Hi Simon, > The other major point is that it doesn’t print ‘redundant’ lyrics, i.e. > passages with equal rhythm and wording in multiple voices have the lyrics > printed only once, mostly below the topmost of the staves.
I finally looked at this example. (Thanks again for including it!) 1. To my eye, the omission of lyrics as you’ve done it here accomplishes the worst of both worlds: the gaps are disconcerting (e.g., are the Basses really supposed to travel with their eye, unaided, from the extender in m.16 up to the Soprano lyrics in m.17??), and there is no real space savings [as would be accomplished through the condensing of staves with similar music]. 2. Some of the extender suppression is definitely an improvement. But as I pointed out earlier in this thread, that kind of tweak should really only be done after the final layout is calculated. For [an admittedly extreme] example, change the system-count to 12, and then try to convince me that the extender on “our” in m. 1 should have been [hard-]omitted. ;) This is a separate issue, and should [as we’ve agreed] be done automatically, with user-definable thresholds, etc. 3. As to the lyric alignment… I like a few of the adjustments (e.g., m. 6 “drest”), but dislike most others (e.g., m. 6 “leaves”, m. 9 “Though”, m. 11 “Round"). Several adjustments actually cause unnecessary spacing oddities (e.g., m. 12 “Drown” in Bass). Cheers, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
