> Why does lilypond do small clefs in the middle of a line by default > instead of regular?
It is common engraving practice. As to why it is common practice I can only speculate that a full sized clef would appear bulky and out of place, or that it would have appeared bulky and out of place to the engravers who established the practice. > Aren't small clefs supposed to be for changing clef > without having to change the key signature, That is, in effect, what happens when you change clefs in the middle of a system without changing keys. But that is because the key isn't changing. > so the whole idea is *not* > to have a new key sig appear? Isn't that what they're for? No, the two are not really linked. The small clefs are for mid-system clef changes as per common engraving practice. Clef changes are not linked to key changes. > If you > change keys in midstream, so to speak, don't you need a regular clef? No. You don't need a clef at all. > So wouldn't \smallclef make more sense when you want no new key sig to > appear, This is what happens now, isn't it? But again, you appear to be assuming that the two are linked. They are not. > and \key when you want both clef and key sig? No. \key and \clef do not always have to appear together. At a mid-line key change: clef = no key = yes At a mid-line clef change: clef = yes key = no \key and \clef are two different and separate bits of information. The \key indicates the basis of the harmonic structure of the piece (c major, e minor, etc.). The \clef simply indicates what absolute pitches are represented by the lines/spaces of the staff. -David _______________________________________________ Lilypond-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
