I laughed the first time I heard of the "jazz" font, myself, but I do
understand the purpose of it working to overcome some of the prejudice
against computer-printed charts in the commercial industry. I've even
used it, on occasion, when I've retyped a missing page of a handwritten
part, etc.
But, good lord, somebody fix that damn natural so it doesn't look like a
sharp. We did the "Sha-Na-Na" show a few years ago (don't laugh, it's
actually a pretty good group now). Nearly every tune was in E and ended
with a D natural above the bass clef staff in my part. At the rehearsal
I kept reading the thing as a sharp (I know, you'd think I'd learn, but
I tend to default to what my eyes actually see in these cases.) so I
penciled in a big natural above every one. This summer, we did the
show again. All my pencil naturals were still there - but this time, in
the rehearsal, the third trumpet player, who had the same voicing on
nearly every last note, kept reading the (written E) natural as a sharp!
At least I felt vindicated.
Perhaps guys who see the font all the time get used to it, but that's
really not the point, now, is it?
I haven't checked it out on my own computer. I assume it's the "jazz"
font about which I'm complaining, but it could be some other handwritten
font that "Sha-Na-Na's" arranger used.
Raymond Horton
Bass Trombonist,
Louisville Orchestra
Richard Smith wrote:
As someone who has performed lots of hand written music (and prepared
a fair amount myself), I want to comment on this thread. I'm sorry I
was unable to reply earlier.
I have never understood the use of the "jazz" fonts. When I was a hand
copyist, the goal was to look as much like printed music as possible.
I do find most of the "jazz" fonts very readable and understand that
there may be some psychological advantage for jazz musicians. I'm not
sure it matters in commercial music.
I actually prefer 2 parts on a page; I like to know what my second is
doing. I know MOLA doesn't approve, but I really like to see both
parts. However, I dislike three (or more) per page. The typical piano
playing arranger reads these as chords and sees no problem with it.
But an orchestral musician who must pick out the middle voice(s) has a
very difficult time.
A pet peeve of mine is music with unnecessary ties in the middle of a
bar because the other voice (or layer) has a different rhythm and the
engraver didn't take time to move the parts to different layers.
In music with 2 parts per page, accidentals moving from one voice (or
layer) to the other should always be marked. Orchestral musicians
(unlike the piano player arranger) are only reading one line and will
miss the second accidental in the bar.
Someone remarked that hairpins were not missed but text was. Very
true. The hairpins are more obvious and usually more accurate. Also,
when sight reading, they are likely to be higher on the list of
priorities.
As to time sigs, bigger is probably better. My favorite is the number
over the beat note, ala Carl Orff. Unfortunately neither Finale or
Sibelius do that well and I rarely see it anymore. I think that kind
of meter sig is much more precise.
Enough for now. This is already to long and it's late.
Richard Smith
http://www.rgsmithmusic.com
Christopher Smith wrote:
On 20-Oct-08, at 20-Oct-08 12:01 PM, Daniel Wolf wrote:
There is quite a bit of formal research into the readability of text
fonts. For music copying and engraving, it appears that there is
quite of bit of hearsay and very little research about readability,
much of it fairly hardened into rules about notation style,
particularly in commercial music, for example the inkpen-styled
fonts preferred in much jazz or show charts. Is anyone aware of any
actual research along these lines that might be useful in improving
score design, typography and layout?
Sorry I can't shut up on this topic, but there are a couple of
aspects of standard notation that I always thought could use some
improvement.
For example, I find standard-sized time signatures to be too small
for their importance. Maybe this is the jazz and show side of me
coming through, but in my JazzFont defaults I have always increased
the size of the numerals in the time signatures by about 50%, which
has greatly cut down the number of misreadings, especially when the
time changes are coming fast and furious. Unfortunately in
engraved-style notation, these numerals are in a stylised font that
does not take well to being enlarged. I think the stylised font is a
good idea, I just wish we could enlarge it without making it bolder
at the same time. Engraver Time is a great idea for scores (where
they are even smaller to the eye!) but we need them larger in parts,
too.
Repeats. We can put "wings" on them, but many publishers reject them
in engraved music, except in the case of jazz arrangements, where the
convention has caught on. I think they are needed, as they are too
easily missed otherwise.
Ditto for DS signs and the coda sign, which are rather small by
convention for their importance.
Any others that any of you have noticed?
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
