[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > typographically "awful" fonts that so offend Eric. (Personally, I find > those awful fonts extremely readable. Maybe it's just a bad habit of > mine. But there's something to be said for how bold and articulated > those fonts are when you're sight-reading in a dimly lit venue.)
Just yesterday, a Jazz musician explained to me that it is the classical musicians that need to read everything from paper, while for the modern musicians, paper is just a simple reminder and often is a hindrance for getting a good performance . Given the complexities of a modern symphonic orchestral part relative to a Jazz parts, I tend to agree that ease of (sight-)reading is much more important for classical music. If you think that LilyPond output is lacking in terms of readability, then we should focus on improving that. OTOH, I find it hard to believe that there are any music fonts out there that look bolder and more articulated than feta. > Is there any way for Lilypond to use its superior engine to make > standard leadsheets better, while keeping their handwritten look? Undoubtedly. You could start with designing a handwritten music font. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
