Hi Urs, Amazing — thanks for this. Once I've recompressed from my (incredible) week in the wilderness, I'll give these some serious consideration and adapt/enhance the stylesheet appropriately.
Thanks! Kieren. On 2013-Jul-23, at 04:59, Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote: > 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 >> >> lilypond-user@gnu.org >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
