Portrait. New rhythm sign at a change or at a new line. I have some poorly edited publications in which a rhythm sign is redundantly introduced, and it just causes confusion. Consistency within a piece is perhaps the better rule: new sign only with a change of rhythm or line; or, all notes using a grid.
There are times in fast passages of many notes per bar that the grid system visually organizes the notes so that the "beat" can be more easily maintained. M2CW Leonard Williams On 12/8/08 7:05 AM, "G. Crona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David, > > I agree with your preferences, especially about the diapassons. > > FWIW, here are some personal guidelines that have crystalized through the > years, and this in relation to tablatures only, I'm not talking about grand > staff or notation: > > > Landscape view, to make the score easily readable on the screen (or steady > on the music stand) > > Do not repeat rhytmic signs until they actually change value (much easier to > read in all respects, also for prima-vista) > > 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.) > > Don't cram the staffs. 6 on one sheet is maximum for my 12-14 point font in > landscape view > > Adjust the tablature font size to your sight (some can read 8-10 point, I'm > most comfortable with 12-14) > > Wherever possible, slightly reduce "global symbol spacing" to include those > 2 or three bars on page 2 to avoid a page change > > Include composer name, date of publication and eventual name of publication, > but also the library and shelf name for easier locating of the original > facsimile if a manuscript. > > Allow room for pencil marks of ornaments etc. > > Tablature numbers "on" lines makes for quicker reading, (at least for me) > (debatable also for letters) > > Make "book" editions instead of single pieces, for easier navigating and > correcting, as well as global page settings > > Include a few (or many) lines of available information from New Grove or > original source at beginning or end of book (not forgetting to name the > contributors when available!) as well as info on personal settings, signs, > etc. of publication > > And a note to our eminent programmers. Please, please, make works made in > earlier versions of the program display *perfectly* on the newer version. > IMO, don't publish a newer version until this is the case! This is now > _not_ the case :( > > 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. > > IMO the main guiding formula should always be to keep it as _simple_ and as > _easily readable_ as possible, at the same time providing the most > information possible. A tablature publication should _not_ try to be a work > of art in that sense - it should mainly be an instrument to enable > duplication and interpretation of the composers intentions. So I for one > would prefer to throw those other unhelpful aesthetic considerations > overboard. > > Modern (as in newly composed) scores will probably have to differ from these > guidelines in some respects > > I've probably forgotten something, but WTH > > Best > > G. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David van Ooijen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" <Lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 11:54 AM > Subject: [LUTE] tablature notation guidelines > > >> These days there are many software packages enabling everybody to >> produce tablatures. Many of us do, for free on our websites or in >> home-made inexpensive editions. Not all of these tablatures are as >> beautiful, or as easy to read. For the free or inexpensive editions >> that's fine with me; if the content is interesting I'll read from >> anything, or make my own version if it's too revolting. I'm glad I >> could find the music. But in looking at not so inexpensive editions >> from 'real' publishers, I am repeatedly struck by their far from >> perfect tablatures, and staff notation for that matter, as well. For >> staff notation, there are guidelines that help in making decisions on >> how to solve notational questions. The better engraving software will >> automatically follow these guidelines. For an example, have a look at >> http://mpa.org/music_notation/. These guidelines should present >> musicians with more or less standard sheet music. The benefits are >> obvious: it's fine to be able to read facsimiles, necessary for us, >> obviously, but when you're playing in an orchestra and are presented >> with your part on the day of the rehearsal or the concert, it's nice >> you don't have to spend time in deciphering what the editor meant. >> >> So, in stead of complaining about the poor output of such and such >> software, engraver or publisher, wouldn't it be nice to have some >> guidelines to help all of us make better tablatures? Yes, that should >> include simple things like b's and d's running into each other, g's >> that look like a's with an ornament, i's that lack a dot (or are these >> l's?). There are many, many aspects that are time and place dependant >> - I like to read my Ballard in another font than my Gaultier, I like >> different flag rules for Dowland than for Weiss - but I wouldn't want >> ciphers run into each other in either, and clumsy diapasson notation >> is unwanted in all. The various solutions people have found to notate >> ornaments could use a little standarisation, too. Perhaps it would be >> a list of the obvious, but it seems to me many of us could use a >> little check-list of the obvious to help us produce better tablatures. >> >> Did Alain Veylit or Francesco Tribioli ever write down some of the >> guidelines they drew up when making their software? That would perhaps >> be the obvious starting point for my proposal. >> >> David >> >> -- >> ******************************* >> David van Ooijen >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> www.davidvanooijen.nl >> ******************************* > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
