Re: [Finale] Notation readability research? Now jazz font natural complaint - chord table
Picking up this thread and relating to chord, is there anyone in this list that built a beautiful, well readable jazz chord library and would be kind to share it (after payment of a fee, too)? I know about that beautiful font pack that one of the late contributors (sorry I cannot remember his name) built up but the price is really too high for me. Thank you Christopher Smith ha scritto: If you find the JazzFont too thick, then the Inkpen font from Sibelius is positively stubby. I find it next to unusable (though I haven't tried it in Finale, only in Sibelius). Christopher On Oct 22, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Marcello Noia wrote: Unfortunately Mr. Sigler got his Jazz font bundled with Finale then completely dismissed the updates (and did not reply to emails about problems with his other Swingfont I bought many years ago). And think how beatiful are the fonts used in latest Sher Real Books Anyone has tried to use Inkpen Sibelius in Finale? Does it work? ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research? Now jazz font natural complaint - chord table
I made one using Dom Casual (or Dom Regular) but it can never be what you would call beautiful because of inherent problems with character thickness and spacing when the root has a sharp or flat (G#m7 doesn't space the same way as Gm7 or Gbm7.) I'll share it for free, but I'll have to send a document with the library loaded because libraries are not cross platform (they don't tell you that!) Let me know if you are interested. Christopher On Oct 23, 2008, at 3:43 AM, Marcello Noia wrote: Picking up this thread and relating to chord, is there anyone in this list that built a beautiful, well readable jazz chord library and would be kind to share it (after payment of a fee, too)? I know about that beautiful font pack that one of the late contributors (sorry I cannot remember his name) built up but the price is really too high for me. Thank you ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research? Now jazz font natural complaint
Leigh Daniels wrote: And make the capital M and the lower case M look different! You mean we're supposed to read the letters, too? Wow -- the things I learn on this list! ;-) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
Richard Smith wrote: [snip] I have seen both do it and any engraver who puts out something like that should be ashamed! [snip] That's really what it all boils down to -- the engraver should take the time to actually make all the parts legible and clear and easy to understand. Most complaints come from people not taking the time to actually see if the music they use Finale or Sibelius to produce is clear -- many people who use the programs simply use the defaults and leave it at that, figuring the music looks engraved, it must be good. That's where Sibelius has had the edge over Finale -- the Sibelius programmers made sure that the defaults look better than Finale's defaults, so that for those who never get to changing the defaults, Sibelius output looks better. But it all comes down to the engraver's skill, something that unfortunately both programs tend to make light of in their advertising, giving the impression that anybody can simply boot up the program, enter the music and Presto! they get professional looking output. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
shirling neueweise wrote: Christopher Smith wrote: Maybe musicians read musical notation more easily than they read text indications. I noticed later that the marking stacc. was largely ignored on the first reading (sight reading, of course, as prepared parts in an orchestral context would most likely have been looked at before the first rehearsal) whereas actual dots over all the notes was played properly. Richard Smith wrote: The hairpins are more obvious and usually more accurate. yeah this also has to do with the complexity of the visual elements you are looking at. a hairpin has two long lines that are present and quasi parallel (extremely similar) over the entire duration they apply to and even reading them peripherally it is extremely easy to process, while a cresc. has 6 separate characters in 5 different forms and the only thing [snip] I have to say that I find this discussion about hairpins vs. text very interesting -- it supports what I find in my community band and private teaching, where the words are often simply ignored. As I say, I find it very interesting because I've never had a problem reading and executing the words as well as the graphical elements, and am puzzled when others don't/can't. I do remember my private teachers in high school and again in college making a big issue about expanding what I see and react to, so quite possibly there was a time when I didn't pay as much attention to the words, but that would have included the hairpins as well. For whatever reason, it's been so long that I haven't responded to all the markings, text or graphics, that it is interesting all this explanation justifying why the text is ignored. I don't see 'cresc.' as 6 elements to be deciphered, and I don't read any text one letter at a time (does anybody?) -- I perceive 'cresc.' as a single element with the meaning that I am supposed to increase the volume at which I am playing. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research? Now jazz font natural complaint
Darcy James Argue wrote: You should *never* use just M or m for chord symbols, regardless of the font. I know Christopher disagrees, but I prefer either the geometric symbols (∆ and -), or MA and mi. I believe Christopher uses Cmaj7 (which is okay, though I *greatly* prefer CMA7) and Cm7 (which is fine so long as you're not also using CM7 in the same chart). Chord symbols like CM7 are, IMO, entirely unacceptable under any circumstances. I'm with Darcy on this one -- when I see a pitch with the letter M (capital or lower case) and a number, my brain always takes it as minor. But I part ways with Darcy on the CMA7 -- for some reason for me, seeing a 'j' makes things so much clearer, since 'major' is the only chord term that uses a j. Put the 'j' in the chord and it's always clear and easy to read -- CMAJ7 or Cmaj7 or CMaj7 makes no difference. It's clearly a major chord when the j is present. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
I think the worst example of misleading text dynamics I have ever seen appears on a piece set for one of the french horn exams of the Associated Board in the UK. A couple of bars from the end of the penultimate line it says de - . On the last line it says crescendo . I'll leave it to you to guess what percentage of my students fail to spot this as a decrescendo. (Clue: it's more than 99%) Cheers, Lawrence lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research? Now jazz font natural complaint
Unfortunately Mr. Sigler got his Jazz font bundled with Finale then completely dismissed the updates (and did not reply to emails about problems with his other Swingfont I bought many years ago). And think how beatiful are the fonts used in latest Sher Real Books Anyone has tried to use Inkpen Sibelius in Finale? Does it work? Christopher Smith ha scritto: Oh don't get me started on the JazzText font! The Z and the 2, the H and the M, the stupid 5... Before long I am going to have convinced myself to make my own inkpen font... Christopher On Oct 21, 2008, at 11:39 PM, Leigh Daniels wrote: And make the capital M and the lower case M look different! **Leigh On Tue, Oct 21, 2008, Ray Horton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, good lord, somebody fix that damn natural so it doesn't look like a sharp. ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
shirling neueweise wrote: shit... busted. verdammte Scheiße. I'd rather deal with that than verdampfte Scheiße. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research? Now jazz font natural complaint
If you find the JazzFont too thick, then the Inkpen font from Sibelius is positively stubby. I find it next to unusable (though I haven't tried it in Finale, only in Sibelius). Christopher On Oct 22, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Marcello Noia wrote: Unfortunately Mr. Sigler got his Jazz font bundled with Finale then completely dismissed the updates (and did not reply to emails about problems with his other Swingfont I bought many years ago). And think how beatiful are the fonts used in latest Sher Real Books Anyone has tried to use Inkpen Sibelius in Finale? Does it work? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research? Now jazz font natural complaint
At 12:42 AM 10/22/2008, you wrote: Darcy James Argue wrote: You should *never* use just M or m for chord symbols, regardless of the font. I know Christopher disagrees, but I prefer either the geometric symbols (? and -), or MA and mi. I believe Christopher uses Cmaj7 (which is okay, though I *greatly* prefer CMA7) and Cm7 (which is fine so long as you're not also using CM7 in the same chart). Chord symbols like CM7 are, IMO, entirely unacceptable under any circumstances. Cheers, - Darcy For clarity, I prefer Maj for Major and - for minor. it's very difficult to confuse the two (except for that one guy, and we all know someone like him). I always stayed away from the - because most people use + to mean augmented. Though I have seen some people stay way from the + by writing things like C7#5.. But..if I'm to to reduce the amount a player has to read, I wouldn't want the player to have to question things...especially when reading the chart down. The more question the ensemble has, the more morale goes down during a rehearsal :) No? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research? Now jazz font natural complaint
On Oct 22, 2008, at 4:33 AM, dhbailey wrote: Darcy James Argue wrote: You should *never* use just M or m for chord symbols, regardless of the font. I know Christopher disagrees, but I prefer either the geometric symbols (∆ and -), or MA and mi. I believe Christopher uses Cmaj7 (which is okay, though I *greatly* prefer CMA7) and Cm7 (which is fine so long as you're not also using CM7 in the same chart). Chord symbols like CM7 are, IMO, entirely unacceptable under any circumstances. I'm with Darcy on this one -- when I see a pitch with the letter M (capital or lower case) and a number, my brain always takes it as minor. But I part ways with Darcy on the CMA7 -- for some reason for me, seeing a 'j' makes things so much clearer, since 'major' is the only chord term that uses a j. Put the 'j' in the chord and it's always clear and easy to read -- CMAJ7 or Cmaj7 or CMaj7 makes no difference. It's clearly a major chord when the j is present. I understand Darcy's point of view - the fewer the symbols and more differentiated they are, the easier and faster it is to read them, which is why he likes the geometric symbols (one glyph) over a multi- character suffix. This becomes obvious with m7(b5) compared with the slashed circle, and even more so once you start adding extensions to the m7(b5) suffix, as the b5 (an important indicator of function!) gets lost along with the less-vital added extensions inside the parentheses. It is the more differentiated part that makes me dislike MA and MI or mi, which I find get misread more often because of their similar length and shape. The MA and mi combination less so (because of the bigger difference between upper case and lower case) but sometimes in manuscript the two get to looking very similar. I know we are talking about computer-generated copy here, but manuscript is still a big part of jazz and pop music, so we need to use a system that will work equally well in both. I ended up making my own suffixes with a lower-case m so I wouldn't be forced to write Cm7 with the JazzFont's stupid small upper-case m. I agree completely with Darcy on this. I used Dom Casual (Dom Regular on some systems) to match the other JazzFont glyphs, but the match is far from perfect, and the Dom lower case m is somewhat crooked. I think David's point about the j making the difference is a valid one. It changes the shape of the suffix completely, making it immediately identifiable. We tend to see maj as one shape and m as another. There is another, perhaps less-important, reason that I favour alpha- numeric suffixes over geometric ones. You can type them easily in an email or text. Notice how Darcy's triangle got transliterated to three different diacriticals in the quote above? I would hate to have an ASCII issue ruin all my chords. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research? Now jazz font natural complaint
On Oct 22, 2008, at 9:35 AM, Dana Friedman wrote: I always stayed away from the - because most people use + to mean augmented. Though I have seen some people stay way from the + by writing things like C7#5.. But..if I'm to to reduce the amount a player has to read, I wouldn't want the player to have to question things...especially when reading the chart down. The more question the ensemble has, the more morale goes down during a rehearsal :) No? I absolutely agree with the principle that the notation should be as clear and quick to read as possible and not create ambiguity in the mind of the performer. The difficult question is: what notation accomplishes that goal? I have reasons for not using #5 on dominant chords. I know it was part of chord nomenclature for a long time, possibly out of ease of explanation to newbies - (you can have an altered 5 (#5 or b5) or a natural 5, but not both) - but the note is not normally spelled correctly as #5; it is spelled correctly as a b13, the sixth note of the chord scale, not the 5th note. In my area b13 is the norm on dominant chords, but one still sees #5 in old fake books like the original Real Book. I would use #5 on augmented major 7 chords, though, as this is indeed the 5th note of that implied chord scale. I don't use + for the simple reason that some French and Italian sheet music editions I've seen use it to indicate major 7 chords (C+7 for Cmaj7) and I wouldn't want to create any question about that at all if my music is being read by musicians from other countries. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research? Now jazz font natural complaint
In my area b13 is the norm on Do you mean area of music? Area geographically? Culturally? Best, Dana ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research? Now jazz font natural complaint
On Oct 22, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Dana Friedman wrote: In my area b13 is the norm on Do you mean area of music? Area geographically? Culturally? Heh, heh! All three, but I was really referring to Montreal. I find some aspects of notation, especially in jazz, tend to be regional. Nice catch. 8-) Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
On Oct 22, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Daniel Wolf wrote: As an aside, I must admit to finding yet another discussion of vernacular chord notation somewhat puzzling. While, in principle, the intention would appear to be to create a notation for rather flexible extemporaneous realization, in practice, the usage prefered by one player or another tends to be voiced in a rather doctrinaire way (i.e. always this, never that; this is right, that is wrong). I suspect that these are closely tied to particular traditions and schoold, but I don't know enough to sort them out. Coming, personally, from a classical background — which one would suspect to be more doctrinaire, but is in fact one in which musicians tend to be comfortable with a number of notations for both harmonic analysis and performance, some of which have the virtue of little ambiguity (continuo bass figures), others of which are interpretive and often contradictory (functional notation, scale step (Stufen) notation, combined scale step/functional notation etc.) — this discussion is fairly startling. Yup, you are absolutely right. Although in all fairness, most jazz musicians are fairly comfortable with a wide variety of chord notations, which are not really standardised in any case even though guys like me are trying to standardise them. For example, even though I espouse alpha-numeric chord suffixes, I am neither confused nor offended, nor even slowed down to speak of, by Darcy's geometric styles. Part of the reasoning is that we have to sight read on the gig fairly often, so we have to keep things as simple as possible. Practiced parts have no limits to complexity, of course. I have sometimes gone against my own advice and supplied improvisation instructions that go outside the boundaries of normal chord symbols, just because a certain piece or section of a piece needed something other than a straight-ahead chord symbol. I pick my battles, though! Voicings are as personal as the player is. In certain styles we find more of one thing than another (making it no different than classical in that way!) and certain things are almost always wrong in certain styles while being right in another style, but mostly the grip voicings and stock formulae are there just to make things a little simpler for the newbie. Nobody is going to tell Herbie Hancock how to voice something (though Wayne Shorter tried to, with limited success) but a teacher is going to give a student something to practice that is set for the style. But we are kind of an uptight bunch, it is true. 8-) Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
At 6:01 PM +0200 10/20/08, 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? Daniel Wolf Frankfurt I'm not aware of such research, but I suspect that it would reveal a rather definite bi-modal curve, one based on the responses of classical musicians and the other on the responses of jazz musicians. (Or perhaps tri-modal, if a study were to include non-musicians or non-music readers!) We are all conditioned by the music we've been reading for years. Someone who has never had to read hand copy would probably think it dreadful, and a jazz font for the same reason. But it does occur to me that we appear to be talking about conventional musical notation, within which one might indeed have preferences. (The French backward 8th rests for quarter rests drive me nuts, for example, even though intellectually I know that they go straight back to the first Franconian mensural notation in the 13th century). But some Broadway books with multiple copyists and quarter rests in three entirely different forms can be just as frustrating. Just a limited study on page size, staff size, and notehead size would be quite interesting. The MOLA gurus go by what their orchestral players tell them, but those players are conditioned by decades of reading European engraving practices. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
On 20-Oct-08, at 20-Oct-08 5:50 PM, John Howell wrote: At 6:01 PM +0200 10/20/08, 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? Daniel Wolf Frankfurt I'm not aware of such research, but I suspect that it would reveal a rather definite bi-modal curve, one based on the responses of classical musicians and the other on the responses of jazz musicians. (Or perhaps tri-modal, if a study were to include non- musicians or non-music readers!) Fonts are not the only issue pertaining to readability, of course. Aside from how vision and cognition work, we recognise what we are familiar with (which is what I think you were saying.) This is purely anecdotal, but ever since I noticed this, I write my parts in consequence: in my hand copying days, I was saving some time and wrote a hairpin instead of the word cresc. on the trombone parts and half the trumpet parts for a big band arrangement. The saxes and the first and second trumpet got the word cresc. on their parts. In rehearsal, I noticed that in the first reading, the saxes and trumpet 1 and 2 missed playing the crescendos with surprising regularity, while the 3rd and 4th trumpets and trombones (with the hairpins) sight read it in almost all instances. This started me thinking. Maybe musicians read musical notation more easily than they read text indications. I noticed later that the marking stacc. was largely ignored on the first reading (sight reading, of course, as prepared parts in an orchestral context would most likely have been looked at before the first rehearsal) whereas actual dots over all the notes was played properly. Where text is unavoidable, I notice that musicians get immediately a positive indication like Play 2nd X only, whereas they stop to think for the same thing written as a negative Tacet 1st X. Later on, when I became a parent, I saw the same effect in my children. If I said, Never put playdough in the microwave all they heard was playdough and microwave and I bore the smelly consequences. If I said, The playdough has to stay on the newspaper then I mostly got what I was looking for (mostly!) Now, guys who prepare music for a living like Darcy and jef chippewa probably know this stuff like the back of their hands and more. Whether there is actual research to back it up, well, who knows? Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
Now, guys who prepare music for a living like Darcy and jef chippewa probably know this stuff like the back of their hands and more. Whether there is actual research to back it up, well, who knows? musicians don't read, you have to draw pictures for the bastards. seriously though (not that that wasn't), you wouldn't believe how often they never read the preparatory text and notation legend in scores, arriving in rehearsals with questions that would have been answered if they had just read the *$#! notes. i was once invited to listen/comment on a piece a colleague was preparing for a concert and tour with his duo. the piece was pretty much ready -- they thought -- and he seemed upset that instead of telling him how great they sounded i was pointing out that they weren't reading the text in the score; well, in other words they weren't playing the piece. even lamer than the excuse of not speaking the language is a percussionist (english mother tongue) not figuring out that mit dem Hand means play the cymbals with the hands... um, like, not with hard mallets, dude. my own work is informed by some studies of typography and graphic design, enough to understand the principles of communication of information. also by many discussions with performers and composers and an understanding of the different needs of performers, composers and fans looking at a score. since i deal with scores that have higher levels of details than what i call (with no disrespect intended) beethoven notation i have had to find ways of making the information as easy to digest as possible. clarity and consistency are some of the most important factors. this is one of the reasons why i developed my own fonts. a simple example, the consistency of line thicknesses, shapes and style in my fonts are far more easy to deal with and process visually than the mixed fonts that plague most digital notation today. i also apply basic principles of graphic design to the layout (over and above traditional notation standards that i feel are still relevant) and have learned a lot from typography. i approach score info in layers. one the one hand, each layer has to be unique in its style and presentation to clearly distinguish it from other layers of information; this allows the performer to scan the information of one layer easily while filtering out other layers. but on the other hand, the styles of the different layers have to be closely enough related so that the whole is unified. anyways, maybe sounds a bit like a strange mixture of new age and formalist-structuralism or something, it's clear in my head and i've never really put it to paper before... but hope it's clear enough. in any case it works. http://newmusicnotation.com/examples/chippewa_without_p01.pdf so there you have it, a small contribution to the possibly non-existent research on this stuff. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
Jef has hit on a very key point (illustrated perfectly in his example), that any additional instructions or level of detail must be fully integrated with the basic Beethoven notation. My experience coincides with his that musicians will ignore prefatory notes or explanations longer than a phrase or two. Did anyone besides me notice that Jef's fingers manage to find the shift-key for German but never for English? What's up with that? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
Robert Patterson wrote: Jef has hit on a very key point (illustrated perfectly in his example), that any additional instructions or level of detail must be fully integrated with the basic Beethoven notation. My experience coincides with his that musicians will ignore prefatory notes or explanations longer than a phrase or two. Did anyone besides me notice that Jef's fingers manage to find the shift-key for German but never for English? What's up with that? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale He didn't bother to read the explanatory notes about how sentences are supposed to start with capital letters? ;-) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
On 21-Oct-08, at 21-Oct-08 11:14 AM, shirling neueweise wrote: i also apply basic principles of graphic design to the layout (over and above traditional notation standards that i feel are still relevant) and have learned a lot from typography. i approach score info in layers. one the one hand, each layer has to be unique in its style and presentation to clearly distinguish it from other layers of information; this allows the performer to scan the information of one layer easily while filtering out other layers. but on the other hand, the styles of the different layers have to be closely enough related so that the whole is unified. anyways, maybe sounds a bit like a strange mixture of new age and formalist-structuralism or something, it's clear in my head and i've never really put it to paper before... but hope it's clear enough. in any case it works. Hey jef! I remember seeing this piece early on; it looks like a gas! A fitting follow-through to the Berio Sequenzas, I thought. I concur with Robert P about instructions integrated into the page and would like to offer my own little pat on the back for the clarity of the non-traditional symbols (though in your field maybe one would say that they are the new tradition!) Everything is clean and clear, right down to the little indications of the tone of the extraneous sounds. You would be doing the notation world a great service if you would put down in more detail your principles of graphic design as it applies to music. I remember the little talk we had in my basement - just that five minutes about matching layers in the music with fonts was very informative. Maybe an article? I'm sure you would have no problem getting it published either by an interested journal or on your own company's website if all else fails. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
On 21-Oct-08, at 21-Oct-08 11:14 AM, shirling neueweise wrote: a simple example, the consistency of line thicknesses, shapes and style in my fonts are far more easy to deal with and process visually than the mixed fonts that plague most digital notation today. I forgot to reply to this. I have pretty much given up trying to find a font family that looks like the different point sizes were drawn with the same pen. All fonts I see get thicker when they get bigger. I would love a matched set from 9 points to 36 points that look like they have the same thicknesses of lines (look like being the operative word; I know that having exactly the same line thickness is not really desirable.) I imagine this is part of what you were trying to accomplish with your custom fonts? Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
Robert Patterson wrote: Did anyone besides me notice that Jef's fingers manage to find the shift-key for German but never for English? What's up with that? dhbailey wrote: He didn't bother to read the explanatory notes about how sentences are supposed to start with capital letters? ;-) As you probably know, we've been teasing Jef about him not using capitals to start sentences for years now. He couldn't switch now, even if he wanted to, because that would seem like some sort of capitulation. Jef (and e e cummings for that matter) must know that it is harder to read text without capitals. I'm glad he doesn't carry over that philosophy into his musical notation. Nice work on that musical example, by the way, Jef! If only Finale could capture it as a house style or something... -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
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
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
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
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
Richard Smith wrote: 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. Ah. Something I can comment with some experience and intelligence on. The jazz font is darker, making it easier to read in poor lighting conditions. I find it MUCH easier to see on a badly lit bandstand than the maestro font. That said, it is by no means ideal, but for the price, better for me. There are other, better commercial fonts out there, but they are beyond my meagre means. :( cd ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research? Now jazz font natural complaint
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
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
A very interesting observation. Back at the end of the last century, I remember thinking how precise and elegant my Finale work looked (Fin 98). But on one job, I found it difficult to read one my own works. My (nearly 50 year old at the time) eyes were having trouble distinguishing ledger lines from staff lines. Then I noticed that my early Sibelius work was easier to read. The staff lines were slightly thicker. So I changed my Finale defaults to thicker lines. When Fin 2000 came out, Finale's defaults had been changed to the same thicker staff lines I had started using. One thing that I left off of the previous post is the tie that is spaced so poorly that it looks more like a dot than a tie. It's especially bad in poor light. I think that's more likely with Finale than Sibelius, but I have seen both do it and any engraver who puts out something like that should be ashamed! Richard Smith http://www.rgsmithmusic.com Carl Dershem wrote: Ah. Something I can comment with some experience and intelligence on. The jazz font is darker, making it easier to read in poor lighting conditions. I find it MUCH easier to see on a badly lit bandstand than the maestro font. That said, it is by no means ideal, but for the price, better for me. There are other, better commercial fonts out there, but they are beyond my meagre means. :( cd ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
Richard Smith wrote: I actually prefer 2 parts on a page; This is good practice if and only if the 2 parts appear on separate staves, as with, e.g., orchestral parts for French works. (I believe it was Durand who did this fairly consistently, but I am not certain.) However, some of the French publishers had an aggravating (and, fortunately, uncommon) practice of putting slashes in the 2nd part when it doubled the first part. This is *entirely* unacceptable, and furthermore there is no reason for it in the age of computers. Combining 2 parts on a single staff is always a shortcut. These parts certainly can be quite servicable, but it is not best practice, at least for orchestra parts. Where it becomes particularly sticky is if the parts cross, or if they dovetail. The players are much more likely to take it into their heads to rearrange it to their liking if they see it all on one staff. I speak as one who has done so on numerous occasions because my colleagues were uninterested in playing the notation as given. (I am not the principal.) I am thinking particularly of passages where a melody tosses quickly back and forth between two players. If it is all in one part, it is much simpler to read if both play it all, but that of course kills the effect. The part the player sees should always encourage the player to play what the composer wrote, but in this case it does not. What is truly aggravating, speaking as an orchestra horn player, is when the 1st and 3rd parts appear together on the pages of one part, and the 2nd and 4th appear together on another (irrespective of the number of staves). Do not do this if you want your parts played correctly. 1st and 3rd player are used to reading the top line, while 2nd and 4th are used to reading the bottom. If the middle two players are not paying attention to the upper left corner (imminently possible) then you may only get only your 1st and your 4th part, both doubled. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
I forgot to reply to this. I have pretty much given up trying to find a font family that looks like the different point sizes were drawn with the same pen. All fonts I see get thicker when they get bigger. I would love a matched set from 9 points to 36 points that look like they have the same thicknesses of lines (look like being the operative word; I know that having exactly the same line thickness is not really desirable.) I imagine this is part of what you were trying to accomplish with your custom fonts? nope. i aim to make 1 version of everything i might need at a proper size so that everything used at 24pt matches. you're right though, for some symbols another version should be used, much like professional fonts that have real bold and smallcaps instead of fattened versions of the regular font and smaller point size for smallcaps (spare me the humour on this ppoint guys...). there are in fact a couple of things i could think of... i used larger fermati when they are over measures that over notes and barlines. and a slight adjustment (slightly thinner lines on the larger version) would make the design that much more elegant. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
Christopher Smith wrote: Maybe musicians read musical notation more easily than they read text indications. I noticed later that the marking stacc. was largely ignored on the first reading (sight reading, of course, as prepared parts in an orchestral context would most likely have been looked at before the first rehearsal) whereas actual dots over all the notes was played properly. Richard Smith wrote: The hairpins are more obvious and usually more accurate. yeah this also has to do with the complexity of the visual elements you are looking at. a hairpin has two long lines that are present and quasi parallel (extremely similar) over the entire duration they apply to and even reading them peripherally it is extremely easy to process, while a cresc. has 6 separate characters in 5 different forms and the only thing going for it perceptually is the doubled character c at the ends, so as an object the eye can pick it up as a group fairly easily and not have to process the individual letters individually. but still way more complex as an object than a hairpin. al;though... i think this is an older protocol, but some scores have dotted lines over the entire duration following cresc. if you want to be a real geek about these things, check out bregman's ASA; most of the models are based in audio experiments, but he translates them into aural perception. it's thick but i don't think you need to read the whole thing to get the ideas behind it. in fact you don't even have to read it, you can just look at the pictures. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... erm. ack. even these ideas about hearing and perception (streaming, segregation) can be brought into the notation realm. If I said, Never put playdough in the microwave all they heard was playdough and microwave ha! reminds me of the classic gary larson what we say to dogs (cats) / what they actually hear. http://healingmagichands.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/some-favorite-cartoons/1019 http://healingmagichands.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/some-favorite-cartoons/1020 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
Did anyone besides me notice that Jef's fingers manage to find the shift-key for German but never for English? What's up with that? shit... busted. verdammte Scheiße. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
I remember seeing this piece early on; it looks like a gas! yeah it was fun. a bit of a shocker to the oslo audience though. You would be doing the notation world a great service if you would put down in more detail your principles of graphic design as it applies to music. hm, thanks. i would be doing myself a great service too. there is so much small things floating around when i do work that i wouldn't know where to start. but yeah i should think about it. and try to find some time for it. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
I really like the French parts also, except for those darn quarter rests. They really throw me! I agree that two parts on the same staff need to not cross and should be rhythmically similar. I should have been more clear. I am also a horn player and have the same reaction to the 13, 24 setup. I hate it and it always causes confusion. Richard Smith Robert Patterson wrote: Richard Smith wrote: I actually prefer 2 parts on a page; This is good practice if and only if the 2 parts appear on separate staves, as with, e.g., orchestral parts for French works. (I believe it was Durand who did this fairly consistently, but I am not certain.) However, some of the French publishers had an aggravating (and, fortunately, uncommon) practice of putting slashes in the 2nd part when it doubled the first part. This is *entirely* unacceptable, and furthermore there is no reason for it in the age of computers. Combining 2 parts on a single staff is always a shortcut. These parts certainly can be quite servicable, but it is not best practice, at least for orchestra parts. Where it becomes particularly sticky is if the parts cross, or if they dovetail. The players are much more likely to take it into their heads to rearrange it to their liking if they see it all on one staff. I speak as one who has done so on numerous occasions because my colleagues were uninterested in playing the notation as given. (I am not the principal.) I am thinking particularly of passages where a melody tosses quickly back and forth between two players. If it is all in one part, it is much simpler to read if both play it all, but that of course kills the effect. The part the player sees should always encourage the player to play what the composer wrote, but in this case it does not. What is truly aggravating, speaking as an orchestra horn player, is when the 1st and 3rd parts appear together on the pages of one part, and the 2nd and 4th appear together on another (irrespective of the number of staves). Do not do this if you want your parts played correctly. 1st and 3rd player are used to reading the top line, while 2nd and 4th are used to reading the bottom. If the middle two players are not paying attention to the upper left corner (imminently possible) then you may only get only your 1st and your 4th part, both doubled. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research? Now jazz font natural complaint
Darcy James Argue wrote: You should *never* use just M or m for chord symbols, regardless of the font. I know Christopher disagrees, but I prefer either the geometric symbols (? and -), or MA and mi. I believe Christopher uses Cmaj7 (which is okay, though I *greatly* prefer CMA7) and Cm7 (which is fine so long as you're not also using CM7 in the same chart). Chord symbols like CM7 are, IMO, entirely unacceptable under any circumstances. Cheers, - Darcy For clarity, I prefer Maj for Major and - for minor. it's very difficult to confuse the two (except for that one guy, and we all know someone like him). cd ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Notation readability research?
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? I did some preliminary investigation of a related topic a number of years ago: whether serif style or non-serif styles of text were more readable. One of the first studies of the topic I read reported the conclusion that individuals tended to prefer the style to which each had the most original exposure: students who learned to read from serif style faces found texts printed with serif texts more readable, and students who learned to read from non-serif styles found these more readable. As I recall, an elderly person whose early reading was in Fraktur type fonts was reported to have claimed to find that more readable than either of the serif or non-serif styles. A preliminary internet search gave few hits to current work in the field, except for a few involving Optical Character Recognition research in computer sciences. My own conclusions as far as score design, typography and layout, are more pragmatic: the music (and lyrics, if any) need to be of a type size that are convenient to reading quickly at about arm's length, and the musical characters and text on the page needs to be sparse enough that the page does not appear cluttered, nor so sparse that there is too much space from one character to the nest. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
