On 1/19/25 18:35, David Wright wrote:
On Sun 19 Jan 2025 at 15:31:24 (-0500), Lilypond-User wrote:- In the design document and the email you didn't describe in words what these clefs actually do, I think. From the visual evidence it looks like the middle line is the pitch described by the clef (a4, etc). However, the F and G clefs look like they act like normal, not like F or G is the middle line (the C clef does act like that, though). Is that an oversight or intentional? - Related to the above question, I'll talk about the design of the clefs themselves, but I don't think you should use the regular G F and C clefs in the new set of letter clefs because that would be too confusing (if you see a G clef you don't know if it's the normal kind or the new kind). Besides, the F and G clef show that the f3 and g4 pitches are on different lines, not the middle one.But clefs have to be movable, even though it's perhaps less frequently done than in the past. In f3 and g4, the 3 and 4 are pure convention, whereas the f and g lines are locked into their designs. The D and E clefs have their "action point" clearly marked, so in principle they could be shifted up or down. The A is more subtle, being the point on the end of the crossbar. The weak one, to me, is the ♭, partly because it resembles the flat, but also because the curve has a point at both ends, weakening the indication given by the upper one. (Yes, I see the convergence on the hairline.) More fundamentally, what does b mean? Is the ♭ shape a hint that it means B♭ (in English). Would it be usable with a sharp key?
You are correct. I guess I just assumed that moving clefs up and down wouldn't be a thing for some reason. I suppose because if you have for example a G4 clef and want to move it two steps up you could just write E4. But anyway, we should see what Murray has to say about this.
I drafted this design document of my own which tries to enhance your own. Please feel free to adapt or use it yourself. In it, I include my best attempt as a definition of these clefs and Lilypond code to make visual examples.* The other differences with this and your design document are that I used ordinary letters instead of custom designs (but that doesn't really matter) and slightly more idiomatic lilypond/scheme code (I tried to make my own procedure that would act like the lilypond \clef procedure).I see a problem with ordinary letters: just as some composers write big 3s and 4s etc in the clef to indicate time signature numerators, big letters might be confused with, say, big rehearsal letters. And the A isn't giving any indication of the a-line. (I suppose you /could/ raise the crossbar and project it a little beyond the righthand side.)
Hmm, I think I would say that 1) hopefully depending on how you write the octave number (like if it is circled or small under the staff) it would be differentiable from the time signature (on differentiating from a rehearsal letter, I do not have a good answer), and 2) Like in the previous paragraph I wasn't really thinking about these clefs being movable (hence the A crossbar not being centered); it strikes me as a new system that doesn't have movable clefs.
These are good things to keep in mind, thank you. -William
Personally, I'm not sure I could cope with more clefs. I don't envy tenors having to cope with G, F and occasionally C clefs already. Cheers, David.
-- William Rehwinkel (any pronouns) Juilliard School '26 - Oberlin Conservatory '24 will...@williamrehwinkel.net - https://williamrehwinkel.net PGP Public Key: https://ftp.williamrehwinkel.net/pubkey.txt
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
