NOTATIO

The clef is nice, the engraving is beautiful. The dangling appendage looked better close up. Seen in context, OCTO is probably correct, it should be non-italic. Finale's are non-italic and it makes it look a little better. But this is a symbol that I don't think will ever look good, no matter what is done. And do the performers really need it?

In my experience, octave clefs in guitar parts are superfluous. When they occur though, it is logical to use an italic number because of the similar style of regular octave signs in the score. However, as pointed out already, the practice on this varies, and you could certainly go which ever way you feel on this. It's interesting to note that Durand doesn't use italics for any of their octave indications.

To me, the problem with Schneider's clef isn't the italic style but the placement of the number. I think the ottava bassa g clef should have the number optically centered below the lower projection, not the clef itself, like so:

Your logic is unassailable, Knut. And the clef does look better as you have it.

Yep, you're right:

PIerre, the clef looks fine.

I am confused by the pizz. markings. What is the instrumentation? Also, is it traditional in the guitar literature to put the fingering on the staff as you have it? I would only do that in a piano piece when forced by difficult circumstances.

John Ruggero wrote:PIerre, the clef looks fine. [...]

Great

John Ruggero wrote:[...] I am confused by the pizz. markings. What is the instrumentation? [...]

For guitar solo, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDxcfnoPnBM

John Ruggero wrote:[...] Also, is it traditional in the guitar literature to put the fingering on the staff as you have it? I would only do that in a piano piece when forced by difficult circumstances.

Definitely, it's a common practice (and probably for all polyphonic instruments).

Thanks, Pierre, for satisfying my curiosity.

A guitar solo on two staves, bass and treble. Interesting. We just had a discussion of double-staffing a solo violin piece. I was also confused by the pizz. marking for the bass part. In the recording, the bass sounds ordinario to me.

It would not be common practice now to put the fingering on the staff in a keyboard solo. The numbers would be placed above or below the staff in the white spaces. All publishers adhere to this principle, because numbers obscure reading. Only in special circumstances is this not followed, for example, to specify the inner note of a chord, or if the polyphony is very complex. I just looked through editions of Bach by Henle and Wiener Urtext, Haydn by Universal etc. and had trouble finding finger numbers not placed as I describe, even for chords.

I was inquiring because I do not know the guitar tradition and wondered. But even if there is more of this in the guitar literature—which seems likely, given the nature of the instrument—I don't understand why it would be used for a single line as in your example.

John Ruggero wrote:[...] A guitar solo on two staves, bass and treble. Interesting. We just had a discussion of double-staffing a solo violin piece.[...]

Yep, this is particular to Dyens, although Sor's recommendations was to write guitar scores with 3 clefs!

John Ruggero wrote:[...] I was also confused by the pizz. marking for the bass part. In the recording, the bass sounds ordinario to me. [...]

They are not. Here's a video where you can clearly see that Dyens block the 6 strings from vibrating with his right hand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DxvdDXYkrU

Oh, and the bracket. I would have expected a brace. When I saw the bracket, I immediately assumed two instruments.

I was just following the composer's indications (Dyens).
See the rest of my answers here: http://www.notat.io/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=49&p=640#p640