Me too, #4 or #5. But I think the long stroke could be longer, maybe
1.2*staff_space or so?
Like in the attached file? In this case, I'm inclined to favour #5 (or
maybe even #6), but I'm only judging this based on the appearance on
the screen because I don't have a good printer at hand. Thus any
further opinions or suggestions for improvement are still very
welcome.
I've just printed your pdf now: #5 is definitely too thick in my
opinion. Maybe #3 is already enough, let's wait for more opinions.
As a little nitpick I would suggest to raise the stroke a little bit
more above the stem.
Today I've looked into two scores to see if I could figure out some
conventions. First a score taken from the NMA(New Mozart Edition),
VIII/20/Abt.1/1 (String quartets, volume one) for today's engraving
standards. There the strokes are always centered with the noteheads and
they are slightly shorter than they are in your last version. Also their
shape is like a drop (the thickness decreases near the note), nearly
like the current \staccatissimo. Then I had a look at a faksimile
edition of Händel's Orlando (London 1733). There the strokes are thicker
and longer, like in your last version. Also they are centered with the
object they are placed beneath. (Either stem or notehead) The shape
there is also a little bit like a drop - it seems the engraving is
oriented on the shape that arises with a quill.
Personally I prefer the variant I found in the old Händel print.
Regards,
Michael
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
