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: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
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
