer was concerned about the apparent octaves between the outer notes of the piano part E-D in m. 35-36 and was trying to find another solution, but never came up with one. One can hear your added E lead to the F# in the alto of m. 36 and the G below it as a passing seventh leading to an understood A in m. 36.

I think the song is charming and the composer had nothing to be ashamed of. The octaves in 30-31 are harmless in my opinion, since they are in contrary motion and the result of the decorative note B in the voice.