On Oct 24, 2005, at 10:59 PM, John Bell wrote:
When computers first began writing music, there was an immediate
problem with musicians who were accustomed to reading both from
printed and handwritten parts. Printed parts were regarded as somehow
official and trustworthy, whereas everyone knew that handwritten parts
were prone to copyists' mistakes -- wrong notes, missing dynamics and
articulations etc. Players felt reluctant to edit parts that looked as
if they had been printed by a bona fide publisher, but were quite
ready to make all sorts of changes to handwritten parts.
The above is a good point, and one that I have made myself on many an
occasion. Engraved-looking parts are more authoritative. (I know this
assertion has raised some eyebrows in the past, but nonetheless, it is
true.)
That was then. This is now. All parts are generated by computer. There
is in my opinion no good reason to use faux hand fonts for music, as
nobody is fooled by it, anymore than anyone is fooled by pretend
handwritten letters from the Readers' Digest. Many of us harbour a
fondness for the charm of some copyist's hand, just as we may remember
the beauty of a favourite aunt's handwriting.
I could not disagree more.
The idea is not to fool anyone into thinking it is not a computer. A
pen-type font has more advantages than just looking hand-written (which
in and of itself carries a message. It's like a code, saying "this part
is subject to jazz-like interpretation, unlike the Engraver parts you
may see on classical gigs.")
It is bolder, which is an advantage in sight-reading situations, in bad
light (most club situations), when a part is photocopied on bad
machines, or subject to reduction in size.
Since most inkpen fonts are aimed at jazz and commercial music, these
fonts contain most of the specialised glyphs that this music needs,
unlike Engraver or Maestro.
And perhaps the strongest argument is that it looks like the music that
the performers are used to reading most often, with all the symbols the
right shape and thickness, so that the performer spends less time
interpreting an unfamiliar look and is able to concentrate more on the
performance. As strange as it may seem to musicians who are used to
classically-engraved parts, the notation may actually be MORE clear to
a jazz musician using a hand font than with an engraved font.
But trying to recreate either with computer fonts is dishonest and
futile.
Then you don't understand why we like it. And your accusation is bit
strong, don't you think? While I do sometimes think achieving perfect
communication through the written part is a futile endeavour, I don't
think my choice of font is "dishonest" in any way.
Furthermore, I think beauty in a written part is something we can
strive for, and it is not restricted to handwritten fonts. Some of jef
chippewa's engraving work for example (not using hand fonts, generally)
is among the most beautiful I've seen, and would not be out of place in
a frame hanging in an art gallery. Some consider a written part to be
just a set of instructions for the players, nothing more, but I think
that the part is a realisation of the music just as the performance is.
An incomplete realisation, to be sure, but it is another point of view
on the work to be viewed and appreciated on it's own, as well as in
conjunction with a performance of the work.
What I say is: either use proper computer fonts for music, or switch
off and take to pen and ink again.
David Bailey's response to that last statement is better than anything
I would say.
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
