Petaluma jazz font edited - what do you think?

I have recently have some complaints about Petaluma from the big band I play in. The second trombone was asked to play a high F and in the heat of sight reading he found it to be possible to read it as a E, like this:
Skærmbillede 2024-06-04 kl. 18.01.46
I raised the question on FB and quite instantly I was told that using “handwritten” fonts was no go!
But I like it and Daniel Spreadbury was so kind to point me in the direction of the Notehead sets and now I have edited the size to 90% and would like to have your comments!
But please - can’t we leave all the comments about to use handwritten or not out for the moment?

Here is a sample of the old Petaluma:

And here where the noteheads are 90%

What do you think about it?
Regards Musicmind

1 Like

I like the 90% version myself.

How do you like the GoldenAge font? It’s more like that. (even ‘Rhapsody’ by NorFont looks more like that)

But, having experimented with a lot of different fonts myself, I really think that D. Spreadbury got it right the first time when developing Bravura!

(…and, Philip Rothman’s variation on it, Norfolk, is great too. Hmm…maybe that variation can come to Dorico?)

Musicians I’ve given music to like Bravura more than any of the hand-written styles. A lot of the jazz fonts just lead to ‘squinty-eye’ syndrome when you look at people try to decipher them. (…and, sometimes a lot of complaints about being unable to read the music well enough at first sight).

And some hand-written chord fonts are almost impossible to make sense of on first sight.

Bravura is a great to read font for a wide variety of musical styles. Easy to sight-read, nice flow to it, clarity when notes are stacked in chords, etc.

I don’t find much difference vis-à-vis clarity in the final high F, bot the two measures before it are definitely clearer onscreen. The seconds in the chord voicing seem especially to benefit.

Does this jibe with the differences you see in print, @Musicmind ?

Actually I haven’t tried to print it yet, so I don’t know, but is it really possible, that there could be a difference?

I see one in the solid noteheads, which don’t extend as far above/below.

Or did you mean a difference when you print them? That I can’t say, but the proof, as they say, is in the pudding after all…… (Unless your performers will be reading on iPads or other screens.)

I actually like Petaluma very much, besides the little problem with the whole notes hanging a little bit too low.
Here I have changed the size of the whole to 89% and moved the head a little bit up! Just a little bit because it also affects the position of the note just to left of it.

This is a sample from a keyboard part with the chords. I think the readability is fine:

And this is from an Alto part, do you think it’s a problem to read?

Thanks for your interest.

I think I’d have no trouble reading that. It will be good to know what, for example, your alto player says when the music’s printed and a a stand much lower and farther away from their eyes than my screen is.

(Separate issue: I think I’d prefer to read measure 41 beats 1–2 (and m. 40 b.1?) as sixteenth-eighth-sixteenth, the way m.40/b.2 and m.42/b.3 look.)

Well a lot of the players, but not Alto 1, uses Ipad and Forscore, so the music can be zoomed a little and is bit easier to read because of the back light in the Ipad.
Regarding the writing of bar 40 and 41, I think I prefer the opposite! Having the rhythm written with sixteenth like in bar 41 clearly indicate a familiar “push” of the beat, Sorry English is not my first language, but I hope you understand what I mean. :wink:

Using the 90% setting works very nicely.

But nevertheless I have changed the whole score to Bravura. I will give Petaluma another go, when the small problems are fixed.