NOTATIO

Very nice. I thought you were probably using a tablet, but players using sheet music will bless you.

I just noticed a slur at the end of m. 86 that could use a little work. Software has problems with this situation and also the one where there s a single note on the next line. Neither Finale nor Dorico do it well. Wondering if you are using Lilypond?

Dorico user since late-2020. I have tried Lilypond with Frescobaldi and liked the default output though! Dorico just seems most fitting for me workflow-wise.

But yeah, those slurs, especially at the end of the staff... Dorico can sometimes make them very weird by default.
Here's my manually tweaked version:
Jäidenlähtö v7.1

The end and beginning of the line slurs in Dorico take an example in Gould that looks exaggerated to me (page 112 bottom) and make it even more exaggerated. I wish Dorico would just do level slurs and leave the rest to the user, if it can't do better ones on its own.

Just noticed the two measure system 33-34. I would do 33-35 and then 36-38 It's nice when the layout reflects the phrasing, but sometimes that is not possible. Or keep the original 6 measures plus 4 measures. Four systems on a page can be done successfully.

Something about the font brought Lilypond to mind.

Why the different approach to grouping in m15 and 31 compared to the 8va version in m33? I prefer the m33 version so I would just use it 8ba in those other two bars, but in any case, I'd be consistent unless you have a specific reason for notating those bars differently.

Thank you again!

Four systems on page 3 seems very reasonable and tidy. Did my best with the staff spacing, trying to align the bottom grand staff of p3 with the bottom staff of p2.
On p4-5 achieving symmetry seems a lot trickier, mostly becase of the difference in overall density.

https://www.mikkopatama.com/wp-content/ ... o-v7.2.pdf

You are very welcome, mikkop.

I can't believe I didn't notice the repeat of m. 15-16 or would have commented on it earlier. Repeats of short bits like this are generally written out, unless it represents an ad lib. repeat. If you decided to write it out, this would impact the layout issue on p. 3 and you might go back to 5 systems, as good as it now looks.

A final thought. Some might write ms. 36 and 38 without octave signs. You are playing it safe, and I am a torn about it myself. Although it is a little low, I think that a pianist should be able to read it even when the octave above is not present (as you have later). And if not, they'll just mark it in. The point is that It would look more like it sounds. But a publisher might object I suppose.

John Ruggero wrote: ↑26 Nov 2024, 22:37 You are very welcome, mikkop.

I can't believe I didn't notice the repeat of m. 15-16 or would have commented on it earlier. Repeats of short bits like this are generally written out, unless it represents an ad lib. repeat. If you decided to write it out, this would impact the layout issue on p. 3 and you might go back to 5 systems, as good as it now looks.

To my eyes, even writing those two bars out on the same staff doesn't look too crowded, and it mirrors nicely the the other 6-bar staff on the next page. So I might leave it like this:



Here's the ending of the slow part on the next page:

A final thought. Some might write ms. 36 and 38 without octave signs. You are playing it safe, and I am a torn about it myself. Although it is a little low, I think that a pianist should be able to read it even when the octave above is not present (as you have later). And if not, they'll just mark it in. The point is that It would look more like it sounds. But a publisher might object I suppose.

Maybe you're right, since it's just those two notes on the whole piece, and in the context of the music it's quite easy to guess that there's a D-pedal point throughout those four bars.

I think you are right. 6 measures on a line is not a problem. The rest of your layout is actually on the spacious side.