NOTATIO

Helene Wanske defines the requirements for spacing as follows:
1. Spacing should follow the rhythmical structure of the music.
2. The rhythmical interaction of multiple voices must be clearly recognizable in the score.
3. The line up of notational symbols shall be optically balanced.
4. The disposition of notational symbols depends on printing requirements: a certain amount of music has to be put on one page and respectively on one line of music; the lines of music shall be justified.
5. The overall impression of a score page shall be smooth; there shall be no “black clusters” nor “white wholes”. Any “surprise-effects” shall be prevented. Nevertheless, the disposition of notational elements on one page shall follow economic considerations.

Taken from: http://tuprints.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/265 ... z_diss.pdf
Book: Helene Wanske: Musiknotation – Von der Syntax des Notenstichs zum EDV-gesteuerten Notensatz. B. Schott’s Söhne, Mainz, 1988.

Won't 5 at least depend primarily on the nature of the music itself, especially with multi-stave systems?

Interesting, though.

Her remarks sound like common sense to me. No. 5 is why I think that the bar lines should not act as barriers or even frames for the music, which should flow without impediment.

John Ruggero wrote: No. 5 is why I think that the bar lines should not act as barriers or even frames for the music, which should flow without impediment.

John, I'm curious: The original edition of Ravel's Sonatine is one example that, to me, is quite beautifully spaced throughout, yet exhibits a consistent space compensation at end of measures (not just for 16th notes or smaller). Do you find this distracting or the edition unevenly spaced?

http://imslp.nl/imglnks/usimg/0/03/IMSL ... natine.pdf

Btw, regardless of the stance one takes on this issue, it's important to note that all stem-up notes adjacent to the barline must receive space compensation on optical grounds in the same way as any stem up-note followed by a stem-down note:

Knut, I think that the Ravel is generally well-spaced and any extra space added at the ends of measures is not distracting. I have used this edition for many years and the spacing has never called attention to itself. I do notice that there is, for me, too much space taken throughout the entire piece at the beginning of most lines of music before the first notes, but this is not distracting.

Here is a blow-by blow of the first few measures of the first movement:

m. 1 the extra space at the end of the measure is too generous for my taste and does break the flow (despite the spreading necessary for the layout), especially given the large space at the beginning of the next measure.

m. 2 I don't perceive any extra space at the end of this measure, which is good.

m. 3—9 same

m. 10 the extra space here is actually good because there is a break in the music

m.11—12 there is extra space taken between each quarter note (more than is necessary for the secondary clefs) This is all good because the music is repeating itself in little blocks and the breaks show that there is really no flow at this point.

m. 13—16 Here there should be no extra space taken because the music forms a flowing phrase. All is fine, except measure 15 is a little too compressed within the bar lines compared with 13—16 which produces too much space at the end. In m. 16 the extra space at the end is fine, because it is the end of the phrase.

etc.

The spacing chosen by the engraver shows musicality, because it generally reflects what is going on in the music.

John Ruggero wrote:Knut, I think that the Ravel is generally well-spaced and any extra space added at the ends of measures is not distracting. I have used this edition for many years and the spacing has never called attention to itself. I do notice that there is, for me, too much space taken throughout the entire piece at the beginning of most lines of music before the first notes, but this is not distracting.

Here is a blow-by blow of the first few measures of the first movement:

m. 1 the extra space at the end of the measure is too generous for my taste and does break the flow (despite the spreading necessary for the layout), especially given the large space at the beginning of the next measure.

m. 2 I don't perceive any extra space at the end of this measure, which is good.

m. 3—9 same

m. 10 the extra space here is actually good because there is a break in the music

m.11—12 there is extra space taken between each quarter note (more than is necessary for the secondary clefs) This is all good because the music is repeating itself in little blocks and the breaks show that there is really no flow at this point.

m. 13—16 Here there should be no extra space taken because the music forms a flowing phrase. All is fine, except measure 15 is a little too compressed within the bar lines compared with 13—16 which produces too much space at the end. In m. 16 the extra space at the end is fine, because it is the end of the phrase.

etc.

The spacing chosen by the engraver shows musicality, because it generally reflects what is going on in the music.

I agree with all your points, which makes me think we have somewhat different views on what constitutes extra space at the end of measures.

If I were to re-engrave this piece in Finale without any space compensation before barlines, there would surely be too little space (noticeably less than in the original engraving) at the end of mm. 2–9, which you perceive as having the appropriate amount of space in the original.

I'll post an example if I get the chance.

Here's mm. 6–8 set in Finale without any manual spacing adjustments and Document Options/Notes & Rests/Space After Music set to 0.
As you can see, all measures would need approximately 0.5 space added to the end to reflect the spacing of the original edition:
Edit: I used an old file to set the measures above, and forgot to reset some measure adjustments. The results shows that Finale's default output in reality is a lot better than what the original example suggested, but that the measures still need some additional space before the barlines to reflect the original edition. The example and values have been updated accordingly. Sorry about that!

Very beautiful!
One question, the distance between the key and first note is changed?

OCTO wrote:Very beautiful!
One question, the distance between the key and first note is changed?

Thanks, OCTO, although I think you would agree that it would be better with more space before the barlines.
Yes, the space between the key and the first note reflects my default settings, and is smaller than that used in the original. I saw no reason to change it, since I agree with John's point that this is consistently a bit too large in the source.

David Ward wrote:Won't 5 at least depend primarily on the nature of the music itself, especially with multi-stave systems?

Interesting, though.

I think that her explanation is so broad and so perfectly clear, that if used by a professional engraver it can result in a superb output, and in hands of amateur it can be a disaster. Clever enough, a highly educated engraver and musician will read "as it is" and make own decisions in that frames.