On 12 Jul 2009 at 14:36, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Not that I mean to be a killjoy here, but part of what Mark D Lew wrote:
More promising is Microsoft's new suite of ClearType fonts that have
been included with Office for the past couple years. These are the
ones that all start with C
On 12 Jul 2009 at 19:51, dhbailey wrote:
But I doubt that they ever expect to enforce that at all --
it's more likely something they were forced to include in
their licensing from whomever they licensed the fonts in the
first place. Microsoft probably doesn't have the right to
license
On 12 Jul 2009 at 15:04, John Howell wrote:
This past school year I started getting text assignments
(not music notation) turned in using Cambria, which is apparently the
default font in the most recent MSWord for Windows, and I find it VERY
difficult to read on screen. The default size is
On 12 Jul 2009 at 20:33, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
If there is a
restrictive clause in the license of fonts, the fact that no one is
going to enforce the license does not make it right to violate the
terms, even if everybody does it.
Is there such a clause? I don't believe there is. Please
On 13 Jul 2009 at 6:54, dhbailey wrote:
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Mark D Lew wrote:
Whether Microsoft allows use of the fonts outside of their software
packages that include them, I don't know, but I do know that MS has
the right to license them however they choose.
The fonts
On 12 Jul 2009 at 20:40, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Mark D Lew wrote:
Whether Microsoft allows use of the fonts outside of their software
packages that include them, I don't know, but I do know that MS has
the right to license them however they choose.
The fonts are presumably
One small correction to David F's recent posts on this topic:
On Jul 13, 2009, at 12:45 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Microsoft has in-house people who create these fonts.
While it is true that Microsoft does have an in-house font division,
at least some (possibly all) of the six fonts in
Mark D Lew wrote:
One small correction to David F's recent posts on this topic:
On Jul 13, 2009, at 12:45 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Microsoft has in-house people who create these fonts.
While it is true that Microsoft does have an in-house font division, at
least some (possibly all) of
David Bailey wrote:
I just read the EULA for Microsoft Office and there is no
section restricting the use of the fonts to just Office
applications. [...]
It says nothing about what can be done with the fonts when
the applications aren't running. [...]
Thanks for providing the relevant
On 7/14/2009 3:30 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:
In any way that ordinary users use fonts, I'm not sure it's even possible
to use the fonts when the software isn't running.
Since the EULA comes with MS Office, I think the question is what the
user is allowed to to when *Office* isn't running, not when
Mark D Lew wrote:
David Bailey wrote:
I just read the EULA for Microsoft Office and there is
no section restricting the use of the fonts to just
Office applications. [...]
It says nothing about what can be done with the fonts
when the applications aren't running. [...]
Thanks for
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Mark D Lew wrote:
Whether Microsoft allows use of the fonts outside of their software
packages that include them, I don't know, but I do know that MS has
the right to license them however they choose.
The fonts are presumably included in the license for certain
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Mark D Lew wrote:
Whether Microsoft allows use of the fonts outside of their software
packages that include them, I don't know, but I do know that MS has
the right to license them however they choose.
The fonts are presumably included in the license for certain
On Jul 13, 2009, at 3:54 AM, dhbailey wrote:
That agreement between Microsoft and Ascender may be why the
license with Microsoft Office is so restrictive.
Wait, wait. So far we have not established that the license *is*
restrictive. Someone speculated that it might be, but no one has
On 7/13/2009 2:10 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:
ClearType is a specific method of type definition*, developed and
owned by Microsoft, introduced with Vista. The purpose of ClearType
was to enhance screen readability.
...
typeface in two different languages, which may have behaved
differently in
On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
A minor correction (and I haven't been following this whole
discussion): ClearType is not a font programming language or a
method of type definition. It is a technology for displaying fonts
on digital displays, regardless of whether those
On 7/13/2009 2:10 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:
ClearType is a specific method of type definition*, developed and
owned by Microsoft, introduced with Vista.
Also, ClearType was introduced with XP, though I think it may have been
off by default. It can be turned on in the Display control panel.
On 7/13/2009 2:34 PM, Mark D Lew wrote:
Thanks for the correction. But is it not true that to be optimized
for ClearType display they must have data in them that the ClearType
renderer reads? Did OpenType fonts have this data all along, or is it
new?
My understanding is that there is no extra
Mark D. Lew wrote:
More promising is Microsoft's new suite of ClearType fonts that have
been included with Office for the past couple years. These are the
ones that all start with C (Calibri, Cambria, Candara, Consolas,
Constantia, Corbel). I'm on Mac at home, and our computers at work
aren't
At 2:13 PM +0200 7/12/09, Daniel Wolf wrote:
Mark D. Lew wrote:
More promising is Microsoft's new suite of ClearType fonts that have
been included with Office for the past couple years. These are the
ones that all start with C (Calibri, Cambria, Candara, Consolas,
Constantia, Corbel). I'm on
Friends,
Not that I mean to be a killjoy here, but part of what Mark D Lew wrote:
More promising is Microsoft's new suite of ClearType fonts that have
been included with Office for the past couple years. These are the
ones that all start with C (Calibri, Cambria, Candara, Consolas,
How is that *remotely* enforceable?
Cheers,
- Darcy
-
djar...@earthlink.net
Brooklyn, NY
On 12 Jul 2009, at 3:36 PM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Friends,
Not that I mean to be a killjoy here, but part of what Mark D Lew
wrote:
More promising is Microsoft's new suite of ClearType fonts
Darcy James Argue wrote:
How is that *remotely* enforceable?
It's not, but like anything these days, the lawsuits are won
by those with the deepest pockets not those with justice nor
the law on their side necessarily. And there ain't nobody
with deeper pockets than Micro$oft.
But I
Friends,
When Darcy James Argue writes, asking:
How is that *remotely* enforceable?
I would be right at the head of the line of those who would concede that
it's not.
But enforceability is not the same thing as honesty. If there is a
restrictive clause in the license of fonts, the fact that
On Jul 12, 2009, at 4:51 PM, dhbailey wrote:
But I doubt that they ever expect to enforce that at all -- it's
more likely something they were forced to include in their
licensing from whomever they licensed the fonts in the first
place. Microsoft probably doesn't have the right to license
Mark D Lew wrote:
Whether Microsoft allows use of the fonts outside of their software
packages that include them, I don't know, but I do know that MS has
the right to license them however they choose.
The fonts are presumably included in the license for certain Microsoft
products,
At 10:56 AM +0200 7/9/09, Jonathan Smith wrote:
Just out of interest, I did a survey a long time ago with singers -
to see which font they preferred to read for lyrics. The vast
majority elected a sans serif font, one with a more 'hand written'
look to it than a classic 'printers' font.
On Jul 11, 2009, at 1:40 AM, Mark D Lew wrote:
At 10:56 AM +0200 7/9/09, Jonathan Smith wrote:
Just out of interest, I did a survey a long time ago with singers -
to see which font they preferred to read for lyrics. The vast
majority elected a sans serif font, one with a more 'hand
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:31:37 -0500
Noel Stoutenburg mjol...@ticnet.com wrote:
bassm...@katamail.com wrote:
By larger appearance I mean that there's more room and looser spacing in
sans serifs compared to serifs - just compare the relative size of Times
10 and Helvetica 10.
The fact
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:34:00 -0400
John Howell john.how...@vt.edu wrote:
At 10:56 AM +0200 7/9/09, Jonathan Smith wrote:
Just out of interest, I did a survey a long time ago with singers -
to see which font they preferred to read for lyrics. The vast
majority elected a sans serif font, one
Rule of thumb for the piece title or main title is to make the
largest letters the same size as the staff height.
Interesting. I generally like the title quite a bit larger. Where
does this suggestion come from? (Your other suggestions make very
good sense, by the way.)
This is
At 8:58 PM +0200 7/10/09, Jonathan Smith wrote:
These were pro singers from light classical and music theatre
backgrounds aged around 20 to mid 30s. They had become used to
reading from hand copied parts especially for shows and last minute
prep. sessions. They preferred fonts that had a
bassm...@katamail.com wrote:
By larger appearance I mean that there's more room and looser spacing in
sans serifs compared to serifs - just compare the relative size of Times
10 and Helvetica 10.
The fact that theres more room and looser spacing in Helvetica than in
Times is part of the
Technical, instructions etc, : Regular type, usually above staff
Style, interpretation etc, : Italic, usually below staff
Titles and Text blocks are best left in the same font suit, maybe in
different sizes or strengths.
Rule of thumb for the piece title or main title is to make the
At 10:56 AM +0200 7/9/09, Jonathan Smith wrote:
Rule of thumb for the piece title or main title is to make the
largest letters the same size as the staff height.
Interesting. I generally like the title quite a bit larger. Where
does this suggestion come from? (Your other suggestions make
Jonathan Smith wrote:
Just out of interest, I did a survey a long time ago with singers - to
see which font they preferred to read for lyrics. The vast majority
elected a sans serif font, one with a more 'hand written' look to it
than a classic 'printers' font.
When I was in college, for
I know that many of you are very particular about the fonts you use
for for tempos and tempo modifications, instrument names, technical
instructions (arco, pizz., a2, con sord., div., G.P., etc.), titles
and subtitles, composer's name, copyright info, etc. I've worked out
(not very
Paul Hayden wrote:
1. For technical instructions (see above), do you use italic? Bold?
Roman? Some of both?
Although I haven't thoroughly studied this, my impression (and my
custom) is, that if a directive applies to the entire ensemble, I tend
to use italic; if it applies to a single part,
Hi Paul,
For technique-type of things (telling the performers what to do or how
to play their instrument), I use Roman. For expressivo marking (dolce
etc) and indeed sim., sempre etc. I use italic.
Asyla is published by my publisher (Faber Music) and while they've never
conveyed any
My own preference is:
1) Anything that affects tempo (including Accel. and Rit.) above the
staff in 14 pt. bold type.
2) All other techniques above the staff in in 12 pt. regular type,
except...
3) Expressions that affect dynamics: sub. p, sempre f, cresc.
dim. etc. -- these go below
40 matches
Mail list logo
