Discussing typographical standards (was: Tuplet notehead shared...)

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 24.03.2014 13:33, schrieb Richard Shann:

An example of this, typeset using LilyPond is posted here:

http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/278632

To do this I set tuplet timing around the entire bass part and used
doubled time signatures (one hidden IIRC)

Richard

The following is completely off-topic, but I’d like to share some observations I often make and thoughts I have and ask for your opinion:
Looking at this score confirms me in my opinion that LilyPond default output alone is no guarantee for a good-looking result in accordance with typographical good use. This may be partly due to an older lilypond version used, but there are some basic issues I see with this:

– For what I know of best practice in typography, it is normally unnecessary to use slurs for indicating melismata. Beaming (\autoBeamOff, melismata with []), placement of syllables and hyphenation/extender lines make the lyrics assignment unambiguous and easy to read in all but the most complex cases (that is, when the rhythmic complexity requires that the beaming corresponds to beat groups and legibility would suffer in the opposite case—which will rarely occur before 1900).
Certainly I know that the Lily authors knew what they were doing, when they recommended using slurs for this purpose. This is used in excellent hand-engraved editions as well, I think especially later in the 20th century. Nevertheless I vote for the supposedly older use, as described before.

– The default Denemo output reflects the now common, but faulty practice of writing syl- la- ble instead of syl - la - ble (with the hyphens centered between syllables). The corresponding Lilypond code would be { syl -- la -- ble }, see Learning Manual, Aligning lyrics to a melody.

– The beginning of the first recitative is a good example where inserting a line break at half-measure would significantly improve the visual impression by a more even horizontal spacing. I found that it was common in traditional hand-engraved scores to do such mid-measure breaks (if measures aren’t rather short), and thus I am often using \bar "" at half-measure. Sometimes I even use an extra voice for something like \repeat unfold 35 { s2 \bar "" s2 } and thus create more flexibility in line-breaking. The disadvantage is that there is no possibility to differ in likeliness between mid-measure and full-measure breaks, which would then be desirable.

– As always, the default margins are too small. This is already being discussed as issue 3808 and will hopefully be changed soon. I once read a comprehensive article (in German) on this topic from the German Tex user group’s magazine, and the author pointed out that in medieval manuscripts and renaissance prints an outstandingly pleasing appearance is achieved by page margins which cover up half of the page’s space! This is luxury, of course, and usually unaffordable, but I find it evident that having "unusually" large margins (and simple ratios between the measurements of the page and margins, and the top-margin smaller than the bottom-margin and so on…) much improves the look of the page. It might necessitate to decrease staff size, though, but anyway 16 pt are no way too small.

– In order to increase legibility and clarity it’s also much advisable to use at least one StaffGroup, e.g.
\new StaffGroup {
  \new Staff = "fl" {}
  \new StaffGroup {
    \new Staff = "vl1" {}
    \new Staff = "vl2" {}
  }
  ...
}

Using LilyPond unfortunately doesn’t in itself guarantee "flawless" typography (as Denemo advertises itself). You need to use it correctly also, following the instructions in the manuals…

I hope I haven’t been too "moralist" there, nor too extensive… sorry if I have.
Best regards,

Simon