Urs Liska <ul <at> openlilylib.org> writes: > When I started using LilyPond I was impressed by the default look and > feel of the scores. Rather often I felt the need to fit more music on > the page, and for a beginner the most natural (and probably only) way to > achieve this is to globally reduce the staff size. But when reduced > staff size to about 17 or even less for some kinds of scores I found the > overall impression much less impressive than before. While still being > beautifully balanced and laid out it became somewhat anemic. >
I know that you know that LilyPond does not simply scale down the lines and fonts, but uses relatively heavier weights at the smaller staff-sizes. It sounds like you feel the effect should be stronger. I use 15 to 22-point staff-heights, and find the results easily readable. Miniature scores, with about a 12-point staff, from LilyPond are not as heavy as traditionally-engraved miniature scores. Personally, the word 'clean' comes to mind before 'anemic' when I compare LilyPond scores at small sizes to the lock of older "pocket scores", but I see what you mean. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user