>> Not really. The problem with this sample is that this Eulenburg
>> edition is far too small to really show high typography. While it
>> leads the eye well, it exhibits far too much other typographical
>> defects, for example the second and last beam, both presenting
>> those small white triangles which should *never* be present in
>> former times since they can be flooded with ink as soon as the
>> printing plate gets used a bit. If you want to show us good
>> typography please refer to a large score for a piano solo piece,
>> say.
>
> I don't feel that it is important to consider the plate printing
> dilemmas in computer output. My intention was to show the repeated
> notes, only the stem lenghts, not to imply that the example is
> extraordinary typography. I can see that the stems are the same
> lenght when the notes are repeated.
It's similar to book printing: The tradition in engraving accumulated
over more than 100 years *defines* good music typography -- we got
accustomed to it, and we even expect it. From this point of view,
your Eulenburg example is badly engraved. And handling plate printing
dilemmas correctly will bring us a step nearer to well looking scores.
Werner
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
