[WORKBENCH] Brahms Op. 119, No. 1

[odod]

Yes sir octo that would be fine, get to the focus .. With the workbench .. Thank you very much
And sorry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[buster]

Wow, this piece is is quite challenging to do in Lilypond, but I suspect it must be a challenge to do in other scoring programs as well. I got around to finishing out the first page, more or less, though there are still some spacing issues.

Verdict: for complex scores such as this one where the default output requires tweaking, sometimes i wish it was as easy as grabbing something with the mouse and moving it to where it needs to go. Instead I have to find the proper command to do it from the manual if i don't know it. Usually with less complex scores, (i.e. instruments with single voice, piano with mostly one voice, and only occasionally more, in each staff) I am mostly happy to let the program do the layout and spacing and I can crunch out pages in as little as 15 minutes. This is probably the most complex piece that i have done, it must have taken me considerably more time than that! I have never used Finale or Sibelius, all I know is from reading the product comparisons in the Steinberg blog, but it does seems that they require a bit of tweaking to get the output right. I wonder how easy or difficult this particular piece would be in Dorico???

[odod]

here's another approach ...
darn, this piece just made my day
but i am happy

[John Ruggero]

buster wrote

I wonder how easy or difficult this particular piece would be in Dorico???

I've been wondering the same thing! And not only about this piece.

[John Ruggero]

odod, it is getting better. But since you are posting it, I assume you would like more comments. Add measure numbers over the left bar lines, and I will comment further.

[OCTO]

here's another approach ...
darn, this piece just made my day
but i am happy

Very beautiful! Bravo!!
I would just add, quickly, to fix some slurs. They should more "concise", similar to each other, and not "in the air" at some points. But this is just a quick fix.
Overall, very very nice, and a nice font too.

[John Ruggero]

Hi Buster,

That is so much better. You have really made the most of the suggestions.

Here are a few more comments:

1. The P markings in 1 and 17 should be centered between the staves.

2. The hairpins in 1-3 and then the later ones that are of the "intensity mark" type (I assume that you read about this earlier in the posts) could have slightly smaller openings to distinguish them from real diminuendos.

3. The type size for the cresc. and dim. looks a little big in relation to the F's.

4. The LH slurs in measures 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 19-20, and RH in 7,9, 13-15, 15-16, 18-19, 21-22, 24 have one or two end starting points too far from the notes.

5. The dashed line in 16 should go to the end of the measure

6. You have changed the original clef notation in measure 1. I see nothing wrong with your change. It would have been a lot easier to do it this way in Finale, which has an issue with it which required a workaround.

7. There are various issues with the ties in both hands in measures 17-23.

8. The title, composer and opus no. are obviously too high on the page, so you may be doing your page formatting later in the process. I am accustomed to seeing the composer and opus number quite close to the first line of music. However, in looking through the literature I found that this is by no means standard. However, it seems best if this information is clearly below the title so that it doesn't compete with it for attention.

9. The stems on the middle voice in measures 1-3 seem a little long to me. It might be better to make them shorter than usual because they intersect so obviously with the ties.

[odod]

here's another approach ...
darn, this piece just made my day
but i am happy

Very beautiful! Bravo!!
I would just add, quickly, to fix some slurs. They should more "concise", similar to each other, and not "in the air" at some points. But this is just a quick fix.
Overall, very very nice, and a nice font too.

Thank you sir for the kindness
Will try harder next time with the slurs
I think Finale's slur is better than Sibelius


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[buster]

Hi John,

Whose rules are you currently using? Are they Gould's or somebody else's or are they your personal preferences?

If you take a look at this youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/stiv2slava/videos
(it's the channel of the guy who did the signature repair video posted in another thread)

his rules regarding slurs and ties are sometimes different from yours. I'm not sure whose rules he is using or whether they're just *his* own personal preferences. For example in "03Ties part3", he says that ties are allowed to cross stems when necessary (but should not hit the endpoint of the stem), so that the ties in the first 3 measures of mine that cross the stem of the middle voice would be acceptable I guess. As another example, he allows the endpoints of slurs to float away from the noteheads to prevent the slur from being overly curved, farther away than what you might have done.

So is it just a matter of personal preferences and aesthetics?

[John Ruggero]

Buster wrote:

Whose rules are you currently using?

I am following the "rules" that one learns by looking closely at well-engraved music. Scores published by Breitkopf und Härtel, Durand, Wiener Urtext, Henle, Bärenreiter etc. will give you a good sense of what engravers have felt is best concerning all aspects of music notation. When I have doubts about something notational, I look through a wide range of music by such publishers to see if there is consensus. If not, I consult standard reference works like Ross, Gould etc., analyze the issue and reach a decision.

Inspection will show that engravers have preferred to avoid intersections of slurs with other elements and for slurs to be as symmetrical and as beautifully shaped and placed as possible given the situation. When there are difficult places, however, these "rules" have to be bent a little.

However, in the case of your slurs, there is no pressing reason for

1. the lowest slur to intersect with the dynamic in measure 1
2. the lowest slur to touch the stem in measure 2
3. for the start of the lowest slurs in 1 and 2 to be so far from the stems
4. for the lowest slur in measure 1 to be so flat
5. for the lowest slur in measure 3 to cut through the bass clef
6. for the start of the upper slurs in 2 and 3 to be so much farther from the stems than the end
7. for the upper slurs in 7-8 to be floating so far and unequally from the stems
8. the 1st LH slur in 24 to cut through the bottom of the flat. Slur/flat intersection is limited to the stems and only in difficult cases.

etc.