Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score. (Read 7855 times) previous topic - next topic

Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score.

Having just heard a preformance of Bach's Goldberg Variations (live, on a two-manual Steinway piano!) I went and looked at the score, thinking about entering it.  But I ran into several road-blocks.

The major one is in variation 26, where one staff is in 18/16 time, and the other in 3/4.  each quarter note (crotchet) in the second staff matches six sixteenth notes (semiquavers (?)) in the first.  Is there any workable work-around for this?  Remember, this is a copy of a mid-nineteenth century score, not a modern experimental work!

There as also a number of ornaments which do not seem to occur in any of the fonts I currently have.  These include trill-like symbols, but with angles, not curves, with and without crossing vertical lines and various hooks at the front.  Does anyone know where to find these.

Finally, there are standard bugaboos such as notes on either side of a beam, and (as in a current thread) smaller clefs, some in the middle of beamed groups of notes.

Any ideas, anyone?  Other than fugedabotit.

Cyril

Re: Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score.

Reply #1 –
Quote
one staff is in 18/16 time, and the other in 3/4. 
If looks are not important, then this one's a piece of cake. 
Simply use sixteenth-note triplets in the first staff, with both staves in 34 time.
If looks are important, then you can still do this but you'll need to "white-out" all of the little 3s, and hide the meter signature on the first staff and enter one as text in its place.
Quote
ornaments which do not seem to occur in any of the fonts I currently have
Do you have the Opus suite?  These fonts contain quite a few ornaments.  I think I got mine with a Scorch plug-in.
Quote
notes on either side of a beam
There was a thread dealing with this a few months ago, but I can't find it (is there something wrong with the search mechanism on the forum?).  Kind of a tough workaround, but some samples are provided.
Quote
and smaller clefs, some in the middle of beamed groups of notes.
I've always done this as text [muted visual staff/hidden aural staff] as mentioned in a current thread.
 
HTH

Re: Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score.

Reply #2 –
<Here> is a 6/8 vs 2/4 example that may help.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score.

Reply #3 –
Thanks to all.

I'll search of Opus fonts.  I thought I had Scorch, but it seems to have evaporated -- perhaps on an older machine?

I'll play with the differing signatures (I'm ashamed to note my self contributing to that thread).  There will be problems with signatures on new systems, if one wanted to print, wouldn't there? 

I'll see if I can find the discussion on beams, and will play a bit in the meanwhile.

Comments on clefs noted.  (Almost let that slip through as "clefts"!)

Cyril

Re: Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score.

Reply #4 –
As to the two sided beam, I have gotten that to work rather well (at least in the case that I need).  You do have to look at viewer preview, as the composer display is monumentally ugly!

Quote
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Clef|Type:Bass
|Rest|Dur:16th|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:16th|Pos:4|Opts:Stem=Down,StemLength=4,Beam=First|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:4|Opts:Stem=Down,StemLength=4,Beam=End
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Quote
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Clef|Type:Bass
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-3|Opts:Stem=Up,StemLength=4,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-3|Opts:Stem=Up,StemLength=4,Beam=End|Visibility:Never
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Of course, I don't know how it will look with stuff happening on other staves -- next test, I guess.
 

Re: Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score.

Reply #7 –
Actually, the Goldberg Variations are a mid-eighteenth century score, not mid-nineteenth. (Picky, picky....)

Re: Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score.

Reply #8 –
No, they are a mid-eighteenth century composition.  I'm working from the Dover facsimile of the editions from Bach-Gesellschaft.  The Dover volume has bits from 1852 & 1863 volumes and I'm not sure which the variations were in.  I have no idea what the original printed score looked like, although I do know that it was one of the few Bach works printed during his lifetime.

Re: Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score.

Reply #9 –
Well, since Bach died in 1750....

The 1850s pub dates are, of course, the dates of editions produced by later editors. The composition of the Goldbergs took place in - actually, Bach didn't date them, but most music historians place them in 1742. Not critical for the discussion here - I just like to see facts kept straight. Too many years as a librarian, I guess.

Re: Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score.

Reply #10 –
To Rick G.:   Sorry for not getting back sooner (I'll answer more fully in a day or so) some houseguests had just arrived as I was reading the last set of posts.  I'm just grabbing a moment now.

To Warren Porter:  I haven't had a chance to look at them yet, I'll get back.

To William Ashworth:  I do know the time-line.  My only point was that it was the printed score I was worrying about, not the composition, and I have to assume that the score my have been influenced by the standards of the 1850s, not the 1700s.

Sorry to be so brief (although some might count it a blessing).

Cyril

Re: Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score.

Reply #11 –
Sorry to have pounded this so hard, Cyril, and thanks for the graceful clarification. My only reason for bringing it up was to make sure the difference between an edition and a composition was clearly understood by everybody. The value of that, here in the NWC2 forum, is to remind us that editing styles as well as composition styles change, and the program should (ideally) be flexible enough to allow all styles free reign.

Re: Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score.

Reply #12 –
According to: Extremes of Conventional Music Notation
Earliest use of different time signatures simultaneously: Variation 26 of Bach: Goldberg Variations (1742; Bach-Gesellschaft ed.) starts with one staff in 18/16 and the other in 3/4. (Each staff changes between the two time signatures repeatedly, at one point in the middle of a measure!)
Registered user since 1996

Re: Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score.

Reply #13 –
Yup, that's what I was looking at.  I'm afraid I've hardly been home since I posted my query, so nothing has been done.  I did look at the Opus suite, but wasn't ready to use a for-purchase font, as that would seriously limit the use of the score.  I know that I saw a free font with most of the ornaments some years ago, but it seems to have evaporated from my disk/cs (hard and optical).  I will be entering a stay-at-home period shortly, so perhaps I can get back.  Right now I am reconstructing my operating system/customary set of applications after a WinXP melt-down.  Don't even ask!

Cyril

Re: Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score.

Reply #14 –
NoteWorthy has made some improvements in this area:
Code: (nwc) [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposer(2.5)
|AddStaff|Name:"Staff"
|StaffProperties|EndingBar:Open (hidden)|WithNextStaff:Layer
|Clef|Type:Bass
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:7z|Opts:Stem=Down,StemLength=0,Beam=First,XNoteSpace=1,NoLegerLines,Muted
|Spacer|Width:0|Color:1
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:4|Opts:Stem=Down,StemLength=4,Beam=End
|AddStaff|Name:"Staff-2"
|StaffProperties|EndingBar:Open (hidden)
|Clef|Type:Bass|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-3|Opts:Stem=Up,StemLength=3,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-3|Opts:Stem=Up,StemLength=3,Beam=End,Muted|Visibility:Never
!NoteWorthyComposer-End
Registered user since 1996

Re: Several question vis-a-vis a Bach score.

Reply #15 –
As far as fonts and weird notation is concerned:
It may be worth your while to install Lilypond (Free), both in the installation as well as their VERY extensive manuals about old notation