Hi everyone, I'm working on the LilyPond essay, and I'm ready to ask you some questions.
You can read my current draft at http://www.musicbyandrew.ca/essay.pdf (this is identical to a doc build with my latest patch, except that I have only updated the pages containing the new essay, leaving out the original, the GPL stuff, and the index.) The source file in question is Documentation/essay/engraving.itely Questions: 1. Multiple staff sizes and optical line weights. I have a piano + violin excerpt on page 4 (PDF page 6). If I modify the staff-space and thickness by the same number then I don't get the relatively heavier lines that I would naturally get using "set-global-staff-size". I am currently using this: \new Staff \with { fontSize = #-4 \override StaffSymbol #'staff-space = #(magstep -4) \override StaffSymbol #'thickness = #(magstep -3) } This gives me staff lines that I like, but they may not match the carefully tunes weights of "set-global-staff-size". Also, I think I should be thickening up the barlines and stems as well. - Any suggestions on the tweaks I should do to match the "set-global-staff-size" appearance? (A previous discussion suggested magstep = 3.5 for these cases, but I am trying to increase the contrast a bit.) 2. Something is wrong with my beaming on page 6 (PDF 8). Any guesses? The source is \relative c { \clef "bass" \key d \minor \time 3/4 \mergeDifferentlyDottedOn << {\slurDashed d8.-\flageolet( e16) e4.-\trill( d16 e)} \\ {d4_2 a2} >> \slurDashed <f' a, d,>4. e8( d c) \slurSolid bes g' f e16( f g_1 a_2 bes_3 d,_2) \slurDashed cis4.-\trill b8_3( a g) << {\slurDashed d'8.( e16) e4.-\trill( d16 e)} \\ {<f, a>4 a2} >> } 3. As you can see, I have started a comparison of Finale / LilyPond / real engravings. The scores are on the last 3 pages. (Note that the Finale example has been clipped just a bit to close on the right hand side. I will fix this.) My preliminary observations are - Finale rests are always at the same heights (in v1/v2 situations). - Finale doesn’t interlock notes nicely (mm. 28–29). - Finale misses the B-flat in mm. 33! - Finale’s beamed stems are almost always too long when they extend off the staff. - LilyPond 2.13.5 currently has a vertical spacing problem (no padding between staves). - LilyPond could use a little more space before the first note of mm. 30, 33–34. - LilyPond’s ties to beat 1 of mm. 31 are shorter than any of the reference scores, and Finale’s are even worse. - LilyPond’s stems are often shorter than any of the references, especially RH mm. 31. Have I missed anything? Please discuss? Maybe a couple of those items should be bug reports? Although I want to be fair in this essay, I also don't want to 4. I believe that I have now incorporated the most valuable elements of the original essay into the nicer structure that Trevor began. Do you agree or did I miss something? (There are probably still things to add, but I don't think they will come from the old essay.) 5. Any other thoughts? The essay has been a prominent piece of LilyPond 'marketing' and I want to know that community is getting the upgraded essay that they want. Thanks, Andrew _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
