lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Henle piano template


From: Urs Liska
Subject: Re: Henle piano template
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:59:26 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6

Am 16.07.2013 20:23, schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
Hello all,

I'm getting close with my Henle piano stylesheet(s) — see attached.
Once this is ready, I'm going to document it and put it up on the Lilyblog.

I think the last thing I need is an "oval BarNumber enclosure" (see photo).
Can anyone help with that?

Thanks,
Kieren.



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Hi Kieren,

now I've finally laid hand on my copy of Henle's Beethoven Sonatas
(Just to be sure: it's a two volume edition, number 32, (c) 1952/80, the preface is signed with 'Winter 1975/76')

If I'm now going through it and do some nitpicking this of course doesn't mean I'm less impressed by it than before ...
I compare to a laser printout of a file compiled with LilyPond 2.17.22.

Interestingly, all issues I saw myself are actually differences from the original model:
  • The "Presto" is somewhat too tight at the staff, and possibly slightly too wide.
    Correction: This has improved between 2.17.18 and 2.17.22 (although the font is still wider)
  • M. 4 (both hands) Fermata and prolongation dot are too tight.
  • The inter-staff space in the third system is too small.
    This doesn't only look strange by itself, but the cross-staff octaves in m. 16/17 are really problematic
  • The staccato dots in m. 25 and 29 should be placed inside the staff

There are a few more things I now notice in direct comparison:

  • The fonts of Dynamics and Text Scripts are astonishingly similar
    (which may be one of the reasons why the overall impression is so convincing)
  • (not suprisingly) there are many little differences in the way slurs are attached to notes.
    In particular I think that Henle tends to start stem-side slurs much closer to the notehead
    see for example
    - the initial upbeat
    - upbeat to m. 5
    - l.h. m. 31-32
    This tends to result in a tighter impression.
  • Longer phrasing slurs may be slightly irregular, e.g. the ones over m. 5-6
    This allows to 'enclose' the notes tighter through a curve that couldn't be expressed by a simple bezier _expression_.
  • The 'cresc.' in m. 18 isn't whited out (can you say that?) in Henle
    -> There I definitely prefer your LilyPond version.

Differences to the musical text (of my copy?):

  • m. 22: the topmost f sharp should be parenthesized
  • The chord at the end of m. 15 shouldn't have a staccato
  • In m. 31 a 'sf' is missing on the second crotchet

And finally: Shouldn't you consider to include the fingerings too?

Keep up the good work!
Best
Urs


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]