On Dec 24, 2013 5:57 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > The extra width on the "ugly" mi notes was a specific design decision > that was made in conjunction with the shape note community at the time > (see https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1060). > I've wondered this, but I had been unable to determine this conclusively, and the couple of queries I had posted to the user list previously went unanswered. I understand the design choice, since I have observed this as well. I think most obvious cause of that optical choice is the relative size of the sol head, which is somewhat lessened by use of the conventional ellipse shape that is also in this patch. That said, the impression I get from looking at the sol head in a chord with other shapes is that it looks "droopy," as if the ellipse is being weighed down.
What is interesting is that the print examples (most from the previous 30 years) do not have wider mi heads, but do not give me the impression of an optically smaller head (a phenomenon that is interesting given that if rounded corners are not considered, the Aiken mi head has an equal area to the aiken do and fa heads. Perhaps the answer may lie in a slight bowing of the edges (but not enough to confuse with sol)? The problem I have (and what drew me to a redesign) is that the wideness of the mi head causes alignment issues, particularly in chords. For instance, when mi is stacked on do, the points do not line up. In multi-staff settings, if mi is attached to an up stem, the extra width causes the other notes attached to that stem to be misaligned from the notes in other staves (something that I personally give Finale users grief about when they don't make sure simultaneous notes are absolutely aligned. > It may be correct to eliminate the extra mi width, but I don't believe > it should be done without review of a broader piece of the shape-note > community. > This may well need to happen. As I said, I've tried a few times over the last 8 or 9 months to inquire about the mi head particulary, with no response. > Carl S. > > https://codereview.appspot.com/45160043/ Thanks, Carl P.
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
