Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents (Read 8602 times) previous topic - next topic

Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

I have a file I'd like to put up on the Scriptorium, a guitar arrangement of a Couperin piece, and I
realise the ornaments are in a font no one else will have, since I made it myself.

What fonts do most of you use for ornaments? I know many have Boxmarks, but the version I have doesn't have an inverted mordent sign, just the regular mordent, and this piece needs both. NWC Extra Ornaments has both, and you can construct one in Bach.

We need a standard font, or at least an expanded Boxmarks that includes more characters.

But for the moment, what are people using?

Thanks.

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #1 –
I use BoxmarxG and a font I made myself.
If I ever finish making my font, I won't need any Boxmarks, NWC Ornaments, or Bach.   My font has everything that those fonts have, and then some.  If I ever finish making my font, I would be willing to share it with the world, but I'll bet most people won't like it.  The sharp is not on the # key, the flat is not on the b key, and I think that the only thing that's conventional is the ^.    The top row of the keyboard is reserved for articulations, the "qwert" row has notes (including grace notes) and rests, the "asdfg" row has accidentals (including parentheticals), both normal-sized and cue-sized, the "zxcv" row has other types of articulations (scoops, drops, bends, etc.), and every alt code has something on it as well.
If I ever finish...

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #2 –
Freddy: Don't worry about unexpected placement of font symbols in your font. Users should simply pick them with a character map. I have some very popular music notation fonts that require a character map for intelligibility, and so far very few complaints.

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #3 –
BTW
Can any one tell me where to find a specific font for guitar symbols, like numbers within a circle for strings, barré, arpeggio up or down, etc.

Thanks in advance,
Any help very much appreciated,
Paulo

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #4 –
Get FretQwik.
It was made by Robert Allgeyer, who frequents this Forum.
It can be found on the helpful files page.

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #5 –
Thank you Freddy.
But what really need are symbols for guitar fingering, not to make tabs.

Paulo

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #6 –
Freddy... When you say you'd be willing to share your font with the world, to you mean simply release it as freeware (or something similar), or as Open Source?

One reason I ask is that I recently transcribed a copy of Mozart's "Tabletop Duet," which needed an upside-down treble clef (at least, the way I did it, it did. There was probably an easier way, but oh well...).  I ended up sorta fudging it... I grabed the Sibelius font (Opus)(I was working in Sibelius) and inverted the treble clef and saved it as a different file.  The problem is, I don't think that Opus is Open Source.  So I can't distribute the font (but then again, how often do you have the need for such a thing?  But regardless...), which means I can't distribute the piece in Sibelius format.

Also, there've been times (not many, granted) when I wanted a slightly different version of the font that I needed.  I have, for example, a transcription of Bach Contrapunctus I from the Art of the Fugue available.  I would've liked to have used the Noteworthy font for it (It has mezzosoprano, alto and tenor clefs, I believe), but I couldn't get it to line up properly and at the right size in Noteworthy, so I had to use another font (Musical), which fortunately I didn't have to modify, just to get the design correct.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.  There's a need for Open Source fonts!  Some would be willing to pay... I might, depending on the quality.  Tell me, if you were compensated for your work, would you be willing to make a high-quality Open Source music font?

Okay, well I think I'm nearly off-topic now, so I'll stop...

Thank you!

Geoff

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #7 –
Well, I, uh, don't know what "Open Source" means...
I haven't included any inverted clefs - if I'm doing a piece that uses them, I already have them printed out, so I didn't bother.  I do have the three clefs (F, C, and G) which can be placed on any line to achieve "all 15 clef possibilities," even the obsolete ones.
I would love to be compensated for my work, but it is not necessary.  After all, I've gotten a few free fonts at this site, right?  And the people here are so helpful, I'd like to give something back.
 
If I ever finish...
 

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #8 –
Open source means that the program, font, whatever is released to the public so that they can modify it however they wish without paying a fee and only being obligated to list the original creators. For a great example of open source, see http://www.openoffice.org .
Sincerely,
Francis Beaumier
Green Bay, WI

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #9 –
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about terms such as "Open Source," or "Public Domain," or "Public License." I am not an attorney, and hope I don't exacerbate the misunderstanding here; but I believe this is about right:

No matter what something is labeled, read its terms. They may not be what you think. A lot of non-free things are erroneously labeled as "free" by those who don't have the authority to state it.

Generally, speaking, "Open Source" refers to some programs originally written in a language such as C++, where the creator has published the source code (in C++) and permits anyone to modify the code, or compile it into an executable file. There are usually conditions attached.

Usually, a font would not be "Open Source" because it is usually not compiled from programming language statements. Instead, a font creation program is used. It would be possible to publish the native-format file for the specific font creation program, but nobody could use it without that program. Here's the analogy: If you use NWC to create sheet music, you could (if you have the rights) also release the *.nwc data file, so that anyone who wished could modify your music. But the NWC program would still be needed to perform the modification.

If something is "Open Source," it does NOT mean "no strings attached." There are license restrictions, often quite detailed. On occasion, a programmer exhibits source code without the intention of it being "open source." Maybe the programmer is an individual who is looking for a job, and wishes to demonstrate expertise. Just because you can see the source code, does not automatically mean that you have any right to use or modify it.

Another term, "Public Domain," is often mis-used. If something is truly public domain, that means there is no copyright due to passage of time or relinquishment of all rights. Under modern law, at least in the U.S., a work does NOT need to bear a copyright notice, nor does it need to be registered, in order to have a valid copyright.

Handel's "Hallelujah" chorus is public domain. Even if Mr. Handel has 1000 descendants practicing law, they cannot enforce a copyright against someone who publishes or performs that music. Too much time has passed. However, if XYZ sheet music publishers has a printed version of "Hallelujah," the printed version is likely to be copyrighted. That is, you cannot make photocopies of it, or use it in any similar fashion. It's not the music itself that is copyrighted here, but its presentation in readable form. Those who wish to circulate free copies of classical music are advised to use old, out-of-copyright issues as the starting point. I mentioned "Halllelujah" becuase there is a widely-circulated 19th century edition, out of copyright, that has become public domain due to passage of time, and can be freely copied.

Some things are "Free Public License." My own music fonts are that way. They are NOT public domain. A lot of things that are supposedly public domain are, in fact, copyrighted works generously offered under free public license. As with any license, there are terms and limitations.

If a work is truly "public domain," then in theory you could remove the originator's name entirely, and substitute your own, with or without modifying the work. You would be laughed at and shunned, and possibly charged with a violation of something or other, but copyright is not involved. On the other hand, if you remove the originator's name from a "free public domain" work, or modify it without the originator's consent, or use it in a fashion not permitted by the free public license, then you DO violate copyright law.

Generally, "free" (no cost, but may be copyrighted and have limited usage restrictions) is confused with "free of copyright" (no copyright).

Back to the original question: Even if "open source" applied to fonts, it would be a bad idea. Your computer recognizes fonts by family name and style. It does not allow you to have WordMangler (beta 1) and WordMangler (beta 2) installed together. They must have different names, or you must limit to one at a time. And, if they do have diffeent names, then you will need to change the font name in every progam that uses them.

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #10 –
I think I understand where you're coming from in saying that they'd be a bad idea, in that, if improperly handled, an open source font could cause a great number of problems.  However, that is true with any program or font that you may ever want to install. I'm sure you remember the problem with the ornaments font a while back.

As for it not being quite the same as source code: that's true, and in particular there are parts of truetype fonts that are under a proprietary liscence by apple.  But the majority of the specs are available to use without a license.  In addition, I fail to see why fonts that are, in a sense, "compiled" into the truetype form should be unaccessable by other programs.  Perhaps I'm just lucky, but I found an Open Source font program that, as far as I can tell, reads them just fine.  'Course, it's alpha, but it does work decently.  Unless, of course, most font programs state that works created in them remain the property of the company that built the software, I don't see why distribution as truetype would be any less valid.

It is true that Open Source doesn't mean no strings attached.  (See the GPL, GNU Public License, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html )  There are plenty of strings, most of them involving restrictions on restricting the work and its derivatives.  A large portion of (well, at least some of) the license(s) is devoted to ensuring that a work released under the license can't fall into propriety.  That is, it ensures that the work stays "free," in the sense of rights to modify, distribute, create derivative works from, etc. (Section 6 & 7, although 4-7 really) Also notice that the copyright (or left, depending on how you view it) remains the original authors'... That means, of course, that you can't take his or her name off and put on your own (but, you are required to include your own, along with the date, of any changes you make to it).

Yes, programmers often show their code without the intention of it being open source, and font designers distribute theirs without the intention of those being open source.  That's why I asked if the font could/would be released as such.

Yes, free public domain is not the same as open source or free (libre) software.  Can't think of anything to add here.

And both free (no charge) and free (of copyright) are both often confused with free (as in open).  Note again that the GPL is a copyright.  But it's a copyright designed to ensure that works and their derivatives are available to everyone, while not removing the rights of the author.

As for open source fonts... well, Project Xemo is working on some music fonts (http://www.xemo.org/ ), which will be released under the Xemo Public License (which is supposedly very similar to the Mozilla Public License and, after my quick reading, is also similar to the GPL.  There's at least one font designer releasing his under the GPL (http://www.dustismo.com/ ), and there's the Free Font Foundation (http://dreamer.nitro.dk/gnu/fff/ ), though that is still quite young.

You can find out more about the GPL and other GNU-type info at http://www.gnu.org/ , or other Open Source licenses, at http://www.opensource.org/ . If you're interested in Open Source software, you might want to check out http://www.sourceforge.net/ as well.

Finally, why would you need to change their names in every program that uses them?  If you like the style of "Wordmangler (beta 1)" which is how it's identified on your system, why would you need to change it when "Wordmangler (beta 2)" comes out?  And, if you're thinking of programs that have the support built in, it's not up to the font designer to ensure that every piece of software that uses his fonts.  It would be up to the program designers to update their program, or, alternatively, the user could update it him/herself, if (a) the program had such capability or (b) it were open, so that the user could modify it.

I think I understand your concerns, but I'm not sure they're as bad as you think they are.  But then, I'm a relatively accomplished computer user, which most folks aren't.  And I'll agree... right now most open source software is a pain to install and handle.  But it is getting better, and there's no reason a company couldn't make money off of it by improving it.  That's what Redhat (http://www.redhat.com/ )and SuSE (http://www.suse.com/ ) have helped do for Linux, so why not someone in the font world?  Just think, they could sell CDs of thousands of fonts, and the company would be responsible for making sure all the fonts were up-to-date, and that they got installed in the right places, that they didn't cause conflicts with other fonts, etc.

But anyway, this is waaaaaay off-topic now, so I'm going to wrap it up.

Later!

Geoff

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #11 –
Yes, in most cases a True Type font can be opened by any of a variety of programs designed to create or edit fonts.

But the "source" file, in native format of my font editor program, contains information that is not incorporated into the finished True Type font. This information cannot be restored by opening the font in another program. When you open the font in an editor, you are de-compiling it, so to speak, rather than obtaining source code.

For example, the vector control points are snapped to a grid set by my font creation program. If someone else opens the TTF,  and snaps points to their own grid, there may be subtle changes or mis-alignments.

The native format also contains drawing guidelines that are not put into the TTF. If someone were to edit the font without having the guidelines, and without knowing the underlaying strategy, then modifications might not fit whatever was in use.

This actually happened: Someone wanted to replace two of my symbols with their own (that's allowed). But he could not get the new symbols to fit properly with the others. The reason was that his font creation program was moving points to a different grid. If I hadn't told him, he would never have known.

Best bet, in every case: Read the README file, or the license that accompanies nearly everything these days.

In the U.S. it is not possible to copyright a font face. That is, look-alike (when printed) fonts are OK (may be different under other laws). However, it IS a violation of copyright to  copy a software font, even if its elements are tweaked. That's becuase the software font is a computer program. In the U.S., it is possible to print out (on paper) a character from a font, scan the print, trace the scan outline, and build the trace into a font character. That's because the character's identity as software is "laundered" when it is printed to paper, and becuase (in the U.S.) the mere appearance of a character is not subject to copyright. However, if the character is very unique, or a trademark symbol (like Apple's apple), then it can be copyrigthed. Something like the G-clef, unless its style is so unique that it is a new creation unto itself, could be "laundered" that way.

Free advice, and worth it!

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #12 –
Actually, the best way to wrap up this off-topic thread is the following: On the Internet, there are a number of shareware font designers who have offered fonts for money. (I am not among them). Why not ask them if they ever made anything from it! Bet the answer is, "It wasn't worth the trouble."

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #13 –
It seemed like a pretty simple question to me...

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #14 –
Well, I'm on the verge of finishing one of the fonts in the family.  It's taking a long time because, get this, there are three characters which were too high relative to the staff, so I lowered them.  For some bizarre reason, every other character raised themselves a bit when I did this.  So now I gotta reposition everything.  But I think I'm almost done...

Now I'm wondering:  I have two fonts in the family, one which is to be used with the regular NWC font, and one which is to be used with the NWCjazz font (with all the characters in the same locations).  Should I give both of them the same internal name so that they have to be swapped out along with NWC15/NWCjazz, or should I give both of them different internal names so that they can be on the system at the same time?
Does anyone have a preference?
Would anyone care to "argue" for one over the other?

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #15 –
I think different names would be best. I'd want it to be easy to know what I've loaded or selected.

Re: Ornament fonts - mordents and inverted mordents

Reply #16 –
Unless one font is merely a corrected version of the other, give them different names.