>> Hi Urs, >> >> it seems like I missed something. How did you create those scores? ... >> >> What is the Cadence font?
> Joram, > > I can answer for Urs. ... > > The Cadence font was the first result of that effort. Hi Abraham, thanks! Now I know what I was missing. That's very interesting. I would like to give some feedback which is clearly very subjective and perhaps your work continued such that some characteristics are obsolete. Anyway, here it is: I understand the reasoning with the rounded outlines, but I think not all shortcomings of the traditional technique need to be copied. I like the treble clef (the roundings are ok, but more for the straighter downward line). For the bass clef I am not sure which on I like more. The inner roundings of accents looks a bit like overdoing to me. The same for the dash of the forte f. I would say a balanced mixture of rounded and sharp corners is a valid choice, too. The arpeggio looks smoother. Concerning the accidentals, I am undecided. It looks a bit more 'natural' like traditional notation, but also a bit less perfect... This is most visible for the sharp. I prefer the Feta versions of the natural and flat signs. The former because it is narrower and the latter because it has a more consistent line width. That's perhaps an issue with the font-switching, but the noteheads of the Candence font are larger than the staff space and thus visible below and above staff lines and overlaps with the stems. All in all a smaller rounding radius might me a better compromise in my opinion. The treble clef is the biggest improvement in my eyes. As you said you can't please everybody. I enjoy your work and I am looking forward to the font switching feature. Cheers, Joram _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
