Am 22.02.2013 11:33, schrieb Noeck:
Am 22.02.2013 04:41, schrieb Jim Long:
1) label a staffgroup with a centered instrument name, instead of
only being able to label each separate staff of the group;
2) splitting out separate instrument parts whilst also being able
to flexibly combine parts on the conductor's score.
That are indeed nice LilyPond features. Before showing such a score, I
would, however, do some small changes:
- The labels should fit on the page (inside the margins -> indentation).
- The labels are too close to the staff lines.
[this could perhaps be done by default?]
- The tagline is a bit close to the scores in my opinion.
[it is sometimes useful to save vertical space, but here it is not
necessary]
What I wanted to say: When showing a LilyPond score in order to convince
somebody, it should be a really good example (proof-read by others, if
possible). This is particularly true for professionals like in this case.
Maybe it's useful to point out the out-of-the-box aspect?
For example I'd see what happens if I
* enter the plain content
(I'd consider the \partcombine discussion to be part of this)
* Do any necessary improvements
* Write down how many tweaks I had to do
It that looks good I'd present the final version as pdf and say: Hey, I
only needed these few lines of adjustment.
Of course only if that actually _does_ make a good impression ...
Cheers,
Joram
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
