Re: Henle piano template

[Kieren MacMillan]

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 <address@hidden> 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
>> 
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user