Lilypond not finding plain Helvetica font
Following the 'official' snippet on how to change the default text font family,
I try:
\paper {
myStaffSize = #20
#(define fonts
(make-pango-font-tree "Times New Roman"
"Helvetica"
"Courier"
(/ myStaffSize 20)))
}
\relative c'' {
c4^\markup {
roman: foo \bold bla \italic bar \italic \bold baz
}
c4_\markup {
\override #'(font-family . sans) {
sans: foo \bold bla \italic bar \italic \bold baz
}
}
c2^\markup {
\override #'(font-family . typewriter) {
mono: foo \bold bla \italic bar \italic \bold baz
}
}
}
but this results in the upright sans-serif font always being bold, even when
this is not requested. Replacing "Helvetica" by "Helvetica Neue" gives the
desired behaviour, but I do want plain Helvetica, for consistency with the text
in which the Lilypond output is embedded.
This is Lilypond 2.14.1 on Mac OS X 10.6.8, and 'lilypond
-dshow-available-fonts' does report the presence of
family Helvetica
Helvetica:style=Regular
so the required font is present and recognised.
Evidently it is a configuration error of some kind, but I have no idea where to
start looking.
Best wishes,
Matthew
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: setting the font size for markups independently
Marc Hohl wrote:
>
> Am 05.07.2011 18:17, schrieb -Eluze:
>> [...]
>> i think Kieren's solution works if you override the property of the
>> TextScript in its real context which seems to be the Voice context:
>>
>> \layout {
>>\context {
>> \Voice
>> \override TextScript #'font-size = #-12
>> } }
>>
>> hth
>> Eluze
> No, it is still not working. Attached are two minimal files which don't
> show any difference in the font size regardless of the value for
> abs-fontsize.
>
> \layout {
>\context {
> \Voice
> \override TextScript #'abs-fontsize = #100
>}
> }
> \version "2.15.5"
>
> \include "myinclude.ily"
>
> \markup {
> \wordwrap {
> This is a sample text.
> }
> }
>
you cannot use abs-fontsize to override TextScript properties, it seems to
be reserved for text markups! (at least here i get an error or warning)
but then i don't understand what you're looking for - do you want the
markups in the scores (i.e. attached to notes) to have the same size or do
you want all markups between music parts to have the same size (or both)?
cheers
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/setting-the-font-size-for-markups-independently-tp31995970p32003651.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: setting the font size for markups independently
Am 06.07.2011 11:58, schrieb -Eluze:
Marc Hohl wrote:
Am 05.07.2011 18:17, schrieb -Eluze:
[...]
i think Kieren's solution works if you override the property of the
TextScript in its real context which seems to be the Voice context:
\layout {
\context {
\Voice
\override TextScript #'font-size = #-12
} }
hth
Eluze
No, it is still not working. Attached are two minimal files which don't
show any difference in the font size regardless of the value for
abs-fontsize.
\layout {
\context {
\Voice
\override TextScript #'abs-fontsize = #100
}
}
\version "2.15.5"
\include "myinclude.ily"
\markup {
\wordwrap {
This is a sample text.
}
}
you cannot use abs-fontsize to override TextScript properties, it seems to
be reserved for text markups! (at least here i get an error or warning)
but then i don't understand what you're looking for - do you want the
markups in the scores (i.e. attached to notes) to have the same size or do
you want all markups between music parts to have the same size (or both)?
I want markups between music parts to have a fixed (absolute) font size,
whereas the music parts can be scaled according to my needs.
As far as I understand, Neil explained that this is only possible by
redefining the markup definition within scm/markup.scm:
I don't think this is possible without redefining interpret-markup
directly inside scm/makup.scm, i.e.,
(define-public (interpret-markup layout props arg)
(ly:text-interface::interpret-markup layout props
(make-abs-fontsize-markup 12 arg)))
It is possible to redefine interpret-markup inside a .ly file, but
you'll find top-level markup ignores the new settings since
interpret-markup-list will still use the original definition (it's
defined directly following interpret-markup, and gets called from C++
when generating paper-book output).
So I inserted \abs-fontsize everywhere, and now it works.
It is a bit clumsy, and I had to define my own
\hspace-mm, \vspace-mm, epsfile-mm and \with-dimensions-mm
as well, which work exactly like their normal counterparts, but expect
millimeters as units (and therefore don't scale with the staff spacing).
Regards,
Marc
cheers
Eluze
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Regarding \break and multimeasure rests
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 05:13:57 -0400
> From: "Hwaen Ch'uqi"
> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Subject: Regarding \break and multimeasure rests.
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Greetings All,
> I am currently working on a composition for piano, four hands, and
> I have run into a bit of difficulty in terms of aligning Secondo and
> Primo parts. At a certain point in the score, Lily simply refuses to
> break at the command, even after instantiating `\\once \override
> Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn #'line-break-permission = ##f' directly
> within the music and after trying the more general direction in the
> layout block as shown below and in the Notation Reference itself. When
> compiling, I continually get the error, `warning: forced break was
> overridden by some other event, should you be using bar checks?' I
> should state that, earlier in the piece, there occur successful \break
> commands during a passage of multimeasure rests in both hands; the
> only difference there is that that passage takes place in the middle
> of the page, not at the beginning. I give what I believe to be the
> relevant code, the entire part being quite large; but I can supply the
> entire code if requested. Many thanks for any guidance!
> Hwaen Ch'uqi
>
> P.S. To be extra clear, I am using version 2.14.1. After upgrading
> with `convert-ly -e', the final version number given is 2.14.0.
>
> \version "2.14.0"
>
> #(define-markup-command (four-hand-page layout props offset) (number?)
> (let* (
> (two-hand (chain-assoc-get 'page:page-number-string props))
> (four-hand (number->string (+ offset (* 2 (string->number two-hand))
> (interpret-markup layout props four-hand)))
>
> \paper{
> #(set-paper-size "letter")
> oddHeaderMarkup = \markup \fill-line {
>\four-hand-page #0
>""
> }
> evenHeaderMarkup = ##f
> tagline = ##f
> }
>
> \header{
> instrument = "Secondo"
> }
>
> \score{
> \new PianoStaff<<
>\set PianoStaff.connectArpeggios = ##t
>\new Staff = up{
> \set Staff.extraNatural = ##f
> \key c \major \time 4/4 \clef bass \relative{
> R1*2
> \break
> \acciaccatura s8 R1*2
> \break
> R1*3
> }
>}
>\new Staff = down{
> \set Staff.extraNatural = ##f
> \key c \major \time 4/4 \clef bass \relative{
> R1
> 8 r r r r
> \acciaccatura a'8 8 r r r r
> \acciaccatura aes'8 8 r r r r
> 8 r r r r
>r r r r
>r r2 8 r
> }
>}
>>>
> \layout{
>\context{
> \Score
> \override NonMusicalPaperColumn #'line-break-permission = ##f
>}
> }
> }
This is covered in the "Known Issues and warnings" at the end of Section 1.2.6:
"Special rhythmic concerns" in the Notation Manual. The cure is to include
"\acciaccatura s8" before the 2nd R1*2 in the upper staff, as shown above.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
bits from twitter #lilypond
A cool LilyPond editing mode has now been merged into Emacs' org-mode http://twitter.com/mjago/status/88562469731188736 And a grand Sibelius/LilyPond score rewrite http://twitter.com/adamscottneal/status/88641699731091456 Greetings, Jan -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: [Best Practices] instrument changes
2011/7/3 Gilles Sadowski :
>
>> I don't write much music for transposing instruments, so i cannot give
>> any advice, but i have a question that may trigger a discussion: how
>> to prepare scores with transposing instruments so that they are
>> structurally correct? Consider this canon:
>>
>> common = {
>> \key e \minor
>> \time 4/4
>> }
>> melody = \relative c' {
>> e4 d8 fis e4 b |
>> e8 e fis fis g a16[ g] fis4 |
>> b8 b a a g a16 g fis8 b, |
>> e4 d8 fis e2
>> }
>> <<
>> \new Staff = violin { \common \melody R1 }
>> \new Staff = "clarinet in A" \transpose a c' { \common R1 \melody }
>> >>
>>
>> If i understand how transposing instruments should be notated, the
>> output is how it should look like from a performer's point of view.
>> However, it is structurally wrong: for example MIDI output will be
>> bad, because internally the two parts have differently pitched
>> melodies (while they should be pitched the same and only displayed
>> differently).
>> What is the correct way of doing this?
>
> Something along those lines:
>
> If the source contains notes in concert pitch:
> ---CUT---
> \new Staff = "clarinet in A" {
> \transposition a {
> \transpose c a {
> <<
> \common
> \melody
> >>
> }
> }
> }
> ---CUT---
>
> If the source contains notes written for the instrument in A:
> ---CUT---
> \new Staff = "clarinet in A" {
> \transposition a {
> \transpose c a {
> <<
> \common
> \transpose a c {
> \melody
> }
> >>
> }
> }
> }
> ---CUT---
Wow, looks complicated - but seems to do the job!
Perhaps it would be good to simplify this as a part of GLISS.
thanks,
Janek
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
On Mi., 6. Jul. 2011 21:10:51 CEST, Janek Warchoł wrote: > Which one of the clefs in the attachment do you like best? The last one. In the first one, the vertical strike looks too straight. The second one feels unbalanced and looks loke it's falling over to the right any second. However, even in the third clef, the curvature of the vertical line looks a bit too straight in the lower half... Cheers, Reinhold ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
Janek, I personally prefer the first one, then the third one, then the second one. The third looks like it's twisting in on itself, but still feels more balanced than the second one, which is tilted too far to the right. I find the first more balanced than the third, but only very slightly. My 2¢ worth... Cheers, Nick 2011/7/6 Janek Warchoł > W dniu 6 lipca 2011 22:21 użytkownik James Lowe > napisał: > > Can we have some sharps and flats and perhaps some numeric signatures? > > There is no context for the clef otherwise (if you see what I mean). > > Attached. > > Janek > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > > -- And she forgot the stars, the moon, and sun, And she forgot the blue above the trees, And she forgot the dells where waters run, And she forgot the chilly autumn breeze... www.hastyorisons.blogspot.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
Janek, From: lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org [lilypond-user-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] on behalf of Janek Warchoł [lemniskata.bernoull...@gmail.com] Sent: 06 July 2011 20:10 To: lilypond-user Subject: font survey: which clef do you prefer? Which one of the clefs in the attachment do you like best? Can we have some sharps and flats and perhaps some numeric signatures? There is no context for the clef otherwise (if you see what I mean). Initially at 100% I preferred the left one, but if you zoom out to more realistic size I think I prefer the one one on the right - but it might depend if I had sharps and flats around it. James ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
On 6 Jul 2011, at 21:10, Janek Warchoł wrote: > Which one of the clefs in the attachment do you like best? Examples from Edition Peters (Bach) and Schirmer (Muczynski) have the top tip and the lowest crossing aligned pretty much vertically. A book by Hindemith, though smaller in type, typeset by Scott, has slanting to the left. So there is some variation. Hans ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
On 07/06/2011 12:10 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote: Which one of the clefs in the attachment do you like best? I prefer the 3rd one. I don't like the size (too big and fat) of the top loop on the 1st one. Paul Scott ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Janek Warchoł wrote: Which one of the clefs in the attachment do you like best? I like the 3rd one best. -- MT ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
The one on the right. The one on the left is taller and would potentially affect the intra-staff spacing. Better to avoid this. Trevor - Original Message - From: "Janek Warchoł" To: "lilypond-user" Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:10 PM Subject: font survey: which clef do you prefer? Which one of the clefs in the attachment do you like best? cheers, Janek ___ 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
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
I prefer the second one. In the first, the space outlined by the top loop of the clef and the top line of the staff is too large, and the third just appears too 'grainy' to me for some reason (although I find it hard to spot any differences between it and the second). Brent. On 6 July 2011 22:37, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: > On Mi.,6. Jul. 2011 21:10:51 CEST, Janek Warchoł < > lemniskata.bernoull...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Which one of the clefs in the attachment do you like best? > > The last one. > In the first one, the vertical strike looks too straight. The second one > feels unbalanced and looks loke it's falling over to the right any second. > > However, even in the third clef, the curvature of the vertical line looks a > bit too straight in the lower half... > > Cheers, > Reinhold > > ___ > 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
RE: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
Hello From: Janek Warchoł [lemniskata.bernoull...@gmail.com] Sent: 06 July 2011 21:53 To: James Lowe Cc: lilypond-user Subject: Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer? W dniu 6 lipca 2011 22:21 użytkownik James Lowe napisał: > Can we have some sharps and flats and perhaps some numeric signatures? > There is no context for the clef otherwise (if you see what I mean). Attached. --- Thanks, that makes a difference you see. I no longer prefer the third one when 'normal' size (as opposed to zooming in to look at it). I'd defer to the first one in this context. I like the white space. James ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
On Jul 6, 2011, at 15:53, Janek Warchoł wrote: > W dniu 6 lipca 2011 22:21 użytkownik James Lowe > napisał: >> Can we have some sharps and flats and perhaps some numeric signatures? >> There is no context for the clef otherwise (if you see what I mean). > > Attached. > > Janek > I'll add my voice to those who prefer the one on the right. James Worlton ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
Il 06/07/2011 21:10, Janek Warchoł ha scritto: Which one of the clefs in the attachment do you like best? Hmm. I prefer the central one, I find in it more of the shape of the original 'G' letter and it seems more balanced to me. Luca cheers, Janek ___ 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
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
> > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 22:53:51 +0200 > From: Janek Warcho? > To: James Lowe > Cc: lilypond-user > Subject: Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer? > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > W dniu 6 lipca 2011 22:21 u?ytkownik James Lowe > napisa?: > > Can we have some sharps and flats and perhaps some numeric signatures? > > There is no context for the clef otherwise (if you see what I mean). > > Attached. > > Janek I preferred the rightmost one. More compact. Tim Reeves ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
On 7/07/2011, at 7:10 am, Janek Warchoł wrote: > Which one of the clefs in the attachment do you like best? I don't like the left one: the top loop is far too big. Of the other two, I marginally prefer the upright stance of the centre one over the more 'laid-back' style of the right one. Best wishes, Matthew ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: bits from twitter #lilypond
At Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:11:14 -0400, lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org wrote: > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 19:24:58 +0200 > From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen > To: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Subject: bits from twitter #lilypond > > > A cool LilyPond editing mode has now been merged into Emacs' org-mode > > http://twitter.com/mjago/status/88562469731188736 Do you have a non-twitter link for this (for those of us living behind the Great Firewall of China)? I can sometimes get through, but today, that service isn't working well. I do use org-mode and would be very curious about this. I googled "lilypond editing in org-mode" but I can't find any references, apart from list archives containing this message :) so at the moment, I have no way to learn more about this. Thanks, James -- James Harkins /// dewdrop world jamshar...@dewdrop-world.net http://www.dewdrop-world.net "Come said the Muse, Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted, Sing me the universal." -- Whitman blog: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/words audio clips: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/audio more audio: http://soundcloud.com/dewdrop_world/tracks ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond making my Macbook Pro run slow
> > > > What exactly does 'keep lilypond open' mean in this context? It just runs > once, sprouts a pdf and then stops. That's why I can't understand what else > would be running unless we have a memory leak somewhere? > > LilyPad is as far as I can see a very lightweight editor (and much easier > to use than bother with mucking about with plug ins for things like Smultron > which just got in the way). > > You leave LilyPad alone! :P She's done me proud and I wouldn't use anything > else on a Mac (thanks to whoever came up with that BTW). > > :) > > James Very much like lilyPad I built a simple lilypond editor and added syntax coloring. You may want to download it and try it https://www.dropbox.com/s/4tig7qmcpamb1w4/LilyEditor.app -Marc ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: fret diagrams for scales and arpeggios - finger numbers as intervals
Jay Lee mac.com> writes: > > Carl Sorensen byu.edu> writes: > > > > And if you want to used a lilypond flat symbol, you can do that as > well. > > You'll need to make the fingering a lilypond markup. > Anybody? Or is it really not possible? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Cues + ties/LV
Was just playing around with cues, and got it mostly figured out (thanks to the
great documentation). But I'm stuck on one point --
In the bit pasted below my signature, if I were writing this by hand, I would
add a \laissezVibrer tie to the last note of the cue, but omit the note at the
other end of the tie. But I need a real tie in the part that really "owns" the
notes.
For fun, I tried taking out the tie and putting \laissezVibrer inside the cue.
Lilypond doesn't draw the LV in the \cueDuring section. So, even if I do
something like this --
sheng = \relative c'' {
\cueDuring #"eQuintCue" #UP { R1 }
d16 a d e a4 r2
}
\addQuote "eQuintCue" { \relative c'' {
r2 \times 4/5 { d8 a d e a \laissezVibrer }
} }
% These notes will go in the full score, not the part
% I'm copying the notes from eQuintCue but replacing \laissezVibrer with ~
elec = \relative c'' {
r2 \times 4/5 { d8 a d e a~ } a1
}
-- the "elec" part in the score looks good, but no LV in the cue part.
Maybe a bug? If so, maybe this will serve as a tiny example...?
\addQuote "q" { \relative c'' { c4 \laissezVibrer } }
\relative c'' { \cueDuring #"q" #UP { s4 } a4 \laissezVibrer }
James
--
James Harkins /// dewdrop world
jamshar...@dewdrop-world.net
http://www.dewdrop-world.net
"Come said the Muse,
Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted,
Sing me the universal." -- Whitman
blog: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/words
audio clips: http://www.dewdrop-world.net/audio
more audio: http://soundcloud.com/dewdrop_world/tracks
% Written as a quick summary reference for myself :)
\version "2.14.1"
\paper {
indent = 0
}
global = {
\time 4/4
\numericTimeSignature
\key d \major
}
sheng = \relative c'' {
\cueDuring #"eQuintCue" #UP { R1 }
d16 a d e a4 r2
}
eQuintCue = \relative c'' {
r2 \times 4/5 { d8 a d e a~ }
}
\addQuote "eQuintCue" { \eQuintCue }
% These notes will go in the full score, not the part
% I'm copying the notes from eQuintCue but replacing \laissezVibrer with ~
elec = \relative c'' {
\eQuintCue a'1
}
\markup { "Part with cue -- cues need to be given in the music variable" }
\score {
\new Staff { \global \sheng }
}
\markup { "Score without cues -- wrap staff's expression in \killCues" }
\score {
<<
\new Staff { \killCues { \global \sheng } }
\new Staff { \global \elec }
>>
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
I like the third one. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: bits from twitter #lilypond
2011/7/7 James Harkins : >> A cool LilyPond editing mode has now been merged into Emacs' org-mode >> >> http://twitter.com/mjago/status/88562469731188736 > > Do you have a non-twitter link for this (for those of us living behind the > Great Firewall of China)? I can sometimes get through, but today, that > service isn't working well. https://github.com/mjago/ob-lilypond -- Michel Villeneuve ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
On Wed 06 Jul 2011, 21:10 Janek Warchoł wrote: > Which one of the clefs in the attachment do you like best? The first one. -- Dmytro O. Redchuk Bug Squad "Easy to use" is easy to say. --Jeff Garbers ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
On Wed 06 Jul 2011, 22:53 Janek Warchoł wrote: > W dniu 6 lipca 2011 22:21 użytkownik James Lowe > napisał: > > Can we have some sharps and flats and perhaps some numeric signatures? > > There is no context for the clef otherwise (if you see what I mean). > > Attached. The third one .) -- Dmytro O. Redchuk Bug Squad "Easy to use" is easy to say. --Jeff Garbers ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
2011/7/6 Hans Aberg : > Examples from Edition Peters (Bach) and Schirmer (Muczynski) have the top tip > and the lowest crossing aligned pretty much vertically. A book by Hindemith, > though smaller in type, typeset by Scott, has slanting to the left. So there > is some variation. Of course. I'd even say that there's a lot of variation! Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: font survey: which clef do you prefer?
2011/7/7 James Lowe : > > From: Janek Warchoł [lemniskata.bernoull...@gmail.com] > > > > 2011-07-06 22:21 wrote: > >> Can we have some sharps and flats and perhaps some numeric signatures? > >> There is no context for the clef otherwise (if you see what I mean). > > > > Attached. > --- > > Thanks, that makes a difference you see. I no longer prefer the third one > when 'normal' size (as opposed to zooming in to look at it). I'd defer to the > first one in this context. I like the white space. Interesting. For me the first one looks airy and not tight when confronted with rest of the symbols. Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
