[This is a Dorico question by association, although I am trying to figure out if this can be done in Dorico…]
I’m starting a large collection of chord charts (lyrics and chord symbols) for a publisher, and we’re trying to establish a style guide that is practical, legible, and typographically beautiful.
For my charts, I’ve always done bold lyrics with italic chord symbols above:
But now that it needs to be done properly (flat glyph instead of a lowercase b), I’m really hung up on the italicized or oblique glyphs for flats and sharps.
I’d like to hear from others about what they think about italicized flats and sharps from a typographical perspective. Valid? Quirky?
I don’t like to see music symbols slanted from their original designs. It sticks out to my eye as typographically wrong. On the other hand, putting upright accidentals right next to italic capitals can also be jarring. “C♯” is maybe not as bad as “B♭ ” for mismatching vertical strokes.
The issue to me is that italics need to have their own glyph designs. Maybe you could make a “true” italic version of a few needed glyphs of Bravura Text (or whatever music font you’re using).
Particularly in a sans face, I think all the glyphs need to slope uniformly, otherwise the perpendicular will stick out for miles from the oblique lines.
I’d agree that you’d need to design decent oblique accidentals.
I think these look pretty terrible, but where is Dorico getting the accidental glyphs when Capo chords are set to display italicized? Are these just artificially generated obliques?
I’ve never seen oblique flat glyphs I like. Finale was equally bad.
Reading your OP again, I usually see chords in italic only to distinguish them from another row of chords. If you have just one row, why bother?
I need something to distinguish them from the lyrics, IMO. On my old charts, it was bold set against italic. Function over form…
Is that an example of not enough difference, to you? To me it’s perfectly clear and easy for the eye to follow because of the shapes. The chords have big spaces between and the lyrics don’t.
I appreciate the feedback. I’ve worked on these so long I can’t be objective any more. If everyone else decides it’s clear, great.
Most other charts I’ve ever seen differentiate the fonts for the lyrics from the fonts for the symbols.
I think the other way around – a little heavier on the lyrics and regular-weight chords – would read very nicely. But this isn’t bad. The sharps & flats would go well with either weight because they have more stroke contrast.
The Standard Accidentals for Chord Symbols SMuFL range is the one that “is intended for mixing music symbols with text.” I prefer them with text as the center counters are a bit larger and the extenders/descenders are shorter. Anyway, just wanted to mention that as an option for the accidentals too before you get too far along, in case you like them better than the regular Standard Accidentals range as well.
3 Likes
I am not a fan of italics for chord symbols. Simple and clear is my Moto.
Can you use a typeface with more than two weights? Like what @Mark_Johnson said, I think medium-weight lyrics with normal weight chord symbols would look good, or normal weight lyrics with light-weight chord symbols. You can use a heavier bold (or other styling) for section headers or other elements if necessary.
Good idea! Unfortunately this typeface is the house style, and there are only two weights (plus italic).
