Text styles
By default in MuseScore, the Technique text is italic and Dynamics (Expression) text is roman. It should be opposite.
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
By default in MuseScore, the Technique text is italic and Dynamics (Expression) text is roman. It should be opposite.
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
FWIW, we don't actually use "Technique" for anything that I'm aware of, so I'm not sure it really makes sense to say what it "should" be. I suspect the things you are thinking of using Technique for, we use Staff Text, which is regular font.
For dynamics, it normally doesn't matter as most dynamics use the specialize glyphs and not plain text. And the crescendo/diminuendo *lines* are already set set to italic. But indeed, for the situations where you want arbitrary text as a dynamic marking, it probably should be italics too.
In reply to FWIW, we don't actually use by Marc Sabatella
Technique text gets used from some import, XML or Capella, I think
In reply to FWIW, we don't actually use by Marc Sabatella
Than I am missing something.
It is found across MuseScore's programs menus, example:
![shot 4.png]( "shot 4.png")
It should be as it is the rule is covering. The examples are music literature and numerous books on engraving. The Technique is always placed above the staff (with exception) and it is always roman (no exception). Such are "con sord." "flz." "pizz." "arco" etc.
In that case MuseScore is very limited. What is "poco" in "poco f"? It is also dynamics. So, "poco f", "molto p" and so on is very, very common in music.
To explain more in detail.
There are two main textual styles in music notation for single staff:
1. Roman: for technique (explained above)
2. Italic: for expression and dynamics. These are placed always below staff (with exception) and is always italic (with no exception). While we call them Expressive and Dynamic, they are in general the same: Expressive.
For example: "p dolce" or "f dolce", so "dolce" has also meaning of dynamics (as quality) in this cases.
Sibelius has a pretty nice way to do it: Cmd+E gives the expressive text, Cmd+T gives the technique, which are applied directly to notes. Cmd+f gives musical f symbol when typing, and so on.
However in MuseScore, as explained in my first post, someone applied to the Technique - italic style and to the Dynamic - roman style, which is probably result from ignorance.
I am willing to offer my professional expertise in Composition rules and Engraving rules, however it always stuck somewhere else in correspondence.
I have feeling, without offensive said, that many of the top MuseScore's developers don't have the highest musical university education in Composition and Performance (highest = doctorate, or at least postgraduate). For me many things look arbitrary, and letting it be so, the user's of MS produce arbitrary looking scores.
I am willing to help, but you need to allow it. Being a university teacher, my language is perhaps to much dry. But for sure I don't want to be offensive.
In reply to Than I am missing by edizioneo
It's a text style we do provide for comaptibility with import from other programs that use for for unknown purposes. But what I'm pointing out is that nothing *wihtin MsueScore* actually uses this text srtyle. That is, there are no elements you can create using the palette or menus or keyboard commands that use this text style. The things you are mentioning - "con sord." etc - are meant to be created as *staff text* in MuseScore. And if you do that, they get the *staff text" text style, not the "Technique" text style, and the this will be displayed using regular text.
Knowledge of engraving rules is not the issue here. There is no official musical term called "Technique"; that's just a label some computer programs happen to stick on their menus. The actual text itself doesn't have an official name, but MuseScore calls it "staff text". The fact that Sibelius provides something they call "Technique" doesn't mean MuseScore necessarily uses the same term for the same thing. Forget that you saw that in Sibelius and just use staff text when you are in MuseScore. There is simply no reason to ever use the Technique text style in MsueScore, and that is why none of the pre-defined element types use it. As I said, though, I do agree Dynamics should be italic, so feel free to file an official feature request for that. We'd want to consider keeping the existing style for compatibility but add a new one and use it by default in the future.
But for what it is worth, I have a masters degree in composition, so please do not assume none of us know anything about notation.
In reply to It's a text style we do by Marc Sabatella
My question: how do you enter expression text in to the score? What is the workflow?
Example: "mp dolce" or "poco f"
It is still awkward to enter EVERYTHING as the staff text. If I choose "Dynamics" it is definitely wrong by default.
Imagine you need to engrave an entire symphony. You have hundreds of expressive texts.
How do you do this?
In reply to My question: how do you enter by edizioneo
Again, expression text" is not an official musical term, so depending on what specific text you want, there are different answers.
if you want text that appears above the staff in regular font, you use staff text - Ctrl+T, type your text. If you want text that appears below the staff in italics, you can either enter it as staff text and then assign it a text style you create yourself, or you can enter it as dynamics after redefining that style to be italics (which, as I've acknowledged, should probably be italic by default). If it's not in fact meant as dynamics but for some other purpose, only you can decide what the appropriate position and type style is - there are no universal standards. Different genres of music, different publishers within a genre, different edtiros for a single publisher, all do things differently.
Your examples are of course dynamics, so that's how I'd enter them, after changing the default style. And as I've also acknowledged, some day it would be nice to khave a keybaord shortcut to enter dynamics more quickly,. Do note you can customize the palette as defined in the Handbook so your favorite markings can be entered without typing them out each time.
In reply to Again, expression text" is by Marc Sabatella
I am sad to hear that you don't see the difference, or you are not aware of it?
If "p dolce" should be entered into the staff, what style and where is placing of "dolce"? It is not arbitrary and free of choice. It is fixed. You can name it to whatever you like in MuseScore, but there is a style and purpose it must be followed.
But I am also sad that you don't trust to a university teacher.
For your information both Technique and Expressive text is the official name, used not only by engravers, and software designers but also defined in numerous books.
In Elaine Gould's book, she calls it "Text typefaces in music" (p.492) and says:
Roman and italic typefaces differentiate directives: roman type is used for ...technical instructions; italic type is used for expression marks, with stylized bold italic for dynamics.
She adds: The reader is accustomed to this text differentiation, and information can thus be assimilated more quickly.
Kurt Stone also differentiate (p.32) at Playing instructions having 1. Expressive - directly related to a dynamic degree and 2. Technical... and he gives examples of the correct styles.
Gardner Read call Expression Marks (p.275).
Unfortunately, it is the engraving rule. Therefore my topic is opened. The engraving rules say exactly how and where a text should be placed and what style should be used.
I see it as extremely awkward.
1. Why can't it be entered directly as a stylized text?
2. Why it is by default not correct style?
So, if a user wants to type music in MS, he is facing a GUI that gives him an option to "Technique"; how and why should he know in advance that JUST THIS item is there by programming purpose that he should not use? Do you find it intuitive?
Furthermore, applying just that "Technique" style (not being aware he should not do!) the result is wrong (by style).
The numerous problems and awkward settings in MS could be fixed more quickly if you are more opened to suggestions. I can't coding, but not only people who can coding should contribute. I am afraid this long discussions doesn't solve anything and result in a better software.
d.z.
In reply to There is no official musical by edizioneo
Good information! Let's do this, then. One further question: are technique and expression indications normally the same font size? Currently, MuseScore's "Technique" style is larger than staff text, and the same size as the Tempo style. I believe the only other thing that uses that size is the "cresc." and "dim." lines.
Incidentally—Marc is a university teacher.
In reply to Good information! Let's do by Isaac Weiss
Thank you very much, Isaac.
I don't have any big statistical number for that question, but what I am used to see in the scores, in general are these two markings (expressive and technical) of the same size.
-Expressive markings are usually these what instruct everything what musician does musically (expressively) to achieve the goal of composer. They are not fixed, but approximate: forte means different for different musicians or occasions.
-Technical markings are usually these what instruct what musician does WITH the instrument, without particular need to do it “musically” (for instance, removing mute can be done by another person at the stage; therefore no need to do it expressively). They are fixed: remove mute means just that, not approximately by personal taste.
[-Tempo markings (not now part of of this thread) are those which give instructions for synchronisation of all musicians with or without conductor, or with solo music for synchronisation with the instructed speed (these markings are bigger than the first two, and they are emboldened).]
These two marks are stylised:
1. Roman: all technical instructions;
2. Italic:
a) all supplementary dynamic texts (such are “poco” in “poco f”; or "molto” in “molto p”; and so on),
b) all expressive terms (such as "doloroso", "dolce") and
c) all dynamic markings (such as “crescendo") - and they all are of the same size.
i. There is some inconsistency regarding the tempo changes (such as accelerando): some publishers and in some engraving periods use italic, some use roman, with different sizes.
ii. Some (but very few) of the technical terms are italicised by historical reasons.
iii. To clarify your questioning, dynamic marks such as “cresc." or “diminuendo" are always the same size with other expressive texts. Musicians are accustomed to see particular instruction with particular style, rarely by particular size. Therefore no need to have different sizes.
iv. the font of expressive text is somehow bolder but not bold, this is just matter of taste. It is very common that thin looking serifs can disappear from the score if they are not emboldened. This is another task, of creating a font, but using Free Serif is good right now (since it can be changed by user).
BOTTOM LINE:
In general, for this purpose, it is enough to have just two markings: italic for everything under the staff and roman for everything above the staff. They should be the same font and the same size, but different styles (italic, roman).
In reply to Thank you very much, Isaac. I by edizioneo
Currently in MuseScore, staff and system text (which are meant to indicate technique, regardless of the other style called "Technique") are 10-point roman; tempo (also used to indicate changes of instrument) is 12-point bold; dynamics are 12-point roman; and the presumably mislabeled "Technique" is 12-point italic.
I believe it's correct for tempos to be bigger than most text (staff and system text currently being most text). So I'm thinking now that Technique and Expression should be the two main styles, 10-point roman and 10-point italic. The two problems with that:
- While staff text and system text appear identical, the factor that determines whether they appear only in the part to which they are attached or appear in all parts is actually a checkbox in the text style. Possibly we could have "Technique (Staff)" and "Technique (System)."
- While dynamic instructions (like cresc. poco a poco) should be the same as the Expression style, I'm confident that the actual dynamics (like pp, mf, etc.) are always larger than the rest of the text. Since those dynamics actually don't use regular letters, but rather symbols from the music font, it might be possible to specially make them larger while still using a 10-point text style.
In reply to Currently in MuseScore, staff by Isaac Weiss
I agree. Perhaps at 14pt would be good.
I believe that 10pt seems to little for music, keeping in mind that sheetmusic is read from very long distance (percussions, contrabass, cello...). If it is editable by user, than it will not make any problem. However by default it would be good to have a correct size anyway. We need to test it by printing out a page with these sizes and give to several players for review.
Ah, that I didn't know. Your idea seems good to me, but of course you can decide what approach is the best and - most flexible.
That is absolutely right, the stylised letters are very beautiful in MuseScore and the sizes should be kept as they are. As far as I understand you, your point is to add these letters into one style ('expressive') to be used together within regular text style (?). That would make a perfect sense: instead of typing and positioning separately "più" and "f" it could be typed "più f".
In reply to There is no official musical by edizioneo
I'm sorry we seem to be having difficulty communicating. I never said there was no difference between the types of texts that should display above versus below; I just pointed out that the names are not standardized. What some ypu call "technique", we call staff text, but it's there exact same thing. And cknwledge acknowledged we should have a shortcut to enter the other kind of text (whether we call it dynamics or something else) and that it should be italics. So I don't understand what your think I am not open to. I think perhaps you are simply misunderstanding me.
In reply to I'm sorry we seem to be by Marc Sabatella
Dear Marc,
After I posted my reply I felt sorry, it sounds to harsh. I believe we think same about the issues above, but we express ourselves differently.
And I understand you: as a project leader (as far as I know) you must keep many things under control and building trust with users to assure that different contributions will be the best for the project.
best, d.z.
In reply to Dear Marc, After I posted my by edizioneo
Thanks, and don't worry about it. I'm also very aware language differences can make things a little more difficult too. And I'm quite sure we will come up with some good improvements as a result of this discussion.
But FWIW, I'm not a "leader", just one of many developers. I do tend not to be shy about eressng my opinions, though. So you're right, we have much in common! :-)
In reply to FWIW, we don't actually use by Marc Sabatella
The TempoChanges plugin uses the Technique style for it's Staff Text.
I'm returning to the question of styles this week. I believe I could make most of the necessary code changes, but this part I couldn't. I quote from before:
Is it actually possible?
In reply to I'm returning to the question by Isaac Weiss
You mean, you are proposing that when entering characters from the special characters palette, it should ignore the font size and always enter using a fixed size? I think that would be very undesirable. Right now, this is the only way we have to give users control over the size of these glyphs - they are already fixed size when added as symbols. Or do you mean soemthing different?
In reply to You mean, you are proposing by Marc Sabatella
I mean, make them a certain proportion larger—it could be 10%—than they are now.
In reply to I mean, make them a certain by Isaac Weiss
What a wonderful thread again, so full of information. Thank you all.
In reply to I mean, make them a certain by Isaac Weiss
Why not simply make them 10% larger in the font itself then?
In reply to Why not simply make them 10% by Marc Sabatella
@edizioneo: I don't know if you ever used Musescore 1.3. In that version there was a special dynamics palette you could call up with the letter L. It contained the stuff in the regular dynamics palette (ffff to f, same for p, mp, mf). But it contained additionally a series of dynamic (or sometimes not quite dynamic) markings in words: crescendo, diminuendo, about 8 in total, including the word molto (you still had to assemble molto p by placing two markings on one line, hard, but not impossible).
I was very fond of this L-palette. It was extremely efficient at placing dynamic markings (all below the staff, all in italics) and I was upset when if was dropped for version 2.
Now I have a palette with such words I created myself, called "words". I have things like sempre ff and più f in there. To create those mixed markings (i.e. the f, p symbols combined with text) I started out with e.g. ff from the dynamics palette. I selected the first of the fs and typed più (plus a space). Then selected the più and set it to 12 point size, the font Times New Roman and finally to italics. This can happen in any score. Now I shift-command-drag (Apple, for Windows check the handbook) the whole thing into the palette to keep it for the future.
I do the same thing for staff text, aka technique text like pizz. and arco. If you set the staff text properties before adding the markings to the palette they will be set correctly by just placing them and playback will be correct (if such a thing is important to you; for the rest of us it is very neat).
It is worth pointing out that the distinction between "technique" and "expression" is somewhat artificial. Dynamics are there for expressive purposes. And any expression you achieve you achieve through some technical means (bow speed, close to or far from the bridge etc. -- see: I remember that you are an accomplished violinist).
BTW if you allow me a friendly tip: If you point out you are an university teacher--insist on pointing it out--you will invite a) resentment and b) mockery. Which is why most university teachers refrain from pointing it out.
In reply to @edizioneo: I don't know if by azumbrunn
to azumbrunn:
Unfortunately it is not artificial distinction. That is the practice already established for more than hundred of years. Some scores differentiate (French or German) and have different house-styles in different periods, however it is an established practice.
But to comment your post: if you say that it is the similar, why not to write "p more bow speed, more pressure" instead of "p cresc."? The effect is the same, no? But don't you see the difference?
Secondly, it is completely untrue that technical means give one result. You can have more bow speed and diminuendo, you can have more air in to the flute and diminuendo.
My pointing is here: every time when I give an advice for making MuseScore better, I face this: "I don't agree, give me the scholarly source". My reply is that I am the scholarly source, and therefore my comment about what I am. So, regardless of this, I was forced to go through several books to proof my opinon about the things posted above.
Resentment and mockery can only come from people allowing them to develop such feelings.
I want to help you and to help MuseScore or everyone else. Don't you see this? Instead of taking the friendly help by a person who knows what he is speaking about (I am not saint though! - I openly accept to be better if I am mistaken), some wants to wrestle.
Sorry for posting this.
In reply to to azumbrunn: It is worth by edizioneo
For the record, I have no quarrel with you here, and if it helps, I'm a university teacher as well:-)
The thing is, the distinction you make between "expression" and "tehcnique" might be relevant to some subset of music produced during some period(s) of history, but there is a large body of music using other traditions and other types of text that don't fit neatly under those two labels. Consider the existence of jazz, rock, electronica, Indian music, etc - all contain their own distinct types of text. I'm not saying that means we shoudn't make any effort to provide meaningful styles, I'm saying iyou cannopt simply simply look at common practice period European classical music and assume everyone has the same needs, because they don't. It's important to have a broader view of the needs of users in deciding on things like this.
In reply to For the record, I have no by Marc Sabatella
Marc, I am not sure now what is your point here.
If it is so true as you say, why does MuseScore use stylised p, f, m, s, z and not any other arbitrary to satisfy Indian, Electronica music?
Is MuseScore a tool for Indian music, or classical western type? How does it satisfy electronica and rock music particularly well by not using "technique" and "expression" styles? What styles does Electronica use? It goes now so far out of the track. I have provided three books on the subject (keeping other two in Russian and English as a reference too) and all explain these nuances in detail. But now we speak about Electronica and Indian music.
I think I am leaving this forum now since it is so extremely hard to accept any advice. Of course I will look forward to see new versions of MuseScore.
In reply to Marc, I am not sure now what by edizioneo
@edizioneo (I don't know your name), we're very grateful for your professional advice. While we may not change everything precisely as you recommend, your advice is very helpful. I think your main point about roman Technique and italic Expression text has certainly been accepted, and that will change accordingly.
In reply to Marc, I am not sure now what by edizioneo
Hmm, I'm not sure what aspect of my post you thought to be inflammatory, but I am sorry for whatever it was.
Anyhow, my point was simple: the comment had been made that the terms "expression" and "technique" and the distinctions between them are kind of arbitary, and I am using the examples of other genres to point out that indeed, those distinctions make sense only in CD certain contexts and that it used important to look at the bigger picture. This doesn't mean we shouldn't have any distinction, but that we should consider all use cases and the needs of all users in coming up with the best definitions and terminologynthat will be meaningful and useful to everyone. That doesn't seem like a controversial statement to me.
In reply to Why not simply make them 10% by Marc Sabatella
That would be great. Would you or anybody else be able to make a follow-up PR adjusting the font to go with the style changes, when that happens?
In reply to That would be great. Would by Isaac Weiss
I guess I'd need to understand better why such a change is considered necessary. Seems making the symbols larger to look good when used at 10 point would just make them too buig when used in 12 point. I still don't understand the problem we are trying to solve here. To me, the glyphs appear to be very nciely sized relative to other characters for any given font size. If anything, they are little *larger* than I might expect, but I think it does work well.
In reply to I guess I'd need to by Marc Sabatella
Well, I'm actually looking at 11-point now. But basically, I'm looking at a variety of orchestral parts and solo music that I have, with staff size about equivalent to MuseScore's default, and the dynamics are about the same size as MuseScore's default—but other surrounding text (e.g., "piu") is not as big.
For myself, I can just manually adjust the size of other characters within the same text while keeping the dynamics at 12-pt, but I'd rather have the style be 11-pt by default while still keeping the actual dynamic characters the same size by default.
In reply to Well, I'm actually looking at by Isaac Weiss
Would be interesting to see a variety of sampels from different publishers. To be clear: we are looking at text elements that contain a mixture of ordinary and dynamics characters in the same element, right? Not comparing a dynamics element to an unrelated text element? So, looking at the characters within a single "piu p" text, not comparing the size of the "p" dynamic to the size of a "piu accel." that just happens to be nearby, right?
First few examples I came across searching through my own library suggest that our default sizes are pretty much spot on. In particular, as far as I can tell, we are pretty much *exactly* the same relative sizes as Gouod uses in "Behind Bars" (eg, pages 106-8).
In reply to Would be interesting to see a by Marc Sabatella
This image is from 'Copista di musica digitalizzata'
This is with 2.0.3 (Ctrl+L)
The author of the book mentioned above seems in tune with edizioneo.
Sorry for the intrusion, I hope will interest you.
In reply to This image is from 'Copista by Shoichi
I see it as not very good in the picture from Sibelius, too. The rest of the text (except for the "mf," "p," and "f") should be smaller.
In reply to Would be interesting to see a by Marc Sabatella
" So,looking at the characters within a single "piu p" text, not comparing the size of the "p" dynamic to the size of a "piu accel." that just happens to be nearby, right?"
Both, as they're the same size as each other.
Could you post a picture from Behind Bars?
In reply to " So,looking at the by Isaac Weiss
@Isaac, I have not "Behind Bars" :(
I'm just an enthusiast of this software, my library on the subject includes only two books by two authors: Sabatella and Riffero (professionals in two different sectors?)
In reply to @Isaac, I have not "Behind by Shoichi
I was responding to Marc's comment about pages 106–8.
In reply to " So,looking at the by Isaac Weiss
If they are two different text elements, they could be totally font sizes. If we are to disucss changing the sizes of glyphs, it only makes sense to discuss it in the context of a single text element where it is expected the same font size was used for the whole element.
Anyhow, here is a relevant image from Behind Bars:
The parentheses are a particularly powerful argument in favor of keeping the sizes fairly similar.
In reply to If they are two different by Marc Sabatella
Thank you very much. (I can't help but note the stems are all up—but that's another topic.)
It's very close. Which of these looks best to you? (Click image to view full width and open slideshow.)
![small.png]( "small.png")
![11.png]( "11.png")
![12.png]( "12.png")
And @edizioneo?
In reply to Thank you very much. (I can't by Isaac Weiss
I think it's important note to be fooled by the fact that our "p" happens to have a shorter descender than Gould's. Be sure to compare baselines and x-heights, not descenders. In Gould they both match pretty much perfectly. But of course, that also depends on what font you use for the rest of the text.
In reply to I think it's important note by Marc Sabatella
to Marc S:
Agreed.
In reply to Thank you very much. (I can't by Isaac Weiss
We are here discussing crossover ideas: sizes and glyph shapes; I am getting confused actually - I ask for patience.
to Isaac Weiss:
It is truly difficult to say, since you use Times-style as the fixed font (I guess it is Free Serif), and we have different styles used:
. by different publishers
. by different editions times
. different in scores and parts (scores always bigger)
. in different parts (larger for contrabass than for piccolo)
I believe that in this case the style for italics should be by default 12pt of FreeSerif, but to be adjustable by users in any case.
Keep in mind that all expressive information (text) should be of the same size, regardless if they are together with stylised dynamics or not, and same for the technical terms (roman).
In reply to If they are two different by Marc Sabatella
I checked my "homemade" più f and sempre p and they are very close in appearance to the picture in Marc's latest post. Meaning MuseScore is within the acceptable range of sizes for these markings.
So I would recommend to leave well enough alone on this one.
Anybody who wants to have a different appearance can make themselves a palette with all the elements to individual specifications. It is not even all that much work (given that one has to do this once only). Even two different point sizes in the same text are accepted by MuseScore.
In reply to I checked my "homemade" più f by azumbrunn
I'd "leave well enough alone" if it was currently well enough. ;-)
There's another wrinkle to all this: MuseScore is the only one out of itself, Finale, and Sibelius that has different font sizes for expression/dynamics style and technique/plain style.
In other words, a "cresc." is much larger than a "con sord." in MuseScore, where I believe they should be sized similarly.
This could go several different ways: change staff text and system text from 10-point to 12-point, change dynamics/expression text from 12-point to 10-point, change both to 11-point, or change the latter to 11-point and leave the former at 10, because italics condenses text and makes it seem smaller. I'm actually leaning toward the last option.
The sole problem is that then this makes the core dynamic glyphs (like p, m, and f) too small.
In both Finale and Sibelius, unlike in the Gould example, they are proportionally larger. I think it would be terrific if the dynamics, or the code that handles inserting them into text, could be tweaked to make them 10% larger. If not, well, maybe we'll just live with smaller dynamics?
In reply to I'd "leave well enough alone" by Isaac Weiss
I'm not really following. I think the Gould example proves our glyphs are just fine the way they are. That is, the dynamics glyphs for any given pint size are an excellent match for ordinary characters in a standard text font. Meaning, messing with the glyphs would be a mistake.
So if you are saying that something should be a different size - it's not 100% clear to me what since there have been so many aspects to this discussion - then it should be solved simply with a change to one or more text styles as far as I can tell. That is, if Gould and other editors have "piu p" a consistent size, then we obviously shoud as well, so no change to any glyphs. What If Gould and others have this text the size as other texts like "con sordino", then we should too; if they have it differenty, then we should too. You saiy "I believe they should be sized similarly" - I take it that is based on some particular published examples? If so, then if we agree this is the right answer, then we should make it so and be done with it. If our only reason for making a change is that that is what some other program does by default even though the published literature does it differently, that isn't good enough for me to make a change in the *defaults*, but it could be good enough to have different text styles to make it easier to emulate the behavior of some other program.
So if, "con sord.", "piu p", "cresc", and "ff" should all be the same size, let's make it so. If "piu p" and "cresc" should be "ff" should be bigger than either (I *think* that is what you are saying you want?), we can make that happen as well, by having different text styles.
So let's be as specific as possible, preferably with published examples, to attach names and sizes to each type of text we care about.
FWIW, Gould shows all four of these element types the same size as far as I can tell. Same with the first few scores I checked from my library. But if others consistently make distinctions these source don't, there is no harm in having more text styles to give user the *option* of making them different.
In reply to I'm not really following. I by Marc Sabatella
I believe "con sord.", "piu p", "cresc", and "ff" should all be the same nominal size, but "ff" and the "p" in "piu p" should appear slightly larger than the rest.
A 12-point italic Dynamics style and an 11-point italic Expression style might be the best that can be done, living with the fact that the "piu" in "piu p" would also be larger then a similar one in "piu cresc."
Here's a few pics from things I'm currently playing:
These all look to me roughly equivalent to—in MuseScore at present—the dynamic symbols at 12-point, and the rest at 11-point. Or, everything at 11-point, with the dynamics slightly larger than they are now to compensate. (This, by the way, is the middle of the three versions of the Gould sample I made.)
In reply to I believe "con sord.", "piu by Isaac Weiss
Finale and Sibelius versions of Gould example:
Note that in the Sibelius one, like Gould, the rest of the text is also large. But technique staff and system text is similarly large—I think we would all agree, way too big. Certainly any engravings made with Finale have the dynamic symbols larger relative to the text.
EDIT: Somehow missed uploading this image to my comment above. Here it is now. (That expression sure looks delicious, by the way.)
![p con delicatezza.png]( "p con delicatezza.png")
In reply to I believe "con sord.", "piu by Isaac Weiss
Hard to tell for sure because the *alignment* of the glyphs is quite poor in those examples. For instance, in the "p cresc" at top left, the "p" is actually *higher* than the cresc, leading to the *illusion* that it is larger than it is. I think if you actually measure the x-height you'll see it's more similar than it first appears.
BTW, the "p" makes a better comparison than the "f" because it is easier to detect the baselines and x-height of a "p".
So far I am still not seeing any compelling evidence there is a problem with dynamis size here. And I'm definitely very against the idea of messing the glyohs in fonts we don't control 9eg, Bravura). I'm much more interested in defining a good set of text styles.
In reply to Hard to tell for sure because by Marc Sabatella
I won't suggest actually editing the vectors of those letters, but is there not some algorithm that integrates the various symbols (the <sym> things) into text of any style, which could be edited to change their size? Genuinely asking because I have no clue.
If not, then I propose 12-point Dynamics style and 11-point Expression style.
In reply to I won't suggest actually by Isaac Weiss
In theory that's possible. It just still doesn't make sense to me given that Gould and other editors don't do anything of the kind. I can see why some people might subjectively *want* dynamics even bigger than they were actually designed to be by the font designers, and that is their right, but that's why we provide the ability for individual users to override thew standard defaults via the text toolbar. By default. I'd rather be consistent with Gould and the fonts as the designers constructed them.
In reply to In theory that's possible. by Marc Sabatella
What does this line mean? https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/blob/master/libmscore/style.cpp#…
In reply to What does this line mean? by Isaac Weiss
Not sure. Might be saying that Bravura Text was designed to produce "correct" dynamics at 12 pt, which I think is true, just as I seem to recall the regular music fonts are designed to be "correct" at 20pt (?).
In reply to Not sure. Might be saying by Marc Sabatella
Then what makes them all scale to the same size?
In reply to Then what makes them all by Isaac Weiss
I'm not following you. All what scales, at what size, under what conditions?
This is just setting the default for the dynamics text style to 12pt. As with all text in MuseScore, this scales according to spatium.
In reply to I'm not following you. All by Marc Sabatella
It seems to me that two issues keep being mixed into this discussion that ought to be separated:
a) "Technique" text (edizioneo's term) aka staff text ought to have the same point size as the dynamic text, including both glyphs and regular text (separately or in combination).
b) The proposal to make the glyphs somewhat bigger than the text.
Personally I like a) the way it is (and I seem to remember examples where "technique" texts are smaller--or maybe just use fonts that look smaller), but I am deferring to the experts here or maybe the majority of the experts.
As to b) I say don't bother given that the Musescore style matches Gould so closely. Anyway I like it the way it is for b) also. I already think the glyphs are large (if you use them in a text--say a list of corrections to your source--you have to make then much smaller to avoid irregular line spacing). Make them even larger and the più f looks like it's limping.
In reply to It seems to me that two by azumbrunn
Yes, it is true that there are separate issues being discussed here. And as I have tried to make clear, I am much more interested in the original topic (defining appropriate text styles) than in the tasngents (quibbling about the sizes of individual glyphs in specific fonts).
Regarding the original topic:
In principle, I totally get the idea of there being a disticntion between "expression" and "technique" text - i have never meant to imply otherwise. i just think it is a bit shortsighted to focus on these two *only*, as if common practice period European classical music is the only type of music we need to be concerned with. I think that without much effort, we could probably come up with a list of half a dozen different "styles" of text that all should *behave* as staff text but should *look* different.
It might be the case that in some genres of music, some of these styles would not be likely to be used (eg, classical music is unlikely to have a use for any text style we designate to be used to indicate "swing eighths", although arguably jazz charts might end up continuing to reuse the existing tempo text style). It might also be the case that in some genres of music, the convention would be to use the *same* style of text for things that are represented *differently* in other genres of music (eg, in jazz, what is here being called "expression" and "technique" would often *both* under the staff, in a non-italic handwritten font).
I think it would be wonderful to really have this discussion and come up w really good list of different text styles, perhaps even discuss the idea of having separate shortcuts to add each, or a simple command to change the text style immediately upon creation of the text item (simpler than the current method of using the Inspector).
In reply to Yes, it is true that there by Marc Sabatella
You have different styles in some of the jazz templates already, right?
In reply to You have different styles in by Isaac Weiss
We have different *values* for some styles, but we didn't introduce new styles that I recall. For example, most texts are set to use MuseJazz, Staff Text style is set to render below the staff (in the lead sheet template, anyhow, so it won't conflict with chord symbols), some other changes here and there. It's not a *problem* for a template to define new styles, but somehow I didn't feel comfortable with it.
What I think makes sense is to first identify the *logical* groupings of different text types, and then talk about what the actual *values* (font, size, & position) to use for each in the default style as well for any given templates. "Tempo" and "dynamics" are already identified as unique styles, but since they get their own element types, we really don't need to consider them further here. I'm more thinking of what different sub-categories of "staff text" (the element type) there are from a logical "why am I using this and what do I expect it to look like" perspective.
So far we've seen two such logical groupings: that which common practice period European classical music calls "expression" and "technique" text. I think probably we also need a separate concept of "tempo modifier" - texts like "rit" might be implemented in the future as staff texts or as tempo texts or as a new element type altogether, but in any case might well be typeset differently than other staff texts or tempo texts. I could say the same about texts like "swing". We can probably come up with others.
In reply to I'm not following you. All by Marc Sabatella
Re: "I'm not following you. All what scales, at what size, under what conditions?":
You earlier said you thought that "Bravura Text was designed to produce "correct" dynamics at 12 pt, which I think is true, just as I seem to recall the regular music fonts are designed to be "correct" at 20pt (?)."
I may have misunderstood, but I took you to mean that in the Emmentaler and Gootville fonts, the dynamic symbols come out to be normal size (e.g., "f" = 4mm height) when set to 20-point, and in Bravura they come out that size ("f" = 4mm height) when set to 12-point. If this is true, then MuseScore must be doing something on top of that to balance them out at similar sizes.
In reply to Re: "I'm not following you. by Isaac Weiss
No, sorry, that's not what I meant. I mean, in the *text* versions of *all three* fonts, dynamics are sized to look as intended at 12pt. In the "music" versions of all three fonts, all symbols - dynamics as well as well as everything else (noteheads, clefs, etc) are sized to look as intended at 20pt.
As far as I know, you wouldn't ever see any dynamics glyphs from the music/20pt version of any font - dynamics always come from the text version of the font as far as I know (whatever is set as your "music text font" in your style settings). I could be wrong about some of these details, but that's my recollection of my understanding :-)
In reply to No, sorry, that's not what I by Marc Sabatella
Ah, I see, thanks. So what is the code comment saying "dynamics size is 12pt for bravura-text" hinting at?
In reply to Ah, I see, thanks. So what is by Isaac Weiss
I don't think it's a "hint", seems a flat out statement, for the sake of anyone wondering why we chose 12pt to be the size to use for the text style. Most of the other text styles we kind of picked numbers out of a aht, but for dynamics, there was actually a reaosn to go with 12. That's how I read it anyhow.
In reply to I don't think it's a "hint", by Marc Sabatella
But "for bravura-text" specifically? Not mscore-text or gootville-text?
In reply to But "for bravura-text" by Isaac Weiss
I forget the details, but the whole way fonts are specified and organized is new with Bravura, as part of the SMuFL standard that accompanied it. Probably we formerly used the regular Emmentaler glyph for dynamics at 20pt - text styles for dynamics didn't actually work prior to MuseScore 2.0. The comment probably accompanied the change to use the musical text font, which Bravura / SMuFL I guess codified to say should work at 12pt. Or something innocuous like that. I assume it isn't meant to imply Bravura is different from other fonts at this point in time.
Basically, if you're fishing to find a reason to assume Daniel Spreadbury designed his font poorly and we should force his glyphs to be some other size than what he intended, I don't think you'll find one here. I do recall, FWIW, the exchange about notehead size, which was very interesting and did lead to a change, but I don't think that will eb the case here.
In reply to I forget the details, but the by Marc Sabatella
You mistake my fishing—I was trying to find out if MuseScore already does force those glyphs in any of the fonts to be a different size then originally specified by the designer. But as it appears that's not the case, can that comment be removed?
In reply to You mistake my fishing—I was by Isaac Weiss
It won't be removed but you may still be able to edit it.
In reply to You mistake my fishing—I was by Isaac Weiss
Dup.
In reply to You mistake my fishing—I was by Isaac Weiss
Just because it doesn't what you wanted it to mean doesn't mean it isn't a valid comment. I don't see any reason to remove it; it's as valid as any of thousands of other comments in the code.
In general, no, one of the great things about SMuFL was that it gave us the opportunity to rely on the fonts themselves to provide the necessary glyphs in the right sizes and positions. There have been glitches in the system - I recall in particular the alignment of the various note glyphs proving especially troublesome when used to create tempo marks, causing us to need to resort to either special-casing or resorting to old pre-SMuFL note glyphs.
Again, it's not particularly hard to do that sort of special casing - it would just be more likely to be done if there was a real problem that this was the only way to fix. As it is, the only problem here is that some subset of users don't like the default glyph sizes even though evidence is clear they are consistent with common usage among at least some respected authorities and editors. AQs I said before, such users are welcome to use the existing facilities to override the defaults. But regardless of how *feasiable* it is for us to to this automatically, I just don't see any *reason* to.
In reply to Just because it doesn't what by Marc Sabatella
For some reason I can't recall an idiom that I want to use, so this won't quite make sense. But what I want to say is something similar to "that bridge has passed." Let the scaling be.
The comment is still confusing in its own right, though, at least to me. It does seem to suggest that there's something different about Bravura, and that there is some special casing for it, even though we know that not to be true.
In reply to For some reason I can't by Isaac Weiss
... water under the bridge.
In reply to For some reason I can't by Isaac Weiss
conflated with "that ship has sailed", perhaps :-)
See https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/pull/2804.
Update: Dynamics have been made italic (#135791: Dynamics text style should be italic), and the "Technique" style has been removed and replaced by a new "Expression" style and menu command (#136326: Add Expression text command). Thanks again for the advice and discussion.