On 14.10.2016 20:11, Gilberto Agostinho wrote:
Hi Simon,
I think part of the problem is that the amount of collision is not even
constant for the cases above. Compare the very bottom system on the image I
posted, note how the flag barely touches the bottom note a' but completely
collides with the bottom e'.
Of course it isn’t constant, because stem length isn’t constant, and
shouldn’t be. The ‘easiest’ description I can think of is that in
classical engraving there is a kind of ‘gravity’ towards the center of
the staff, which among other things makes stem length depend on staff
position (of the note head(s)). Why? To save vertical space, to achieve
a less jagged contour, and indeed I believe it eases reading.
At least you’d have to give very good evidence and convince a large
majority that it would be better to avoid this at the expense of longer
stems.
Or of shorter flags. Elaine Gould writes on p. 16 of her /Behind Bars/:
"[s]o that tails do not touch the noteheads of down-stemmed notes, some
editions shorten the tails while others lengthen the stems."
‘Tails’? Really? I’ve never heard that word in engraving context.
You can notice how inconsistent the distance between noteheads and flags is
in the top system of this example below:
Of course it is inconsistent and must be:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\version "2.19.47"
\relative {
\voiceTwo
\autoBeamOff
\time 7/8
b8 c d e f g a
b c d e f g a
b c d e f g a
b
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
(output attached)
Best, Simon
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
