In the meantime, I’ve searched for similar places in other editions and found the following examples.
So if the famous complete editions of Bach, Handel & Mozart are not relevant, then what is?
Yes, but they’re very easy to read btw, I’ve played a lot from original prints like that. However, they’re not compatible with modern practices of music engraving, that’s why I’ve referred to the beautifully engraved scholarly critical complete editions of the 20th century.
If modern practices of music engraving don’t care about legibility, I’m quite happy to file them in the rubbish bin, and carry on reading the original parts. Compare a bit of a MS copy of the Bach Matthew passion with the NBA version. One is legible, the other isn’t.
1 Like
For me, both are well balanced and easy-to-read. The note spacing in the NBA is uneven of course, since it’s a full score and there are smaller note values in the upper parts. As a harpsichordist I’ve played from many different editions and I found the NBA to be the most beautifully engraved.
Another thing is that original parts in many cases cannot be used for modern performances (like in your example, where the original organ part was transposed down a major 2nd because of the organ’s higher pitch) and anyway, manuscripts has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing now and the problem has to be solved according to modern standards.
Funny you should say this — I somehow feel the opposite. I never mix up a sharp and a flat, but I often find when reading from poorly engraved or copied editions that it is easy to confuse a 6 for a 5. (I am also a harpsichordist.) Either way, clearly printed, large figures and accidentals are important!
Yes, sharps and flats can be distinguished of course, but sharps and naturals can be mixed up easily, especially if the “stems” of the natural are quite short.
Btw, in the meantime, I’ve examined many different editions I found at home and the accidentals were considerably bigger than the figures in all of them, no matter how the engraver achieved to avoid collisions. Simply reducing their size is just not the professional way of doing this, I’m afraid.
How large do you want the numbers?
(It’s a Font Style.)
Please see the previous examples. The problem occurs when two or three accidentals are stacked in a column.
Augustin’s request is a reasonable one, so let’s try to keep things constructive here, please.
Augustin, we’re looking into this and will see whether it is possible to introduce some further options for the kerning of figured bass in the future.
1 Like
Thank you, Daniel, I’m sure it will be amazing!
Just as a point of information, my Windows 10 1909 machine with Dorico 3.1.10 installed and then Dorico 3.5 installed as well has Bravura 1.310 and Bravura Text 1.310.
I guess the quick fix is to install the .otf files from bravura/redist/otf at bravura-1.370 · steinbergmedia/bravura · GitHub . It certainly looks like something may be wrong with the Windows 10 installer for Dorico 3.5, at least if an earlier version of Dorico is left installed.
Dorico 3.5 does not replace Dorico 3.1; it is not supposed to. In the same way, Dorico 2 did not replace Dorico 1. Since Dorico 3.5 could just as well have been Dorico 4, it follows the same pattern.
If that was aimed at me, I know that. My point was that the Dorico 3.5 installer should have updated the Bravura and Bravura Text fonts, possibly also other fonts, and it has not done so at least on my machine. Perhaps this is because I deliberately did not remove Dorico 3.1.10 first, which presumably would have removed the fonts.
The issue might be as simple as not forcing an upgrade if the fonts were already installed. Perhaps it is a Windows only issue - maybe it only happens in certain circumstances.
I’m just giving a single data point that, on my Windows machine, following the recommended strategy of leaving Dorico 3 installed so that you have it available whilst moving over to 3.5 meant the fonts were not upgraded when they should have been.
In general, the Dorico 3.5 installer absolutely does replace earlier versions of Bravura and Bravura Text, but font management on Windows is a mysterious dark art, and it’s always possible for there to exist anomalous cases. And that would have nothing to do with whether or not Dorico 3.1 or any other earlier version remains installed or was uninstalled first, since the Bravura fonts are “permanent” and are not uninstalled when you uninstall Dorico in any case.
New fonts were definitely received by my computer when I upgraded to Dorico Pro 3.5. Since those dated as new appear to still reside in a temp folder, is there any way to see if they actually replaced the previously installed versions? Is it important that they do?
It is important that the installed versions are the latest versions of Bravura (version 1.37) and Petaluma (version 1.12), otherwise various notations may not appear correctly in the software.
I have Dorcio 3.5 installed and in C:\Windows\Fonts I have Bravura Text and Bravura Text regular. They are both v.1.310. Petaluma is v.1056.
David
You can check the installed version of any font in Windows 10 using Settings, Personalisation → Fonts, then search for the font and double click it. The version number will be displayed.
Alternatively go to %WINDIR%\Fonts (C:\Windows\Fonts on most systems) and double click the font in question - again, the version number will be displayed.
Unfortunately so! I don’t know whether it made any difference in my case, but I have Adobe Creative Cloud on my machine with the Adobe Fonts feature switched on - maybe that interfered. Is there any installer log that is worth checking?
What is the best way ahead? Reboot, and run the Dorico 3.5 installer again with Creative Cloud shut down?
Sounds like an overkill to me. I’d try to remove the fonts (make sure they’re really gone, Windows tends to keep multiple versions of the same fonts on top of each other), reboot, download the current versions and install them instead. See if that fixes it.