Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Karlin High]

On 3/27/2018 3:20 PM, Torsten Hämmerle wrote:

Besides, I just noticed my typo ("Thriple") in the subject line carried over
from mail to mail, this is s embarrassing...


In forums for the DDWRT wifi router firmware, there are important 
must-read threads deliberately given unique, arbitrary names. ("The 
catfish thread," "the peacock thread," and so on.)


In the case we have here, I noticed the typo from the beginning and 
mentally approved of it. There are other threads that mention triple 
flat glyphs. But if in the future someone wants to find this discussion, 
I expect there will be only one that's about THRIPLE flat glyphs.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Thanks, Joram,

That sounds plausible...
Talking about quarter tone accidentals:
Internally, LilyPond uses quarter tone steps, so that I had to insert
intermediate steps between double and triple flat resp. between double and
triple sharp.

I don't believe that it is of any practical relevance, and, frankly, I
hardly dare to ask about double-and-a-half flat/sharp glyphs.
So this would be a slashed triple flat (and I don't even want to think about
how a slashed triple sharp would look like).

Besides, I just noticed my typo ("Thriple") in the subject line carried over
from mail to mail, this is s embarrassing...

All the best,
Torsten




--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Noeck]

Hi,

Am 27.03.2018 um 19:49 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle:
> nobody seems to know what this accidental is for

I've never seen it in real life neither, but it seems to be an
alternative for the ½ flat and 1½ flat signs.

> 1 1/2 flat …
> Symbol is usually the backwards flat sign combined with the normal flat sign 
> … Some prefer to use two flat signs with a slash through it instead.

https://musescore.org/en/node/3807
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter_flat


Thanks, Torsten, for your work!

Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Hi Werner and Abraham,

Thanks for the feedback, we're getting somewhere... :)

As usual, I've kept the slashes as closely as possible to the original
design in the first attempt just to have a basis for discussion.

Eventually, these glyphs are very rare and especially in the case of the
slashed double flat, nobody seems to know what this accidental is for
(Daniel Spreadbury of Dorico even asked about it when filing through the
Emmentaler glyphs and checking his SMuFL fonts for completeness).

To shorten up the process of PDF ping pong, here's a short snippet (using
the original flat designs, of course) that lets you experiment with slash
placement without having to run the Metafont Mill:

%% END SNIPPET
\version "2.19.81"

#(set-global-staff-size 20)

\markup "Custom Slashed Flats"

slashed =
#(define-music-function (parser location p1 p2 note) (pair? pair? ly:music?)
   #{ \override Voice.Accidental.stencil =
  #(lambda (grob)
 (let* ((th (* 1.5 (ly:staff-symbol-line-thickness grob
   (ly:stencil-add
(make-line-stencil th (car p1) (cdr p1) (car p2) (cdr p2))
(ly:accidental-interface::print grob
  $note #})


{
  \slashed #'(-0.5 . 0.7) #'(0.6 . 1.2) { as'4 bes'4 }
  \slashed #'(-0.5 . 0.9) #'(1.3 . 1.5) { ases'4 beses'4 }
}
%% END SNIPPET

The two pairs after the \slashed command just represent the starting and end
point co-ordinates of the slash (in staff spaces).
Slash thickness is set to 1.5 times the save-line thickness (that's the
slash thickness currently used in Feta).


 

So you've got the possibility to play around with the slash positioning
yourself and try to find a satisfactory solution.
I can implement it into the Metafont code, then.

Thanks and have fun,
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Abraham Lee]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:

>
> > I've set up two PDFs for comparing the original and my current
> > working draft design (the triple flat missing in the original
> > design, though).  All existing accidentals containing flats both on
> > and between stave-lines in all design sizes.  In my printout, the
> > opening-up of counters does not look overdone.
> >
> > issue3356-flats-ORIGINAL.pdf
> >  issue3356-flats-ORIGINAL.pdf>
> > issue3356-flats-NEW.pdf
> >  issue3356-flats-NEW.pdf>
>
> Very nice!  Two remarks.
>
> * For smaller sizes I would like the slash through the double flat
>   become asymmetric as an optical counter: the right-hand part should
>   become more extended horizontally.
>
> * The same should probably be applied to other slashes also, but to a
>   lesser extent (and maybe extending on the left-hand side).
>

I agree with Werner on all three statements. They look much much better
now. Thanks for your work on this, Torsten!

Best,
Abraham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Werner LEMBERG]

> I've set up two PDFs for comparing the original and my current
> working draft design (the triple flat missing in the original
> design, though).  All existing accidentals containing flats both on
> and between stave-lines in all design sizes.  In my printout, the
> opening-up of counters does not look overdone.
> 
> issue3356-flats-ORIGINAL.pdf
> 
>   
> issue3356-flats-NEW.pdf
>   

Very nice!  Two remarks.

* For smaller sizes I would like the slash through the double flat
  become asymmetric as an optical counter: the right-hand part should
  become more extended horizontally.

* The same should probably be applied to other slashes also, but to a
  lesser extent (and maybe extending on the left-hand side).


Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Hi all,

Sorry for the long pause, but I was quite occupied with my job (and
music)...



tisimst wrote
> This is really exciting. 

Yes, it certainly is. That's why I'm trying to get it right, or, at least,
find a good compromise.



tisimst wrote
> I do feel like the slash on accidentals.flatflat.slash gets WAY too thick,
> comparatively,
> from really feta-18 and smaller. Maybe I just need to see it in context to
> change my mind. 

When comparing it to the other flats' slashes, it definitely *is* too thick,
especially for small sizes.
I've now adapted it to the rest of the slashes (thickness, symmetry) and
also corrected the left horizontal extent to achieve consistent spacing.



tisimst wrote
> Also, since you brought up the typographic side of the
> design, I feel like the double and triple flat symbols should gradually
> become uncondensed as the point size decreases, starting from maybe
> feta-16, because the counter (the white space inside the flat) almost
> fills
> up all the way, not to mention when it's sitting on a staff line. Keeping
> the full width at that point gives the counter a little more breathing
> room. This is very common for optically sized designs: at smaller caption
> sizes, the shapes become more heavier and more "extended", at larger
> display sizes, the shapes become lighter and more condensed. I think that
> would really bring out the legibility at the smaller point sizes.
> 
> My two cents on the matter,
> Abraham

I totally I agree and I like the idea of applying these conventions to our
flats.
The use of different design sizes has nearly fallen into oblivion in photo
typesetting when PostScript came up with scalable fonts.
Using slightly different font designs for different sizes is one of the
greatest advantages of LilyPond over any other music engraving software, as
far as I know. And at the same time, it's probably one of the least
acknowledged features as LilyPond picks different Emmentaler fonts totally
by itself.

*Original counter behaviour*
* The counter was slightly enlarged for the compressed left flat in the
double flat glyph.
* No direct dependency from the design size.

*New counter and compression "morphing"*
* All flats are equally and moderately compressed in double and triple flat
glyphs
* Compression ceases to zero when approaching smallest design size.
* At the same time, Counter gradually slightly opens up for small design
sizes

I've set up two PDFs for comparing the original and my current working draft
design (the triple flat missing in the original design, though).
All existing accidentals containing flats both on and between stave-lines in
all design sizes.
In my printout, the opening-up of counters does not look overdone.

issue3356-flats-ORIGINAL.pdf
 
 
issue3356-flats-NEW.pdf
  




Urs Liska-3 wrote
> Didn't we even have a GSoC project suggestion for alternative accidental
> glyphs for on/off staffline one day?

And I could swear I've seen separate on-stave-line and between-stave-lines
accidentals in an old Metafont file (feta-accidentals.mf before they were
split up in feta-sharps.mf and feta-flats.mf).
But, at any rate, I'd like to keep this out of the triple-accidental
issue... :)




Simon Albrecht-2 wrote
> Even if I seem to be in a minority here, take my vote in favour of the 
> traditional Feta design. It’s certainly contentious in much the same way 
> as its treble clef, but I like it.

Acknowledged. But whereas the treble clef is very characteristic of LilyPond
and by far the most common clef, double flats are quite rare animals. And a
triple flat is like a Yeti.

All the best,
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[David Kastrup]

Torsten Hämmerle  writes:

> Werner LEMBERG wrote
>>> I just used \score inside a custom markup-command and set the size
>>> by \layout { #(layout-set-staff-size design_size) }
>>> 
>>> It looks as if #(layout-set-staff-size) doesn't scale down all the
>>> distances.
>> 
>> I think this behaviour is correct – the idea is to have staves with
>> different sizes aligned vertically.
>
> The behaviour is correct for a score with mixed-size staves, I agree.
> But the documentation uses #(layout-set-staff-size ...) directly in the
> \layout block at the very end of the score. This suggests that the command
> is meant for the whole score in this case.
> But I'll take a closer look at this on occasion bevor filing a bug report.

Please note that there is also score markup.  I don't want to imply that
score markup is currently being scaled correctly (this turned out a
surprisingly icky thing) but there are uses for them (like trill
executions which should likely not reserve space in the original score)
that might warrant this kind of command.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Werner LEMBERG wrote
>> I just used \score inside a custom markup-command and set the size
>> by \layout { #(layout-set-staff-size design_size) }
>> 
>> It looks as if #(layout-set-staff-size) doesn't scale down all the
>> distances.
> 
> I think this behaviour is correct – the idea is to have staves with
> different sizes aligned vertically.

The behaviour is correct for a score with mixed-size staves, I agree.
But the documentation uses #(layout-set-staff-size ...) directly in the
\layout block at the very end of the score. This suggests that the command
is meant for the whole score in this case.
But I'll take a closer look at this on occasion bevor filing a bug report.



Werner LEMBERG wrote
> There is still one thing that surprises me: The
> distances between accidentals and noteheads increase for smaller
> sizes.  Comparing, say, `feta13' with `feta26', you can see that the
> whitespace before accidentals increases at smaller sizes also.  I'm
> not sure that I really like this for all circumstances.
> [...]

In any case, this is actually standard LilyPond and has nothing to do with
our new accidental glyphs.
To demonstrate this (and the differences between design sizes Abraham and
myself have been referring to), I've set up a tiny example in a totally out
of the box LilyPond 2.19.81 in my Windows 10 installation:

It's driving me nuts that I don't seem to capable of showing different stave
sizes in one PDF without having strange spacing issues:

 BEGIN SNIPPET
\version "2.19.81"

\layout { indent = 0 }

music = \relative c' { c8. ees16( fis8. a16 b8.) gis16 f8. d16 }

\markup \column {
  \score {
\new Staff \with { \magnifyStaff #11/20 } \music
  }
  \scale #'(11/20 . 11/20) \score {
\new Staff \music
  }
}
 END SNIPPET


 

Next, I compared the output of \magnifyStaff to an "ordinary" file using
#(set-global-staff-size 11) using layout control features (all in the
2.19.81 Windows installation).
So the spacing issues you still have are really non-intentional and I'm
currently unsure how to obtain a realistic and natural spacing for the
design size comparisons. Bugger!

 

All the values shown may be scaled, ok, but you'd expect a factor of 0.55
(11/20), but no.
Probably some magstep rounding issues involved, but this cannot be the only
cause.

All the best,
Torsten

All the best,
Torsten




--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Werner LEMBERG]

> I just used \score inside a custom markup-command and set the size
> by \layout { #(layout-set-staff-size design_size) }
> 
> It looks as if #(layout-set-staff-size) doesn't scale down all the
> distances.

I think this behaviour is correct – the idea is to have staves with
different sizes aligned vertically.

> The funny thing is that the "Notation" document claims Known issues
> and warnings: "layout-set-staff-size does not change the distance
> between the staff lines."
> 
> As far as I can see it at the moment, the distance between staff
> lines seems to be one of the few distances it does change.

If you can provide a small MWE I suggest you file a documentation bug
report.

>   
> Now, the spacing looks much (!) better.

Indeed, thanks.  There is still one thing that surprises me: The
distances between accidentals and noteheads increase for smaller
sizes.  Comparing, say, `feta13' with `feta26', you can see that the
whitespace before accidentals increases at smaller sizes also.  I'm
not sure that I really like this for all circumstances.

Pro: It improves appearance if you combine larger and smaller staves.

Con: Pocket scores would have more horizontal whitespace available for
 formatting if accidentals have less whitespace at the left and
 right side.  I will have a look in some manually engraved pocket
 scores to check this.


   Werner
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Urs Liska]

Am 15. März 2018 05:42:33 MEZ schrieb Abraham Lee :
>Hi, Karlin!
>
>On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:13 PM Karlin High 
>wrote:
>
>> On 3/14/2018 6:37 PM, Abraham Lee wrote:
>> > the counter (the white space inside the flat) almost fills up all
>the
>> > way, not to mention when it's sitting on a staff line
>>
>> If a staff line fills counter white-space... I'm thinking a ledger
>line
>> would be even worse.
>>
>I agree, and at smaller sizes even staff lines are thicker relative to
>the
>staff space, filling up the smaller counters even more, which further
>solidifies my observation.
>
>Best,
>Abraham

Didn't we even have a GSoC project suggestion for alternative accidental glyphs 
for on/off staffline one day?

Urs

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Abraham Lee]

Hi, Karlin!

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:13 PM Karlin High  wrote:

> On 3/14/2018 6:37 PM, Abraham Lee wrote:
> > the counter (the white space inside the flat) almost fills up all the
> > way, not to mention when it's sitting on a staff line
>
> If a staff line fills counter white-space... I'm thinking a ledger line
> would be even worse.
>
I agree, and at smaller sizes even staff lines are thicker relative to the
staff space, filling up the smaller counters even more, which further
solidifies my observation.

Best,
Abraham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Karlin High]

On 3/14/2018 6:37 PM, Abraham Lee wrote:
the counter (the white space inside the flat) almost fills up all the 
way, not to mention when it's sitting on a staff line


If a staff line fills counter white-space... I'm thinking a ledger line 
would be even worse.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Abraham Lee]

Hi, Torsten!

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Torsten Hämmerle 
wrote:

> Werner LEMBERG wrote
> > In this proofsheet the spacing for smaller sizes is not `natural'.
> > For example, the distance between the clef and the accidentals for
> > `feta11' is very large.  Is this intentional?  I think it's a bit
> > confusing.
>
> Hmmm, I was wondering, too.
> I just used \score inside a custom markup-command and set the size by
> \layout { #(layout-set-staff-size design_size) }
>
> It looks as if #(layout-set-staff-size) doesn't scale down all the
> distances.
> The key signatures all start at the same positions, independent of the
> stave
> size...
>
> The funny thing is that the "Notation" document claims
> Known issues and warnings: "layout-set-staff-size does not change the
> distance between the staff lines."
>
> As far as I can see it at the moment, the distance between staff lines
> seems
> to be one of the few distances it does change.
>
> Well, that's a brilliant opportunity for checking out the brand-new
> \magnifyStaff functionality - e voilà !
>
> *Next attempt:*
> issue3356-proofsheet.pdf
>  >
> Now, the spacing looks much (!) better.
>

Thanks so much for heading this on! This is really exciting. I do feel like
the slash on accidentals.flatflat.slash gets WAY too thick, comparatively,
from really feta-18 and smaller. Maybe I just need to see it in context to
change my mind. Also, since you brought up the typographic side of the
design, I feel like the double and triple flat symbols should gradually
become uncondensed as the point size decreases, starting from maybe
feta-16, because the counter (the white space inside the flat) almost fills
up all the way, not to mention when it's sitting on a staff line. Keeping
the full width at that point gives the counter a little more breathing
room. This is very common for optically sized designs: at smaller caption
sizes, the shapes become more heavier and more "extended", at larger
display sizes, the shapes become lighter and more condensed. I think that
would really bring out the legibility at the smaller point sizes.

My two cents on the matter,
Abraham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Werner LEMBERG wrote
> In this proofsheet the spacing for smaller sizes is not `natural'.
> For example, the distance between the clef and the accidentals for
> `feta11' is very large.  Is this intentional?  I think it's a bit
> confusing.

Hmmm, I was wondering, too.
I just used \score inside a custom markup-command and set the size by 
\layout { #(layout-set-staff-size design_size) }

It looks as if #(layout-set-staff-size) doesn't scale down all the
distances.
The key signatures all start at the same positions, independent of the stave
size...

The funny thing is that the "Notation" document claims 
Known issues and warnings: "layout-set-staff-size does not change the
distance between the staff lines."

As far as I can see it at the moment, the distance between staff lines seems
to be one of the few distances it does change.

Well, that's a brilliant opportunity for checking out the brand-new
\magnifyStaff functionality - e voilà !

*Next attempt:*
issue3356-proofsheet.pdf
  
Now, the spacing looks much (!) better.



Werner LEMBERG wrote
> And there is a typo: s/astificially/artificially/.

Yes, thank you, I noticed it just about three seconds after pushing the
"post message" button (that's typical of me...)


Thanks for the observation(s)
Torsten




--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Thanks, Sam,

As regards microtonal glyphs, we should probably keep things separate.
If you have any suggestions, this list is a good place to discuss them.

The user list is even more suited because some things are rather a question
of design than a technical thing.
Once "the community", or part of, has formed an opinion, we may open up an
issue in the issue tracker and hope for somebody to work on it.

All the best,
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Werner LEMBERG]

> Please find attached the proofsheet I'm planning to attach to the
> issue tracker (if nothing dreadful happens).  There's also a concise
> test of \chordmode and note entry. MIDI output isn't contained, but
> it's working as it should.
> 
> issue3356-proofsheet.pdf
>   

In this proofsheet the spacing for smaller sizes is not `natural'.
For example, the distance between the clef and the accidentals for
`feta11' is very large.  Is this intentional?  I think it's a bit
confusing.

And there is a typo: s/astificially/artificially/.


Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Sam Bivens]

Hi Torsten,

This looks really wonderful; terrific work!

While we're here, can anyone provide an update on microtonal work in 
LilyPond? I seem to remember a git project a few years ago but haven't 
heard anything since. Has anyone done any microtonal or spectralist 
notation with Lily recently?


I ask in case this is a good time to create microtonal glyphs; I'm happy 
to help in any way I can (even if it might be minimal).


Thanks,

Sam


On 03/14/2018 03:22 PM, Torsten Hämmerle wrote:

Dear all,

After thorough considerations and evaluating your answers, I think I've
chosen to implement Abraham's "equally condensed flats" proposal.

Now that I've set up a proofsheet showing all Feta design sizes from 11 to
26 both in music examples and a uniformly scaled (artificial) proofing size
for comparison on page 2, I'll have to say the the slightly but uniformly
condensed version seemed to be the best of all.

Werner and Joram came to the same conclusion and others had nothing negative
to say about it, either (except Urs, probably).

There are several advantages of this design:
(1) The double flat glyph width has remained exactly the same so that this
will not affect the overall LilyPond spacing
(2) It's closest to the original
(3) Looks good (to me, among others) in all the sizes
(4) The triple flat ligature (using the same compression as the double flat)
isn't too wide either.

I've also unified some inconsistent parameter values (0.31 vs. 1/3) that
gave the counters an inconsistent look in some of the flat stencils.

Please find attached the proofsheet I'm planning to attach to the issue
tracker (if nothing dreadful happens).
There's also a concise test of \chordmode and note entry. MIDI output isn't
contained, but it's working as it should.

issue3356-proofsheet.pdf


Thanks for all the support and advice,
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


--
Sam Bivens
Music Theory Faculty | Cleveland Institute of Music
Ph.D. Candidate | Eastman School of Music

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Urs Liska]

Am 14. März 2018 20:22:20 MEZ schrieb "Torsten Hämmerle" 
:
>Dear all,
..
> and others had nothing
>negative
>to say about it, either (except Urs, probably).

Just stating that I don't have a strong opinion on that and will be fine with 
whatever solution you'll come up with.

Urs


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Dear all,

After thorough considerations and evaluating your answers, I think I've
chosen to implement Abraham's "equally condensed flats" proposal.

Now that I've set up a proofsheet showing all Feta design sizes from 11 to
26 both in music examples and a uniformly scaled (artificial) proofing size
for comparison on page 2, I'll have to say the the slightly but uniformly
condensed version seemed to be the best of all. 

Werner and Joram came to the same conclusion and others had nothing negative
to say about it, either (except Urs, probably).

There are several advantages of this design:
(1) The double flat glyph width has remained exactly the same so that this
will not affect the overall LilyPond spacing
(2) It's closest to the original 
(3) Looks good (to me, among others) in all the sizes
(4) The triple flat ligature (using the same compression as the double flat)
isn't too wide either.

I've also unified some inconsistent parameter values (0.31 vs. 1/3) that
gave the counters an inconsistent look in some of the flat stencils.

Please find attached the proofsheet I'm planning to attach to the issue
tracker (if nothing dreadful happens).
There's also a concise test of \chordmode and note entry. MIDI output isn't
contained, but it's working as it should.

issue3356-proofsheet.pdf
  

Thanks for all the support and advice,
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Noeck]

Hi Torsten,

I withdraw my vote for 3. When comparing your recent pdfs, I join
Werner's statement. The bb and bbb glyphs just look too wide (4) or too
thin/too overlapping (3) otherwise.

I prefer the condensed form (version 2).

Cheers,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Werner LEMBERG]

> Version 2: Abrahams equalized flats:
> test-issue3356-condensed.pdf
> 
>   

Thanks.  And this is still my preferred version.


   Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Stefano Troncaro wrote
> Hi Torsten, I'm undecided between the second and the third. Would it be
> possible to compare them in a musical example?

Hi Stefano,

it took some time till I had a chance to compile the whole thing with
different parameter settings, but here you go:

Version 2: Abrahams equalized flats:
test-issue3356-condensed.pdf
 
 

Version 3: "Real" flats with maximum overlap:
test-issue3356-maximum-overlap.pdf

  

I'm going to set up a sheet showing all design sizes, but at the moment I'm
feeling like drunk (double vision, even triple vision, dreaming of blurry
flats all over the place...)

All the best,
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Noeck wrote
> I like your "intermediate 3/4 pdf".
> In a very large size (your pdf 400%) they look perfect to me.
> It is hard to tell with the limited resolution of a monitor, but in
> usual sizes (100%) they might be too much overlapping (i.e. still moving
> a little bit towards version 4 might be preferable).
> Printed on paper, the pdf looks right and doesn't need less overlap to
> my eyes.

Yes, I just determined the amount of overlap by the look.
But in any case there'd be still work to do for the other design sizes (11
to 26) of Emmentaler.
The proportions slightly change, and for smaller sizes, we'll need less
overlap, for bigger sizes, there may be more overlap.
It's like in (good) typography: Kernings can be quite extreme in large sizes
(posters, headings), whereas in smaller print (novels) they are much more
subtle and in very small pring (excyclopedias, patient information leaflets)
there is hardly any kerning and the overall letter-spacing is wider.

So, I'll have to calculate the overlap from the design size, as it looks
like...

All the best,
Torsten 



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Noeck]

Hi Torsten,

I am in favour of version 3 (or between 3 and 4).
Equally spaced, full-sized flats with maximal overlap. I think, saving
horizontal width is important.

I like your "intermediate 3/4 pdf".
In a very large size (your pdf 400%) they look perfect to me.
It is hard to tell with the limited resolution of a monitor, but in
usual sizes (100%) they might be too much overlapping (i.e. still moving
a little bit towards version 4 might be preferable).
Printed on paper, the pdf looks right and doesn't need less overlap to
my eyes.

Cheers,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Stefano Troncaro]

Hi Torsten, I'm undecided between the second and the third. Would it be
possible to compare them in a musical example?

2018-03-13 12:38 GMT-03:00 Werner LEMBERG :

>
> Nice work!
>
> > 2. Abraham's equally compressed flats
> >
> > Both flats are equally compressed as a compromise, thus keeping the
> > original glyph width:
> >
> >  flat-2-abraham-equal.png>
>
> This is my favourite.
>
>
> Werner
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Urs Liska-3 wrote
> If I had to choose between 3) and 4) I would go for 4), but actually I'd 
> suggest to go for something between those two.

Good point. To narrow down the number of suggestions, I just took the
extreme cases. If we go for natural width flats, the overlap can be
optimized.


Urs Liska-3 wrote
> The problem I have with 3) is the upper edge of the intersection between 
> the left and right glyph: I have the impression (although this should be 
> verified in a realistic-sized setting with notational context) that this 
> section is somewhat blurred because the line is still nearly horizontal 
> at the intersection.

Yes, these big proof versions may be fine, but in the end, they'll have to
be reviewed in realistic sizes (and, by the way, in all Emmentaler sizes
from 11 to 26.

My personal "ideal" double-flat overlap would be so that the upper arches
(thinking the stems away) form nice and harmonic arcades like they do in the
Antiqua letter m, if you know what I mean...

Here you go with my issue3356 testing PDF, this time with an intermediate
3./4. version:
test-issue3356.pdf
  

All the best,
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Werner LEMBERG]

Nice work!

> 2. Abraham's equally compressed flats
> 
> Both flats are equally compressed as a compromise, thus keeping the
> original glyph width:
> 
> 
>  

This is my favourite.


Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Urs Liska]

Hi Torsten,

thank you for that comparison.


Am 13.03.2018 um 15:52 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle:

...

Double-flat alternatives in comparison

In the old discussions mentioned in some of the answers, Abraham proposed a
compromise that kept the original glyph width by applying an average
compression to both flats.

I've used MetaFont's proof sheets (with outlines so show how the flat
symbols are put together on the left and the filled-in normal versions to
check the visual appearance).
There has been some manual cleansing of distracting outlines of superimposed
parts and I've unified some parameters that made the counter (the small
"hole" in the flat symbol) look slightly different in some accidentals
containing flats.

1. Original Feta design

The compressed left flat even "bites off" part of the lower stem and makes
it look considerably thinner. And the compression of the left flat only
reminds me of a rear-shunt car crash, sort of... ;)



2. Abraham's equally compressed flats

Both flats are equally compressed as a compromise, thus keeping the original
glyph width:



3. Torsten's "real" flats with maximum overlap

Both flats are "real" unaltered flats. Maximum overlap makes the double-flat
glyph only marginally wider than the original design (cf. Dorico's Bravura
font):



4. Abraham's "real" flats with minimum overlap

Both flats are "real" unaltered flats, there is only a slight overlap. This
is the widest of all the designs mentioned here (cf. Sibelius' Opus font):



All the graphics have exactly the same height/width and glyph positioning,
so you can download them and flip through them to directly see how the
design slightly changes from image to image and gradually widens up.

What do you think?


I would vote for changing the current design, i.e. rule out version 1)

I don't really like the compressed version 2)

If I had to choose between 3) and 4) I would go for 4), but actually I'd 
suggest to go for something between those two.
The problem with 4) is obviously (and only) that it takes much 
horizontal space - especially if you extend it to triple flats.
The problem I have with 3) is the upper edge of the intersection between 
the left and right glyph: I have the impression (although this should be 
verified in a realistic-sized setting with notational context) that this 
section is somewhat blurred because the line is still nearly horizontal 
at the intersection.


Urs



Thanks for the support,
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

First of all,

Thank you very much for all the feedback!
Sorry I didn't dig the archives myself, but initially I took the original
Feta designs for granted and carved in stone.

Where did the original double-flat design come from?

Music(X)TeX was a good guess, but the Music(X)TeX accidentals look
completely different.
Thinking of the introductory LilyPond Background Essay, there's a  section
about the flat symbol design

  
and they mention Henle (computer typesetting) compared to Bärenreiter (hand
engraving). 
When looking at the examples, the LilyPond flat seems to have been derived
from the Bärenreiter stencil.

*Conclusion:* Bärenreiter use standard flat widths for double-flat flats, so
I don't see why we shouldn't adapt the existing Feta double-flat accidentals
and create a matching (triple-flat, of course).
Without Abraham's encouragement I'd never have dared touch the original Feta
designs, though.
Basically, nobody but LilyPond seems to use a compressed left flat. 

Double-flat alternatives in comparison

In the old discussions mentioned in some of the answers, Abraham proposed a
compromise that kept the original glyph width by applying an average
compression to both flats.

I've used MetaFont's proof sheets (with outlines so show how the flat
symbols are put together on the left and the filled-in normal versions to
check the visual appearance).
There has been some manual cleansing of distracting outlines of superimposed
parts and I've unified some parameters that made the counter (the small
"hole" in the flat symbol) look slightly different in some accidentals
containing flats.

1. Original Feta design

The compressed left flat even "bites off" part of the lower stem and makes
it look considerably thinner. And the compression of the left flat only
reminds me of a rear-shunt car crash, sort of... ;)

 

2. Abraham's equally compressed flats

Both flats are equally compressed as a compromise, thus keeping the original
glyph width:


 

3. Torsten's "real" flats with maximum overlap

Both flats are "real" unaltered flats. Maximum overlap makes the double-flat
glyph only marginally wider than the original design (cf. Dorico's Bravura
font):


 

4. Abraham's "real" flats with minimum overlap

Both flats are "real" unaltered flats, there is only a slight overlap. This
is the widest of all the designs mentioned here (cf. Sibelius' Opus font):


 

All the graphics have exactly the same height/width and glyph positioning,
so you can download them and flip through them to directly see how the
design slightly changes from image to image and gradually widens up.

What do you think?

Thanks for the support,
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Karlin High]

On 3/12/2018 3:36 PM, Karlin High wrote:
Unless MusiXTeX and MusicTex are different projects? With TeX variants, 
I never can tell.


Ah, this fits my TeX experience so far: apparently there is one MusicTeX 
and two different MusiXTeX projects. Among other related projects.



--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Noeck]

Hi,

from what I learned (only in the last days), #x seems to be the "default".

I like your suggestions, Torsten. When looking at the triple flat, I
wondered why it is so inconsistent – only discovering later that it is
the bb part that is inconsistent not the third b that you added.
In short, I have the same aesthetic issue as Abraham.
But it only really bothers me for the triple flat.

What I would prefer: what you called "equalized flats" here:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Music-glyph-design-choices-td179329.html
or just a little wider hole in the first b (matching the second b's hole).
Because:
 * The two b's are the same width
 * The overlap is a good way to obviously combine the two into one glyph
 * It saves some horizontal space (and the bb is alread quite large
   compared to the double-sharp)

The triple-flat would then naturally follow the same scheme.

Why is the bb currently like it is? I don't know, but since we could not
find any answer yet, here is some pure speculation (which I gladly
withdraw in case there are further references to LP's history):
* It makes sense to horizontally shorten the bb glyph
* In order to highlight that the two b's belong together, it makes sense
  to ensure that the 'stems' are close, so this is the part that needs
  compression. The other round part on the right can stay 'normal'.
* The first b's round part might just be shortened to no protude into
  the hole of the second b while overlapping. By doing so, the hole got
  shortened accidentally (?). I tried in an SVG-Editor and widening the
  first hole to the size of the second does not look too bad.
* Some deviation from total perfection makes a score look more handmade.

Perhaps it's all wrong. That just comes to my mind and might be worth
considering when thinking about a better design.

I actually start liking the current bb-design :)


@Torsten again: your triple-sharp proposal is probably the best one can
get (the right distance between the two in my eyes, are there any other
free parameters?). I agree with Urs, it's not a nice looking accidental
but seems to be the convention.


tl;dr: I like your proposal and can only add speculation to the
discussion ...

Cheers,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Karlin High]

On 3/12/2018 2:59 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

Perhaps worth checking how MusicTeX fonts (derived from MuTeX work)
looked.


Google led to...

...which led to Werner Icking Music Archive, which led to...

Apparently that's a reference for MusiXTeX commands.

Archive.org's oldest copy of that page is from Nov 2003:


And that seems to have equal-width double-flats. Screenshot of enlarged 
PDF attached.


Unless MusiXTeX and MusicTex are different projects? With TeX variants, 
I never can tell.





Another reference is also showing equal-width double-flats.
 
PDF page 25, numbered page 23

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[David Kastrup]

Karlin High  writes:

> On 3/12/2018 12:17 PM, Torsten Hämmerle wrote:
>> this would mean changing a traditional Feta design traded down from
>> generation to generation
>
> Any chance of finding the discussion where the current design
> originated? A lilypond-devel thread from 2015 has Han-Wen Nienhuys
> saying he doesn't recall.
>
> 

Perhaps worth checking how MusicTeX fonts (derived from MuTeX work)
looked.  I might be wrong about this but I think that they were sort of
a starting point for LilyPond work.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Karlin High]

On 3/12/2018 12:17 PM, Torsten Hämmerle wrote:

this would mean changing a traditional Feta design traded down from
generation to generation


Any chance of finding the discussion where the current design 
originated? A lilypond-devel thread from 2015 has Han-Wen Nienhuys 
saying he doesn't recall.



--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Timothy Lanfear]

There is (among others) a third example containing a rather unfortunate #x
that takes a lot of horizontal space as the # can't be squeezed below the
dot (it's too high).

The glyphs are built using existing character drawing routines and bouding
box widths exactly match the original character's left and right "margins".




If you need another example (Alkan again) 
http://ks.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/2/2b/IMSLP22037-PMLP50562-Alkan_-_Sonata_Les_Quatre_Ages_op_33_(50_P).pdf, 
page 31


--
Timothy Lanfear, Bristol, UK.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Hi Abraham,

Thanks for chiming in!



tisimst wrote
> I agree that it should be #x and not x#.

Ok, then this seems to be settled. :)



tisimst wrote
> Can I make a request while you're in the mode? Can we please, please,
> PLEASE, make the double flat look correct?
> [...]

Yes, you can, and you should, that's why I'm asking here on the list before
providing finished a patch.



tisimst wrote
> Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this way. 

Well, we are at least two, but I think your assessment weighs heavily,
you've got a reputation and great expertise when it comes to music fonts,
that's beyond doubt.
My first aim was to create a triple-flat that matches and carries forward
the existing designs (without questioning them, I took them for granted).
If it were up to me, I'd happily change the double-flat glyph (and,
consequently, the triple-flat, too).

*But* this would mean changing a traditional Feta design traded down from
generation to generation (another case would be the controversial treble
clef), and I don't feel empowered to just do it without general consent.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to raise an "official" request (don't know
how exactly such things should be handled). Looking at your gorgeous music
fonts, I think you're entitled to ask this kind of questions.

But what I'll do in any case (no time this evening, but the issue has been
lurking for years) is adapt the multiple-flat-glyphs in my testing lab and
preset this in a PDF file - then everybody can compare old and new versions
directly and we can come to a conclusion.

Until then,
Torsten




--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Urs Liska-3 wrote
> I can't comment on the implementation, but IMHO it looks fine.

Thanks, that's all I wanted to know here on the user list.
The actual implementation isn't perfectly complete anyway (and I'll have to
do a lot of testing because note names and accidentals are terribly basic
stuff...)

Abraham has just sent a reply regarding the glyph double-flat (and,
consequently, new triple-flat) appearance, it starts getting interesting...
:)



Urs Liska-3 wrote
> Why is that so? From the actual height on the page there shouldn't be an 
> issue having it below the dot. Is there a padding or an Y-extent that 
> disturbes?

Just about 3 seconds after pressing the "Post Message" button I asked myself
the same question.
Optically, it shouldn't be a problem to shove the #x under the dot, the
vertical dimensions are according to the # standard, hmmm... 
I'll have a closer look at this (probably tomorrow, at the moment I've just
messed up something and can't compile the documentation anymore...).

All the best,
Torsten





--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Abraham Lee]

Hi, Torsten!

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Torsten Hämmerle  wrote:

> Hi Urs,
>
> Many thanks for having a look.
>
>
>
> Urs Liska-3 wrote
> > I don't like the combination of sharp plus doublesharp - but if that's
> > the way it seems to be done, then we shouldn't invent something new.
>
> I'm not too happy about it either, that's one of the reasons I'm asking
> here.
> The only "allowed" variation would be the tiny gap between the # and the
> x...
> (or swapping to x# instead of #x, but that doesn't seem to be the current
> "standard", if one can speak of a standard at all).
>
>
>
> Urs Liska-3 wrote
> > Could you please resend the example image without the circles? I'd like
> > to get an impression of the actual looks on the page.
>
> Yes, of course!
> I'll attach the whole page I'm currently testing with as a PDF file, then
> you can have a thorough look at any desired magnification.
>
> test-issue3356.pdf
> 
>
> There is (among others) a third example containing a rather unfortunate #x
> that takes a lot of horizontal space as the # can't be squeezed below the
> dot (it's too high).
>
> The glyphs are built using existing character drawing routines and bouding
> box widths exactly match the original character's left and right "margins".


Thanks for adding this! I don't see why LilyPond shouldn't have it if there
might be someone who will expect it to be there. This is great! I agree
that it should be #x and not x#.

Can I make a request while you're in the mode? Can we please, please,
PLEASE, make the double flat look correct? It has always looked so odd to
me to have the left flat be condensed while the other is normal width. I
know it will mean the glyph will get a little bit wider, but it just looks
so wrong to me. In all of printed literature that I've seen they are always
full-width flats, even when overlapping. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks
this way. The condensed look is way more obvious in the triple flat and so
my request there would be the same (i.e., all flats the original width
instead of only the right-most one and the others condensed).

Thanks again,
Abraham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Urs Liska]

Am 12.03.2018 um 17:07 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle:

Hi Urs,

Many thanks for having a look.



Urs Liska-3 wrote

I don't like the combination of sharp plus doublesharp - but if that's
the way it seems to be done, then we shouldn't invent something new.

I'm not too happy about it either, that's one of the reasons I'm asking
here.
The only "allowed" variation would be the tiny gap between the # and the
x...
(or swapping to x# instead of #x, but that doesn't seem to be the current
"standard", if one can speak of a standard at all).



Urs Liska-3 wrote

Could you please resend the example image without the circles? I'd like
to get an impression of the actual looks on the page.

Yes, of course!
I'll attach the whole page I'm currently testing with as a PDF file, then
you can have a thorough look at any desired magnification.

test-issue3356.pdf


There is (among others) a third example containing a rather unfortunate #x
that takes a lot of horizontal space as the # can't be squeezed below the
dot (it's too high).


Why is that so? From the actual height on the page there shouldn't be an 
issue having it below the dot. Is there a padding or an Y-extent that 
disturbes?




The glyphs are built using existing character drawing routines and bouding
box widths exactly match the original character's left and right "margins".


I can't comment on the implementation, but IMHO it looks fine.

Best
Urs



Thanks again
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Hi Urs,

Many thanks for having a look.



Urs Liska-3 wrote
> I don't like the combination of sharp plus doublesharp - but if that's 
> the way it seems to be done, then we shouldn't invent something new.

I'm not too happy about it either, that's one of the reasons I'm asking
here.
The only "allowed" variation would be the tiny gap between the # and the
x...
(or swapping to x# instead of #x, but that doesn't seem to be the current
"standard", if one can speak of a standard at all).



Urs Liska-3 wrote
> Could you please resend the example image without the circles? I'd like 
> to get an impression of the actual looks on the page.

Yes, of course!
I'll attach the whole page I'm currently testing with as a PDF file, then
you can have a thorough look at any desired magnification.

test-issue3356.pdf
  

There is (among others) a third example containing a rather unfortunate #x
that takes a lot of horizontal space as the # can't be squeezed below the
dot (it's too high).

The glyphs are built using existing character drawing routines and bouding
box widths exactly match the original character's left and right "margins".

Thanks again
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Urs Liska]

Am 12.03.2018 um 15:41 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle:

Dear LilyPond user community,

As the issue reappeared again, I'm currently implementing triple
flats/sharps (as exotic as they may be).

There are very few examples and therefore, I'd like to ask the community at
large what they think about the glyphs I've prepared.
It's a question of design (and usability), that's why I'm not writing to the
development list for this inquiry.


*Triple flat*

You can find a combination of flat and flatflat ligature.
This takes up a lot of space and, to me, looks rather uneven.
Therefore, I've created a triple-ligature by adding another (slightly
compressed) left b to the existing bb glyph.
  
The new note names for triple-flat just extend the existing standard (e.g.

Suffixes -fff in English, -eseses in Dutch, -bbb in French/Spanish/... etc.)


*Triple sharp*

Common representation seems to be #x, albeit there is an example of x#.
I'm going for #x.

The English note names for double-sharp can be coded with suffix -ss and -x
(mimicking the double-sharp cross symbol).
English note names for triple sharp:
Suffix -sss and -sx (because of #x)
All other languages: extending the standard

The are mainly two real-life examples hovering in the internet (Reger and
Alkan):
Real-life triple flat example (Reger)

Real-Life triple sharp example (Alkan)


The two new signs demonstrated in simplified excerpts taken from the above
examples currently look like:



Any comments, improvement proposals, complaints, Vetos?


I don't like the combination of sharp plus doublesharp - but if that's 
the way it seems to be done, then we shouldn't invent something new.


Could you please resend the example image without the circles? I'd like 
to get an impression of the actual looks on the page.


Urs


Thanks for having a look
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Dear LilyPond user community,

As the issue reappeared again, I'm currently implementing triple
flats/sharps (as exotic as they may be).

There are very few examples and therefore, I'd like to ask the community at
large what they think about the glyphs I've prepared.
It's a question of design (and usability), that's why I'm not writing to the
development list for this inquiry.


*Triple flat*

You can find a combination of flat and flatflat ligature.
This takes up a lot of space and, to me, looks rather uneven.
Therefore, I've created a triple-ligature by adding another (slightly
compressed) left b to the existing bb glyph.
 
The new note names for triple-flat just extend the existing standard (e.g.
Suffixes -fff in English, -eseses in Dutch, -bbb in French/Spanish/... etc.)


*Triple sharp*

Common representation seems to be #x, albeit there is an example of x#.
I'm going for #x.

The English note names for double-sharp can be coded with suffix -ss and -x
(mimicking the double-sharp cross symbol).
English note names for triple sharp:
Suffix -sss and -sx (because of #x)
All other languages: extending the standard

The are mainly two real-life examples hovering in the internet (Reger and
Alkan):
Real-life triple flat example (Reger)
  
Real-Life triple sharp example (Alkan)
  

The two new signs demonstrated in simplified excerpts taken from the above
examples currently look like:


 

Any comments, improvement proposals, complaints, Vetos?

Thanks for having a look
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user