Bach, beams, and benchmarks
Hi all, I’m by no means a seasoned Lilypond pro but I’ve been exploring how the program handles beams. In the essay, the 1950 Barenreiter Bach cello suite edition is held up as a benchmark of high quality engraving. Seeing this really helps the user understand why Lilypond’s default slurs are shaped the way they are (not overly curvaceous). However, when I entered the first few systems, the beaming was much steeper than in the Barenreiter. It only started looking closer to it when I put a blank measure on the end (three measures to system = tighter spacing). I then tried the various tweaking parameters for beams which worked fine on a beam-to-beam basis. What I’m curious about is whether or not Lilypond can be set to produce beaming closer to the Barenreiter without quite as much intervention. For example, the damping factor didn’t respond very sensitively when I tried using decimal points. Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks! C ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bach, beams, and benchmarks
Hi, Chad! On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:19 AM Chad Linsley wrote: > Hi all, > > I’m by no means a seasoned Lilypond pro but I’ve been exploring how the > program handles beams. In the essay, the 1950 Barenreiter Bach cello suite > edition is held up as a benchmark of high quality engraving. Seeing this > really helps the user understand why Lilypond’s default slurs are shaped > the way they are (not overly curvaceous). However, when I entered the first > few systems, the beaming was much steeper than in the Barenreiter. It only > started looking closer to it when I put a blank measure on the end (three > measures to system = tighter spacing). I then tried the various tweaking > parameters for beams which worked fine on a beam-to-beam basis. What I’m > curious about is whether or not Lilypond can be set to produce beaming > closer to the Barenreiter without quite as much intervention. For example, > the damping factor didn’t respond very sensitively when I tried using > decimal points. > > Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks! > Here's my first page of this piece. You're on the right track. The only thing that would affect the beam positions in my personal stylesheet was the 'damping property which I have set to 2 instead of 1 (default). It's not exactly the same as the Barenreiter score in the essay, but it's *much* closer now. I've found that decimal values won't change the damping effect much, but whole numbers should (i.e., change the value to 1000 and you'll see what I mean). HTH, Abraham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bach, beams, and benchmarks
Abraham Lee writes: > Hi, Chad! > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:19 AM Chad Linsley wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I’m by no means a seasoned Lilypond pro but I’ve been exploring how the >> program handles beams. In the essay, the 1950 Barenreiter Bach cello suite >> edition is held up as a benchmark of high quality engraving. Seeing this >> really helps the user understand why Lilypond’s default slurs are shaped >> the way they are (not overly curvaceous). However, when I entered the first >> few systems, the beaming was much steeper than in the Barenreiter. It only >> started looking closer to it when I put a blank measure on the end (three >> measures to system = tighter spacing). I then tried the various tweaking >> parameters for beams which worked fine on a beam-to-beam basis. What I’m >> curious about is whether or not Lilypond can be set to produce beaming >> closer to the Barenreiter without quite as much intervention. For example, >> the damping factor didn’t respond very sensitively when I tried using >> decimal points. >> >> Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks! >> > > Here's my first page of this piece. I'd have been interested in the second one, the multi-string passages close to the end. Since there are fingerings in your page, you are obviously not writing an Urtext. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bach, beams, and benchmarks
Hi, David! On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 8:38 AM David Kastrup wrote: > Abraham Lee writes: > > > Hi, Chad! > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:19 AM Chad Linsley wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I’m by no means a seasoned Lilypond pro but I’ve been exploring how the > >> program handles beams. In the essay, the 1950 Barenreiter Bach cello > suite > >> edition is held up as a benchmark of high quality engraving. Seeing this > >> really helps the user understand why Lilypond’s default slurs are shaped > >> the way they are (not overly curvaceous). However, when I entered the > first > >> few systems, the beaming was much steeper than in the Barenreiter. It > only > >> started looking closer to it when I put a blank measure on the end > (three > >> measures to system = tighter spacing). I then tried the various tweaking > >> parameters for beams which worked fine on a beam-to-beam basis. What I’m > >> curious about is whether or not Lilypond can be set to produce beaming > >> closer to the Barenreiter without quite as much intervention. For > example, > >> the damping factor didn’t respond very sensitively when I tried using > >> decimal points. > >> > >> Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks! > >> > > > > Here's my first page of this piece. > > I'd have been interested in the second one, the multi-string passages > close to the end. Since there are fingerings in your page, you are > obviously not writing an Urtext. > Most definitely not. I am also not a string player, so you'll have to forgive the fingering. I was merely copying this from another source as an exercise. Anyway, see the attached PDF which includes both pages. Hopefully that satisfies your interests. Best, Abraham suite1-in-G-Major-bwv1007-Prelude.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bach, beams, and benchmarks
Abraham Lee writes: > Hi, David! > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 8:38 AM David Kastrup wrote: >> > >> > Here's my first page of this piece. >> >> I'd have been interested in the second one, the multi-string passages >> close to the end. Since there are fingerings in your page, you are >> obviously not writing an Urtext. >> > > Most definitely not. I am also not a string player, so you'll have to > forgive the fingering. I was merely copying this from another source as an > exercise. > > Anyway, see the attached PDF which includes both pages. Hopefully that > satisfies your interests. Yes, thanks. I should mention that "copying this from another source" is a bad idea _unless_ you are creating an Urtext since things like the fingering are copyrighted (except for quite old editions). This may be particularly infuriating concerning the Bach solo string pieces since a) the more complex passages have only one feasible and obvious fingering: they are written for violin/cello rather than against them. b) cluttering the score with pre-printed fingering is more annoying than helpful anyway, particularly so where a "creative element" is indisputible since the editor has diverged from the obvious best choice. In general it tends to be a better idea for legal reasons to copy Urtext editions: their claim to copyright is actually constrained to the graphical elements rather than the musical content. But I found that extensively "helpful" editions particularly of the solo suites/sonatas are not actually helpful for performance preparation since they are a distraction and impede with the player's "breathing room". -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bach, beams, and benchmarks
Yes, thanks. I should mention that "copying this from another source" is a bad idea _unless_ you are creating an Urtext since things like the fingering are copyrighted (except for quite old editions). This may be particularly infuriating concerning the Bach solo string pieces since a) the more complex passages have only one feasible and obvious fingering: they are written for violin/cello rather than against them. b) cluttering the score with pre-printed fingering is more annoying than helpful anyway, particularly so where a "creative element" is indisputible since the editor has diverged from the obvious best choice. In general it tends to be a better idea for legal reasons to copy Urtext editions: their claim to copyright is actually constrained to the graphical elements rather than the musical content. But I found that extensively "helpful" editions particularly of the solo suites/sonatas are not actually helpful for performance preparation since they are a distraction and impede with the player's "breathing room". I think there a some questionable presuppositions in your reasoning (while you're obviously right regarding the legal aspects, and I also tend to agree that it's nice to have the "breathing room" an edition without printed fingerings leaves the player). Especially, I'd challenge the term "obvious best choice". Even if you do not abuse the instrument (and the work) and try, for example, to play the D major cello suite on a four-stringend instrument (which is not what Bach intended, but is possible - albeit quite hard - and in any case absolutely common), there are many reasons why there might be more than one possible and sensible fingering for a given passage, no matter if it's "more complex" or not. Hands and tastes differ, and so does the degree by which the player of "old" music is willing to adopt historical fingering styles that generally faded into oblivion in the course of centuries. On the cello (which is the only instrument I can account for), aspects of fingering style that changed over time include - the attitude towards using open strings, - the preferred positions to be used when leaving 1s position, - the fingers to be used when changing position (this is an especially personal matter - I, for one, very often play semitones with the same finger even if it is 4-4, a practice some colleagues frown at), - in later pieces (from Haydn on), the extent to which the thumb is used, - if using the thumb, the extent to which the 4th finger is used at the same time (something that can be observed in many practical editions from early 20th century, but has become quite much out of fashion since), - the question whether to use the 4th finger in higher positions (5-7) where the thumb is not involved (it's a quite recent development seen in young master cellists that they routinely /do/ use the 4th finger here, contrary to everything that is explained in traditional textbooks) and so on. For instance, in Abraham's edition, bar 20 starts with 1-2-2. A valid choice (which is also in Wenzinger's standard edition), but one I would never use, preferring 1-2-1 to avoid the awkward arm movement involved in preparing a clean Barré. Now this is hardly a "more complex passage" ... but I'm not quite sure how to define that term, anyway. (Except for a funny circular and self-contradictory definition: "A more complex passage is one where you need a fingering to survive, and in these, the fingering is obvious since the piece is written for the instrument instead of against it." ;-) ) Lukas ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Bach, beams, and benchmarks
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 7:43 AM David Kastrup wrote: > Abraham Lee writes: > > > Hi, David! > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 8:38 AM David Kastrup wrote: > >> > > >> > Here's my first page of this piece. > >> > >> I'd have been interested in the second one, the multi-string passages > >> close to the end. Since there are fingerings in your page, you are > >> obviously not writing an Urtext. > >> > > > > Most definitely not. I am also not a string player, so you'll have to > > forgive the fingering. I was merely copying this from another source as > an > > exercise. > > > > Anyway, see the attached PDF which includes both pages. Hopefully that > > satisfies your interests. > > Yes, thanks. I should mention that "copying this from another source" > is a bad idea _unless_ you are creating an Urtext since things like the > fingering are copyrighted (except for quite old editions). > You'll get no argument from me about this. It was purely an educational exercise for me at the time I created it and nothing more. I can't argue any which way for the "goodness" of the edition's fingering I copied from (I think it was even from a couple of sources), so please feel free to ignore them as they bear no importance to the discussion of the OP's specific request here, but thanks for the feedback. I will keep it in mind. Best, Abraham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
