Re: Peer review
On 02/18/2015 03:30 AM, Craig Dabelstein wrote: Hi Lilyponders, I'm not sure if this is an appropriate request for the group, but I was wondering if anybody had the time to look at a sample part I have typeset and make any comments regarding the typesetting. There may be many things here that an experienced typesetter may see that need improvement, but my eyes don't pick up. Here is the link: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/614749/Berlioz-02-piccolo.pdf I do think the part looks a little bit compressed, but I have used the page turn engraver (which I think is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world!) for instrumental parts such as these. Many thanks, Craig Beautiful. Some off-the-cuff remarks. I agree with Jay Andersen about cautionary accidentals. I always use the modern-cautionary style -- it implies least confusion. I do hope you intend to add cue notes to the final product! I think the typesetting is the opposite of cramped; only 10..11 systems per page. I often have 13 or even 14 on an A4 page (2.19.15, the Lilypond version makes a difference), although with narrower margins. However, the first system of mvt II. is indeed cramped. You might consider widening the first system (e.g. by judiciously inserting a page break into (just) the part). Is your part intended to start with an external blank page? Else, the page turns are at the wrong side of the page pairs... Regarding page turns: for the player, it is *far* preferable to have easy page turns than to have few pages. I don't know about the publisher who must pay the printing costs... At letter [P] in mvt III: a top c# for the piccolo: I don't remember ever having had to play that (and I hope it will be a long time before I meet it). A matter of preference: if the movements are clearly separated by piece titles and ample vertical white space, I don't indent the first system of the movement. In Mvt III., from [C]: I think the tuplet spanners are a bit tiring to the eye. How does it look without the spanner lines? Rutger Hofman Amsterdam ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Peer review
On 18 Feb 2015, at 09:18, Rutger Hofman rut...@cs.vu.nl wrote: On 02/18/2015 03:30 AM, Craig Dabelstein wrote: Here is the link: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/614749/Berlioz-02-piccolo.pdf At letter [P] in mvt III: a top c# for the piccolo: I don't remember ever having had to play that (and I hope it will be a long time before I meet it). There are a couple of measures missing, and it should be one octave lower [1]. 1. http://imslp.org/wiki/Grande_symphonie_fun%C3%A8bre_et_triomphale,_H_80_%28Berlioz,_Hector%29 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Peer review
Hi Craig,
I've noticed that you've changed the color of the staff lines from black to
grey. I think this is a good way to increase readability.
However, in some lines of your score, the black bar lines are printed behind
the grey staff lines. I think this is because they are located in the same
layer, thus it's not predictable in what order they will be printed.
It could be helpful to put the staff lines in a layer below zero:
\layout {
\context {
\Staff
\override StaffSymbol.layer = #-1
}
}
Cheers,
Klaus
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Peer-review-tp172016p172024.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Peer review
Am 18.02.2015 um 03:30 schrieb Craig Dabelstein: Hi Lilyponders, I'm not sure if this is an appropriate request for the group, but I was wondering if anybody had the time to look at a sample part I have typeset and make any comments regarding the typesetting. There may be many things here that an experienced typesetter may see that need improvement, but my eyes don't pick up. Here is the link: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/614749/Berlioz-02-piccolo.pdf I do think the part looks a little bit compressed, but I have used the page turn engraver (which I think is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world!) for instrumental parts such as these. Many thanks, Craig Hi Craig, there's one (minor) issue for readability that I notice. It's not your fault but LilyPond's but you may search for a way to improve it nevertheless. When tuplet number happen to fall into a staff they are not clearly readable. Probably it doesn't matter too much because you don't actually _read_ them anyway but just notice that they are there. Especially problematic is when they fall exactly in a staff space as in m. 134ff. where the extenders of the number coincide with the staff lines. I'm not sure about the best treat, however. Some ideas: - moving the numbers - using whiteout - selecting a heavier font face I don't see a real treat for it, but you may take it as some input. HTH Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user -- Urs Liska www.openlilylib.org ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Peer review
Hi all, Thanks so much for your feedback. As I suspected there were issues you raised that I never would have picked up on my own. I really appreciate your time and expertise. Craig On Wed Feb 18 2015 at 8:45:05 PM Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote: Am 18.02.2015 um 03:30 schrieb Craig Dabelstein: Hi Lilyponders, I'm not sure if this is an appropriate request for the group, but I was wondering if anybody had the time to look at a sample part I have typeset and make any comments regarding the typesetting. There may be many things here that an experienced typesetter may see that need improvement, but my eyes don't pick up. Here is the link: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/614749/Berlioz-02-piccolo.pdf I do think the part looks a little bit compressed, but I have used the page turn engraver (which I think is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world!) for instrumental parts such as these. Many thanks, Craig Hi Craig, there's one (minor) issue for readability that I notice. It's not your fault but LilyPond's but you may search for a way to improve it nevertheless. When tuplet number happen to fall into a staff they are not clearly readable. Probably it doesn't matter too much because you don't actually _read_ them anyway but just notice that they are there. Especially problematic is when they fall exactly in a staff space as in m. 134ff. where the extenders of the number coincide with the staff lines. I'm not sure about the best treat, however. Some ideas: - moving the numbers - using whiteout - selecting a heavier font face I don't see a real treat for it, but you may take it as some input. HTH Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user -- Urs Liska www.openlilylib.org ___ 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
Peer review
Hi Lilyponders, I'm not sure if this is an appropriate request for the group, but I was wondering if anybody had the time to look at a sample part I have typeset and make any comments regarding the typesetting. There may be many things here that an experienced typesetter may see that need improvement, but my eyes don't pick up. Here is the link: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/614749/Berlioz-02-piccolo.pdf I do think the part looks a little bit compressed, but I have used the page turn engraver (which I think is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world!) for instrumental parts such as these. Many thanks, Craig ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Peer review
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Craig Dabelstein craig.dabelst...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure if this is an appropriate request for the group, but I was wondering if anybody had the time to look at a sample part I have typeset and make any comments regarding the typesetting. There may be many things here that an experienced typesetter may see that need improvement, but my eyes don't pick up. It looks pretty clean to me. I'm not an expert either, but here are a few things: - 'attaca' should be placed below the staff. - The rest at the end on page 3 looks a little short for a page turn (maybe not). It's certainly doable, but it's worth playing around. Moving the page turn will most likely cause it to flow onto more pages. - Mvt. I measure 59 has an A natural. The following measure has an A-flat? Add the cautionary accidental. There are similar issues like this as well (Mvt. I measures 89-90, 91-92 with f-flat, f-natural - I didn't check further.). I do think the part looks a little bit compressed, but I have used the page turn engraver (which I think is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world!) for instrumental parts such as these. A4 is fairly narrow which could be part of the problem as well. -Jay ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
