NOTATIO

It’s been quite a while since I last posted here, though I’ve been following everything shared on the forum every day.
Although a bit sudden, I especially want to thank John Ruggero — what you’ve shared has been truly fascinating.

In the past few days, I came across OOLOI, and I’m glad to see someone making further efforts in the field of music engraving software, aiming to create something that stands apart from existing notation/composition programs like Dorico or MuseScore.

Taking this opportunity, I’d like to share another project I know of: a music engraving–dedicated software currently in development by Japanese engraver Kazuhiro Hoshide.
Here’s a link on X: https://x.com/kazuhirohoshide/status/17 ... 6781878598

It already seems capable of handling some relatively simple engraving tasks: https://x.com/kazuhirohoshide/status/18 ... 4818396636

Based on Mr. Hoshide’s other posts, I believe this is also a tool well worth looking forward to.
I’m sure more information will be released in the future — what do you all think?

Don't like those beam angles!

I'm torn -- on the one hand, it's great that there might be a wealth of tools available for engravers to use, and perhaps different tools might be preferred for different tasks.
On the other hand -- we've just had a major 'upset' with the exodus from Finale. You'll need to have a very good reason to persuade people to switch again. In the open source world, we've got Lilypond for the coding purists; and MuseScore, which is proving "good enough" for most uses, and relatively easy to use, plus the audio content.

Open source models really only work when many hands join in to support development as a community or team. Projects that rely on only one person (and I'm including commercial endeavours like Encore in this) are vulnerable to being abandoned.

If the object is to gain widespread adoption, and/or commercial success, then any new app will need to be amazing in inconceivable ways. I can't see any venture capitalist thinking they'll get a return, investing in new notation apps.

If that's not the object, then....

benwiggy wrote: ↑30 Sep 2025, 17:12

Don't like those beam angles!

I’m glad to hear your thoughts, benwiggy.
It’s not surprising that quite a few people seem to prefer the gentler angles, as seen in Henle’s editions.
Personally, however, I don’t think angled beams—even those forming a wedge shape against the staff—are such a problem. They can make the flow of notes easier to perceive. Of course, that doesn’t mean leaving everything in a raw, default form; there should still be rules to make the result look elegant.

Historically speaking, early Henle scores also used such angles, sometimes even more radical ones. To me, the gentler angles seem more like a compromise dictated by the technology of the time. With today’s advanced home printing, I tend to see them more as a stylistic option rather than a necessity. That said, I expect this software will be able to support gentler angles through its settings, since it claims to offer a high degree of flexibility.

For now, I think what this project has shown looks quite good, but I certainly welcome hearing different opinions.

benwiggy wrote: ↑30 Sep 2025, 17:12 I'm torn -- on the one hand, it's great that there might be a wealth of tools available for engravers to use, and perhaps different tools might be preferred for different tasks.
On the other hand -- we've just had a major 'upset' with the exodus from Finale. You'll need to have a very good reason to persuade people to switch again. In the open source world, we've got Lilypond for the coding purists; and MuseScore, which is proving "good enough" for most uses, and relatively easy to use, plus the audio content.

Open source models really only work when many hands join in to support development as a community or team. Projects that rely on only one person (and I'm including commercial endeavours like Encore in this) are vulnerable to being abandoned.

If the object is to gain widespread adoption, and/or commercial success, then any new app will need to be amazing in inconceivable ways. I can't see any venture capitalist thinking they'll get a return, investing in new notation apps.

If that's not the object, then....

Realistically, any new notation software entering the market faces the same challenges. But as an engraver myself, I know that the current tools are not entirely ideal (though this may vary from person to person). If someone can take a step closer to the “ideal” beyond just being “good enough,” while also offering unique value as you suggest, I think that would be very welcome

benwiggy wrote: ↑30 Sep 2025, 17:12 Don't like those beam angles!

Shinianqi wrote: ↑30 Sep 2025, 17:39 It’s not surprising that quite a few people seem to prefer the gentler angles, as seen in Henle’s editions.
Personally, however, I don’t think angled beams—even those forming a wedge shape against the staff—are such a problem.

No, these are just flat out wrong. An ascending beam contained within the staff cannot begin with Sit (only Straddle or Hang) and cannot end with Hang (only Straddle or Sit). A descending beam contained within the staff cannot begin with Hang (only Straddle or Sit) and cannot end with Sit (only Straddle or Hang). With that in mind, everything about these beam endpoints, both start and finish, is completely wrong.
For reference, my own defaults:

Fred G. Unn wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025, 03:32 No, these are just flat out wrong. An ascending beam contained within the staff cannot begin with Sit (only Straddle or Hang) and cannot end with Hang (only Straddle or Sit). A descending beam contained within the staff cannot begin with Hang (only Straddle or Sit) and cannot end with Sit (only Straddle or Hang). With that in mind, everything about these beam endpoints, both start and finish, is completely wrong.

Welcome aboard, Fred. During the time I’ve been following the forum, I’ve also greatly enjoyed the content you’ve shared — especially considering that much of it includes rare materials. Thank you for continuing to share over such a long period.

Back to the topic: I understand your point, but I believe this may simply be a difference in regional conventions. In fact, the logic in the original scores is not hard to follow: generally, the stems are kept at a length of 3.5 sp, and in the case of a step (a second), the beam slope naturally comes to 0.5 sp.
At that point, you’ll notice that the stems of notes on the same pitch align evenly.
To my eye, having a basically consistent stem length gives the notation a more balanced and elegant appearance. In Japanese scores, this is part of a fully developed set of rules carried over from the days of hand engraving, and it may differ from the rules you are more familiar with. Personally, I wouldn’t be inclined to classify it as “wrong,” let alone “completely wrong,” simply because it differs from certain Western conventions.
Even in older Western scores, the same things can be found, so I tend to take a more inclusive view of these matters. As long as the internal logic is consistent, the rest seems to come down to personal preference. As for notation software, as long as it provides enough flexibility for users to produce what they prefer, I think that is sufficient.

That said, I’d be very glad to learn how everyone here defines “right” and “wrong.”

Shinianqi wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025, 06:18 generally, the stems are kept at a length of 3.5 sp,

That said, I’d be very glad to learn how everyone here defines “right” and “wrong.”

Ted Ross, "The Art of Music Engraving", page 99:

To avoid these wedge-shaped spaces, plate engravers solved the problem by doing one of three things: they placed a beam either one the top, or the bottom of a staff line; or they made the beam straddle a staff line. Stems were altered to compensate for the placement of the beam.

Stems are not always uniform in length.

Even for unbeamed notes, the stem length alters with its position on the staff. Page 85:

The normal length of a stem is one octave... As notes ascend and descend the staff, their stems are shortened or lengthened proportionally.

The engraving example you give does indeed sit on the staff lines.

It's quite possible that Japanese traditions are different. One thing I've learned is that there is so much variation in engraving and notation, it's a wonder that anyone can read music 'internationally', at all..!

benwiggy wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025, 07:54
Ted Ross, "The Art of Music Engraving", page 99:

To avoid these wedge-shaped spaces, plate engravers solved the problem by doing one of three things: they placed a beam either one the top, or the bottom of a staff line; or they made the beam straddle a staff line. Stems were altered to compensate for the placement of the beam.

Stems are not always uniform in length.

Thank you for citing Ted Ross’s work, benwiggy.

Yes, this is indeed one way to “solve the issue,” but let us take a closer look at what problem this “solution” was trying to address.
On the page preceding the one you quoted (page 98), Ted Ross explains:

“Years ago, before printing was as highly developed as it is today, there was a tendency for the small, white, wedge-shaped space above the beam, and below the staff line, to become filled with ink.”

As I mentioned in my initial reply, this was a compromise devised by engravers in the past due to technical limitations, and the stem lengths naturally adjusted according to this compromise. Today, however, modern printing technology allows them to be rendered in their original intended form.

In my view, this “original approach” can more naturally create greater alignment, more clearly show the flow of the music, and interact (align) with many other patterns.

It’s worth noting that the reason Japan has followed this method since the hand-engraving era is that they did not use the “plate engraving” process, but rather tools like pens and stamps. This, to some extent, alleviated the problem of ink overflow.

benwiggy wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025, 07:54 Even for unbeamed notes, the stem length alters with its position on the staff. Page 85:

The normal length of a stem is one octave... As notes ascend and descend the staff, their stems are shortened or lengthened proportionally.

Yes, I agree. Considering all situations, stem lengths cannot always be exactly one octave, but that falls outside the scope of our current discussion, so I won’t address it for now.
Nevertheless, I still appreciate you bringing it up as a useful supplement.

benwiggy wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025, 07:54 The engraving example you give does indeed sit on the staff lines.

It's quite possible that Japanese traditions are different. One thing I've learned is that there is so much variation in engraving and notation, it's a wonder that anyone can read music 'internationally', at all..!

Yes, exactly!
This is precisely what makes engraving and notation so fascinating, and why we love these things.

Shinianqi wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025, 06:18 That said, I’d be very glad to learn how everyone here defines “right” and “wrong.”

I agree with benwiggy's Ross quote, and Chapter 3 of the Ross book is sort of the gold standard with beaming for me. I'll admit he's not super consistent in other areas of his book (and has some atrocious examples in the Appendix), but when he's actively discussing beaming, he's got it right IMO.

Here on page 106 he shows the slant of the beam I mentioned earlier and gives the appropriate shortened stem lengths.
He doesn't say this explicitly, but if you look through all of his examples on pages 104-110, he never breaks the following rule:
An ascending beam contained within the staff cannot begin with Sit and cannot end with Hang. A descending beam contained within the staff cannot begin with Hang and cannot end with Sit. His examples follow that guideline without exception. It's sort of a silly thing to obsess over, but I've been on the lookout for these for so long that my proofreading eye catches these instantly, LOL! Things like these just pop out to me:
With modern notation tools, I guess it's more of an aesthetic thing than anything practical anymore. A beam definitely should not end in the middle of a space, so I think those rules probably gave the engraver a bit of wiggle room if they weren't super accurate. If a descending beam ends in Sit, and the engraver missed on the high side, then the beam would be floating in the space. By requiring Straddle or Hang there's a little bit of leeway.

Thank you again for your thorough explanation, Fred, even though I was already somewhat familiar with Ted Ross’s work.

Fred G. Unn wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025, 11:26 With modern notation tools, I guess it's more of an aesthetic thing than anything practical anymore.

It's sort of a silly thing to obsess over, but I've been on the lookout for these for so long that my proofreading eye catches these instantly, LOL! Things like these just pop out to me

You are right: this is much more a matter of aesthetics or personal preference. On the practical level, unless the deviation is truly extreme, it will hardly cause any confusion for performers. And in this respect, it often depends on what kind of scores we are most accustomed to seeing.
Like you, because I have been immersed in this field for a long time, I can instantly recognize things in a score that deviate from the conventions I am familiar with, even if the discrepancy is quite small.

Personally, I don’t think there is (or should be) any absolute authority in the world of engraving and notation, which is why I try to avoid making overly absolute statements.

Fred G. Unn wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025, 11:26 He doesn't say this explicitly, but if you look through all of his examples on pages 104-110, he never breaks the following rule:
An ascending beam contained within the staff cannot begin with Sit and cannot end with Hang. A descending beam contained within the staff cannot begin with Hang and cannot end with Sit. His examples follow that guideline without exception.

Thanks to your explanation, I now understand the rules that Ted Ross was following. But the style I support—which you described in strict terms—also follows a fully coherent set of rules, and it is difficult for me to summarize it in just a sentence or two. For a professional engraver, every adjustment in detail should have a reason behind it.

Returning to the question of aesthetics: because of the kinds of scores I’ve been exposed to for a long time, I find stems that seem to be shortened without a clear functional reason unattractive and visually unbalanced. It often looks as if the stems and beams have been detached from their functional relationship with the notes themselves and exist only to satisfy an individual visual preference—not everyone shares that preference.
In my aesthetic view, an excellent score unites both functionality and artistry, with its artistic beauty arising naturally from strong functionality—that is, form follows function.
However, I would not call this “wrong” merely because it differs from the style I’m familiar with; I view it as an attempt by past engravers to make the music more comfortable for performers.

Shinianqi wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025, 12:21 You are right: this is much more a matter of aesthetics or personal preference. On the practical level, unless the deviation is truly extreme, it will hardly cause any confusion for performers.

I work in the recording world where sight-reading is paramount. For me, this goes beyond aesthetics. It’s a practical concern that has a cost in money and quality of product.

There are often no rehearsals, and people are working very quickly. Little deviations in notation create visual noise and affect clarity. That can lead to a performance that is less than the performer’s best. The performance reduction can be caused simply by more of the performer’s energy is going towards deciphering the music than focusing on elevating a performance; or it can even be a slight hesitation because the performer didn’t immediately recognize something while reading very quickly.

We try to give the performers every advantage possible. They are under immense pressure to get things right the first time. Reading errors, or even a slightly lackluster performance, result in the need to do an extra take; which consumes expensive time and energy.