Thank you, Tim, for your reply! How much text is in your scores that this would be a significant issue of > readability? Are you getting complaints from musicians that your scores are > hard to read? Is the issue with text notes or with the readability of the > music font? > > In my scores, the usual text is the song title, composer, tempo > information and occasional markup. I occasionally have lyrics and I use > the default font for those as no one has ever complained about > readability. I use the LilyJazz music font because I prefer having the > simplest shapes and don't care for ordinate music fonts. I also use > LilyJazzText for markup and other text for stylistic consistency, except > for lyrics. I find the default Lilypond font to be more readable for > singers. >
All my scores are of choral or solo vocal music, so there are always lots of lyrics. In addition, I frequently include a long, meaty section of editorial notes — several paragraphs of prose — at the end of the file, after the \score block. None of my users has complained about readability. People love LilyPond output, of course! My questions arise because I’d like to try creating editions that have a distinctive look to them (my own “house style,” if you will), not because LilyPond Serif is bad in any way. For music (as opposed to text), I’m likely to stick with Emmentaler because a lot of what I do requires ancient music symbols. Most of my output is Anglican chant or Renaissance polyphony. Looking at the various samples, I did not see sufficient difference to > prefer one over the other. Since this is a commercial font, I would just go > with the cheapest one. It is also quite likely that there is an equivalent > open source font that is nearly identical. > Thank you; it’s helpful to have other pairs of eyes looking at the options with me.
