On Dec 8, 2008, at 6:54 AM, Spring, aus dem, Rainer wrote:
Hm,
Me too, mmm. I don't mean to "answer" Rainer here but will offer my
responses to the same questions to show my differing taste.
Landscape view, to make the score easily readable on the screen (or
steady on the music stand)
I prefer portrait and I never play from the screen
I prefer portrait but often play from the screen. One can get two
portrait pages comfortably enough on a screen larger than 17". My 12"
laptop screen really pushes the limit for two pages but may work for a
single landscape page. Unfortunately, that's not a long piece of music.
Do not repeat rhytmic signs until they actually change value (much
easier to read in all respects, also for prima-vista)
For me this is very difficult to read. I prefer the gridiron system.
And I prefer ciphers only on a change. The raster system like the
English mss. (eg. Board book) makes the page so busy w/ superfluous
information that I find it distracting. I also find the gratuitous use
of a rhythm sign at the beginning of each measure distracting.
Number bars at the beginning of each staff (easier to navigate the
score - no numbering is hopeless when discussing a score via mail f.
ex.)
Some people prefer numbering every fifth bar.
I like it on every measure. When working w/ other musicians the 2 or 3
seconds everyone takes as they count from the first measure of that
line (or 5th measure) is distracting. I know this clutters up the page
but the brain quickly learns to disregard them. Yes, I know I stand
virtually alone on this point. A good tab program should give you the
choice.
Adjust the tablature font size to your sight (some can read 8-10
point, I'm most comfortable with 12-14)
That is sort of difficult on paper :)
12-14 works for me. And for any kind of performance I use a bold
variant. Visibility, visibility visibility! Anything smaller means that
the music has to be so close as to lose any contact w/ the audience.
What's the point of having a beautiful instrument if your audience only
sees a standard issue music stand?
Tablature numbers "on" lines makes for quicker reading, (at least for
me) (debatable also for letters)
I always wonder why people think tablature with a strike-through
should be easier to read.
Would you strike through everything in a book?
Ditto! It's pointless to take a perfectly readable typeface and then
run a stupid line through it!
I am aware, that these are my own very personal settings. From what
I've seen these past 15 or so years, not _one_ editor does it like
any other.
Each and everyone has at least some personal features. Some are easy
to read, some are quite difficult, like those with the "raster" rhythm
signs and also those, who try to emulate the original facsimile with
some fancy but hard to read font.
One more personal thing I need is to seperate long passaggi into groups
of 4 (or 6 if nec.). When flying along on consort music or Terzi that
little dot below doesn't do enough to show me where the larger beat is
or show me my place if I have to check my fingering. (btw, words and
text have been doing this to great advantage for years!)
If the tab program doesn't let me do this easily then it's essentially
useless for performance reading. I do a lot of work in the two Fronimos
but for performance I ALWAYS copy it into Fronimo 2.1 for this very
reason.
I also prefer the choice of creating more space for longer note values.
I take a lot of info in by peripheral vision and knowing where the long
notes are coming up helps in interpretation.
My father was a layout editor for many years and taught me the value of
what works for the eyes and how the brain subconsciously uses it.
Maybe, on the other hand, I'm crippled by my visual standards but I
have to feel comfortable about what I put on the music stand in front
of people.
my 2 cents,
Sean
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
