Re: Barline scans

[Marnen Laibow-Koser]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
[...]
> Congratulations, you found some lightly printed editions.  

Then that was the luck of the draw.  I basically chose a few books more 
or less at random, and added some editions whose aesthetics I like (such 
as Henle).  I will be trying to enlarge my sample and seeing if the 
numbers change.

Or should I say: Congratulations, you found some heavily printed 
editions. :)

> I am aware
> that lightweight prints are (becoming) more common than heavyweight ones.

Then this may be current practice.  In that case, shouldn't Lilypond 
keep up with the times?

> Possibly you are used to that light look, which is fine.  

Not at all.  I love Henle's engraving, which is quite dark.  Lilypond's 
dark look is OK with me in general.  I object to that one point of 
barlines that are so much thicker than the staff lines.

> But this is
> not the (default) style that we try to mimick.  I am sorry if you
> think this makes LilyPond prints ugly, but it seems to me that you
> stand alone in this.

I wonder.  However, I'll bet that most people who think that Lilypond 
output is ugly just don't bother to use the program or say anything.  I 
am trying to offer constructive suggestions so that Lilypond can come 
closer to its stated goals.

> I have put up two scans at lilypond.org/~janneke/scans, to show you
> what we mean.  You may want to read our Essay on engraving, it has
> something to say about blackness as well.

I have read the essay.  There are large parts that I agree with and 
large parts that I disagree with.

> Peters
> stem (=hair): 11px
> staff line: 13px
> bar line: 24px  (220 % of hair)
>
> Baerenreiter
> staff (=hair): 10px
> stem: 12 px
> bar line: 22 px  (220 % of hair)

Interesting.  OK, Bärenreiter and Peters are next on my list of editions 
to scan.

> The funny thing is, that LilyPond has
>
>   staff (=hair): 1
>   stem: 1.3 * hair
>   bar: 1.9 * hair
>
> so it seems that in our default look our bar lines are not as heavy as
> Baerenreiter's.

Then perhaps the results have to do with the overall look of the page. 
It is possible that in Bärenreiter's editions, something *else* is heavy 
enough that the barlines do not appear objectionable by contrast.

[...]
> Well, we will also have to have a very good look at our Baerenreiter's
> instead of trying to please this one person with his quest for thinner
> bar lines.  Note that Marnen has stated explicitly that he thinks that
> thick bar lines are ugly, so his input might be biassed.  

I'm biased because I have a preference?  That's ridiculous.  I didn't 
even *know* I thought thick barlines were ugly until I saw Lilypond's 
use of them.  And obviously, that's not the only factor: I don't think 
Bärenreiter or Peters are ugly editions.

> Compromising
> into making our bar lines a bit thinner is not going to make him happy
> anyway.

What makes you say that?  That's also ridiculous.

> If we want to mimick Baerenreiter, my quick scan suggests we should
> tune it up from 1.9 to 2.2, but we'd have to compare good printouts
> with the original.

As I recall, Feta looks very little like Bärenreiter notation.  If you 
want to mimic Bärenreiter, perhaps an overhaul of the font is in order 
-- after all, all the graphic details are interdependent to some degree.

> Jan.

Best,
Marnen