[The email David’s responding to was rejected for the mailing list since
the attachments were too large; you can find the images at

On 03.03.2018 01:11, David Kastrup wrote:
> Lucas Werkmeister <m...@lucaswerkmeister.de> writes:
>> Hi!
>> Andrew, attached you’ll find a photograph of the score I’m trying to
>> reproduce (please excuse the quality) and a screenshot of what Lilypond
>> produces.
>> David, apologies – I’m not very familiar with the difference between cue
>> and regular clefs, but at least visually, the clefs in the original
>> score look more like cues than regular ones to me. (Please see the
>> photograph as well.)
> The difference is not a question of visuals but of semantics.  Cue clefs
> are for _cues_, material from other instruments quoted as reference.
> They don't override the regular clef.
>> It’s quite possible that the original score is simply incorrect in its
>> use of clefs here – the publisher seems to have been obscure in its day
>> already.
> I don't see much of a difference here, and of course you can reduce the
> size of non-cue clefs further.  It just would be a bad idea to do so,
> but then LilyPond will usually also make it possible to cater to bad
> ideas.
Okay, then semantically we’re definitely talking about a regular clef
here, and I’m searching for a way to reduce the size of the clefs. I’ll
see if I can figure out how to do that – sounds like a more tractable
problem. (Probably not tonight, though.)

Thanks a lot for your help,

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

lilypond-user mailing list

Reply via email to