Re: Many Henle examples erroneous

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:

> This is bullshit. Of course, the reprints of their old material is
> hand-engraved, but any of their new stuff isn't (no surprise that
> they're putting black/white photos about engraving).

Also note their very careful wording

   Henle's Urtext editions are noted for the scholarly accuracy of their
   text, their clear layout on the page and their razor-sharp printing.

   The best means of achieving quality of this sort is through
   Hand-Engraving, for the practiced eye of the engraver is still
   superior to the computer.

They do not claim at all that any of their publications is hand
engraved, they just say hand engraving is superior.  If you were to be
publishing hand-engraved scores (only), you would advertise that quite
differently.

This is, of course, all just marketing blurp.  It is actually quite
easy to learn to see for yourself if a publication is computer- or
hand-engraved.  Just look at a number of scores published around 1900.
There is absolutely nothing mechanical about how they look, they
`flow'.  The engraving can have a big density, and you'll note the odd
symbol that was punched just a bit off straight.  Have a close look at
the slurs, and the placement of texts.  Once you see these things, it
is very obvious.  Then have a look at some publications from around
1950, and you'll notice the same sort of thing.

Besides, have you actually read the discussion about and seen Henle's
2000 publication of the prelude of the first Solo Cello Suite edition
nr. 666

    http://www.lilypond.org/web/about/automated-engraving/introduction.html

If that is hand-engraved (then I'm a rabbit and) it was done by a
super-genious in mechanical accuracy, who was a first-rank amateur in
music engraving layout.

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org