[The email David’s responding to was rejected for the mailing list since the attachments were too large; you can find the images at https://imgur.com/a/jc6ga.]
On 03.03.2018 01:11, David Kastrup wrote: > Lucas Werkmeister <m...@lucaswerkmeister.de> writes: > >> Hi! >> >> Andrew, attached you’ll find a photograph of the score I’m trying to >> reproduce (please excuse the quality) and a screenshot of what Lilypond >> produces. >> >> David, apologies – I’m not very familiar with the difference between cue >> and regular clefs, but at least visually, the clefs in the original >> score look more like cues than regular ones to me. (Please see the >> photograph as well.) > The difference is not a question of visuals but of semantics. Cue clefs > are for _cues_, material from other instruments quoted as reference. > They don't override the regular clef. > >> It’s quite possible that the original score is simply incorrect in its >> use of clefs here – the publisher seems to have been obscure in its day >> already. > I don't see much of a difference here, and of course you can reduce the > size of non-cue clefs further. It just would be a bad idea to do so, > but then LilyPond will usually also make it possible to cater to bad > ideas. > Okay, then semantically we’re definitely talking about a regular clef here, and I’m searching for a way to reduce the size of the clefs. I’ll see if I can figure out how to do that – sounds like a more tractable problem. (Probably not tonight, though.) Thanks a lot for your help, Lucas
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
