Weitzmann: non-Fraktur font on note names.

[m-k94]

Like Hauptmann, Weitzmann also visually separates note names from the text. But instead of using italics, he chooses to use a latin font, contrasting the Fraktur font of the main text. The question is: how to we represent this?

(p. 17)

Can we just leave the note names without special styling or do we choose a different one?

[fabianmoss]

I don't remember how we did it for the Hauptmann. I think it is best to come up with a consistent system for all sources, thus the easiest would be to use the same markup as in Hauptmann (i.e. italics).

[m-k94]

Hmm alright. I assumed the idea was to follow the originals as closely as possible in terms of their emphases.

In Hauptmann, everything is pretty much how it looks on the page. regular text = roman font. notenames = italics emphasis = letterspace.

The texts in the current collection differ in their conventions:

• Hauptmann, Naumann, Oettingen => Roman typeface + Italics on Notenames
• Capellen => Roman Typeface + no emphasis on Notenames.
• Weitzmann 1860, 1861 => Fraktur Typeface + Roman on Notenames
• Kunkel => Fraktur Typeface + Fraktur & Italics on Notenames

Not sure if we should set out unified standards for all texts. If we do, it would also have to go into detail in my opinion. For example, Hauptmann doesn't set note names italic if it's part of "C-Durtonart" etc., while most other texts do...

[fabianmoss]

These are good considerations. In general, our goal is not so much to reproduce the appearance of the texts as closely as possible but rather to capture the logical structure and markup. For me, it is not so important whether emphases are marked as letter spaced or italics but that they are captured consistently. The same holds for note names.

In other words, since the main text of all sources will be displayed in Roman font of some sort on the website (certainly not Fraktur), emphases, note name appearance etc. should ideally also be standardized. Your list above is a great start.

What do you think of the following conventions:

• main text: roman font
• note names: italics
• emphases: as in source

[m-k94]

To be honest, I feel like if we want to unify textstyle like that, it is something that we idealy should have detailed out prior to starting the transcription process. Moreover, I am not sure if it is something that should be done extensively at this stage. It is difficult enough to represent the text "as is", but becomes much more challenging and time consuming when you has to make it consistently conform to a different system of formating. The texts differ widely, also in terms of how headings are stylized etc. If we feel like different texts should be unified for reasons of visual appearance on the website, it could still be done later on, no?

If emphases can be "as in source", I feel like note names should be as well - at least for the transcription process. I personally see italics on notenames as a form of emphasis anyway. For the Fraktur texts with roman note names, I'd now suggest treating them as if they were without emphasis. What do you think?

Otherwise, we could maybe agree to use the option "Serif" for font changes? Not sure if that is what it originally means, though:

[m-k94]

Weitzmann also uses roman font on the foreign expressions "Basso Ostinato" and "Exercises Op. 1, Part 6, Vienne" on page 65:

[fabianmoss]

OK then let's decide to reproduce the source style as close as possible for each text. Please note this decision in the Editorial Guidelines.