Menu
▾
▴
12 Attachments
#2143 accidental arrangement should depend on tightness of music
Accepted
nobody
None
Enhancement
2011-12-29
2011-12-28
Anonymous
No
Originally created by: *anonymous
Originally created by: janek.li...@gmail.com
depending on space available, accidentals should be placed more or less "dense".
For example two flats in sixth (and two sharps in sixth, too) should be aligned in one vertical line when they appear in a rapid succession of 32nds, while they shouldn't be aligned if there's plenty of whitespace before notes to which they apply.
Accidentals should be also placed tightly when they affect the first note after a barline (it is preferred to have first note in a measure as close to the barline as possible, within reason).
Attached "desired output.png" shows how the results might look like. Following are real engraving examples.
Related issues:
issue 2141
issue 2142
issue 2144
issue 2145
Originally posted by: lemzw...@googlemail.com
I strongly disagree to align two sharp signs vertically for a sixth! This looks really bad IMHO, even in the real-world examples you are providing. It might be a last-resort solution for the tighest typesetting (similar issues arise for typesetting of narrow columns), and *probably* OK in chords with more than two notes, but otherwise it should always be slightly offset (by at least the thickness of the the sharp sign's vertical stem).
Originally posted by: n.putt...@gmail.com
I agree with Werner. That example looks awful.
Unless I'm mistaken, the accurate box code deliberated prevents the sixths from being aligned (at least for flats) because it's considered bad typesetting.
Originally posted by: PhilEHol...@googlemail.com
FWIW, Elaine Gould allows accidentals a sixth apart to align when the upper one is a flat, but says they should be offset when the upper is a sharp or natural. Where they are both sharps, she says "the closest that two sharps may be placed together is so that the edges of their crossbars align vertically. The sharps cannot overlap, as the vertical strokes would jin up".
Originally posted by: k-ohara5...@oco.net
Schirmer's engraver for the Carl Mikuli edition followed the rules -- including aligning accidentals in octaves (issue 726) at the expense of adding a column.
Originally posted by: lemzw...@googlemail.com
It's obviously a matter of tightness...
My feeling is that we should delay handling of non-standard alignment (this is, not having octave accidentals aligned vertically) until the standard alignment has been fixed as good as possible.
Originally posted by: janek.li...@gmail.com
Ok, i agree that aligning vertically sharps in sixth doesn't look good; especially in Lily engraving (sharps from Feta font are bigger than the ones in that engraved example).
Thanks for the alternative engraving example, Keith. I attach a comparison of these two engraving - notice that the example with staggered accidentals takes 48% more horizontal space! That's a huge difference.
As for aligning octaves vs. not aligning them, i agree - let's keep this out of discussion at the moment.
Concerning flats in sixths, i'm puzzled by the rule that they shouldn't be aligned. I'd say that we can keep them staggered when there's plenty of space, but in tight situations i can't see how we can keep them staggered.
I attach my revised thoughts on the subject.
Originally posted by: janek.li...@gmail.com
I've found a very nice example showing how close sharps can behave. Its taken from an engraving of Chopin g-minor ballade op. 23 attached to issue 2141.
I'm preparing some more examples, i'll post them later today.
Originally posted by: janek.li...@gmail.com
More examples as promised. Most of them are from Peters editions.