Hello list, I have a dense chord with a lot of accidentals I need to typeset. The accidental placement that Lilypond comes up with looks a little too far from the note heads for me, but I'm struggling to find something better. I came up with three other configurations but I'm not sure which is better (see attached and also the LilyPond source file that created them.)
A) is how LilyPond places the accidentals without any outside aid. B) is with the accidentals in the same configuration, but a little closer to the note heads. C) is how the edition I'm working from does it, and D) is my own stab at it. I have two questions: which looks better, A, B, C, or D? And is there a better way to manipulate the accidental placements other than forcing the X-offsets? -- Knute Snortum
\version "2.24.3" \language "english" \relative { \mark A << { <b''! gs f! d>8 } \\ { <b,! gs f! d>8 } >> } \relative { \mark B << { < \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -2 b''! \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -4 gs \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -2.8 f! d >8 } \\ { < \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -2 b,! \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -4 gs \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -2.7 f! d >8 } >> } \relative { \mark C << { < \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -1 b''! \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -2.4 gs \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -3.5 f! d >8 } \\ { < \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -1 b,! \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -2.5 gs \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -3.5 f! d >8 } >> } \relative { \mark D << { < \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -1 b''! \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -2.3 gs \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -3.2 f! d >8 } \\ { < \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -2.4 b,! \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -4.4 gs \single \override Accidental.X-offset = -3.1 f! d >8 } >> }