On 11/10/2013 12:36 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
One should never _discard_ what an authority has to say and should try
tracking its reasoning, but if the results from following instructions
don't actually lead to convincing results (in particular when
comparing them with the printed results), one needs to do better than
follow instructions. And more often than not, heeding all constraints
mentioned in instructions at the same time is not even possible
sensibly, and then one needs to relax them using sensible priorities.
I like to try to broaden the discussion a little by doing what David
writes above, try tracking Gould's reasoning for the recommendation:
Gould is obviously not saying just that the recommended distance looks
better than any other distance; it's not a esthetical proportion for the
most beautiful looking score. What she is aiming at throughout the book
is clarity and readability of the notation especially in a performance
situation. To bring things to a head I think it would be very fair to
assume that she would rather have an ugly score that makes life easy for
the performer than a beautiful score that makes performance almost
impossible. Luckily what makes a beautifully engraved score for the most
part goes hand in hand with makes it easy to read and perform.
In this case with the distance to the first note this general attitude
can be assumed, she also explicitly states that she takes traditional
engraving practice into account. I personally would like to see her
recommendation as a sweat spot where you could be fairly sure to stay
out of trouble. The problems when you end up to close clef, key sign or
time sign are of course easily imagined in terms of readability. The
problems with a too great distance is less obvious, but huge separation
between elements can also hinder easy reading.
I think it's great that you, Gilberto, involve yourself in these
question. But I lack the knowledge of what has been discussed
previously. Does your analysis show any issues that should call for
adjustments of LilyPond's behaviour in this regard? I see no point in an
overall adjustment to the exact measure recommended by Gould, and that
has of course no one requested. What could perhaps merit as a subject
for further analycing and possible adjustments is as already mentioned
your third example (with clef only and with more accidentals). And I
would also add your fifth example to this list (with key signature and
with one accidental), because here is a potential problem mentioned by
Gould. Here is her example in LilyPond code:
{\key g \major
\override Score.TimeSignature.stencil = ##f
cis'' }
Here the accidental could be mistakenly taken for a part of the key
signature if it's too close. (The example appears fine to me when I
compile it, but I would like to mention it anyway.)
Best
Peter
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
