On Fri, 2025-11-21 at 10:01 +0000, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > Werner wrote indicating that he thought it looked well and was
> > helpful in large scores. As I recalled reading that LilyPond
> > wasn't
> > trying to default to contemporary practice but to "golden age hand
> > engraving" practice, I did spend some time reading through the
> > philosophy section of the LilyPond website and then trying to dig
> > out some "golden age of hand engraving" examples - I got the
> > attached one from a 1930's edition, and it seemed to me that there
> > was indeed a slight bit of extra space after the key signature
> > change but not(*) as much as in the LilyPond example I posted.
> > [...]
>
> Look at the following example to see why quite a large distance makes
> sense.
>
> ```
> {
> b'4 b' b' b' | \key f \major
> bes'4 bes' bes' bes' |
> bes'4 bes' bes' bes' |
> }
>
> {
> \override Staff.KeySignature.space-alist.next-note =
> #'(semi-fixed-space . 0.9)
> b'4 b' b' b' | \key f \major
> bes'4 bes' bes' bes' |
> bes'4 bes' bes' bes' |
> }
Interesting, I have occasionally noticed the ambiguity created between
a key signature involving a single accidental on the same line as the
following note and the accidental not belonging to the key signature
but applying to the note, I don't recall noticing how treacherous it is
when it is a key change to a single accidental without any key
cancellations. I wonder if Gould has anything to say about this,
leaving a large space in this case does ameliorate it, putting the key
change before the barline would be much clearer. But this isolated
example wouldn't justify leaving large spaces in all cases IMHO. And as
Simon has pointed out, the default is intended to reflect hand engraved
score practice, not our personal preferences.
I'm just happy to have been helped to inform my correspondent of the
best way to get control of the space, for which my thanks to the ever
helpful LilyPond mailing list.
Richard
