Re: Alternative music font

[Marc Hohl]

David Kastrup schrieb:
> Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:
>
>   
> > Carl Sorensen schrieb:
> >
> >     
> > > Looks good to me.  I'd also like to see half-way between this attempt
> > > and the first attempt, not because I think this is wrong, but because
> > > I tend to find optimum settings by finding "not enough" and "too
> > > much" and going between those two.
> > >   
> > >       
> > Here you are!
> >     
>
> If you cast this clef from iron and put it on a flat surface, it will
> fall over to the right. 
This is why I weld my iron-cast clefs onto the metal staff lines ;-)

>  The low bowl is now moved to the left into a
> position of imbalance.  The spine is more or less only straightened in
> its lower part.  I have the feeling that the bottom of the bowl should
> be a bit more to the right, maybe it needs to be narrower.  Possibly
> straightening the spine should not be mostly done at the bottom, but a
> bit more symmetrically.  If spine and bowl are connected by a hinge at
> the top of the clef, the overall construct should be more or less in
> (visual) equilibrium, with neither the spine part nor the suspended bowl
> part falling to the left or right.
>
> In other words: I have the feeling that the current changes are about
> balancing the total of two imbalanced parts, where the parts themselves
> may need a bit of care.
>   
Hm. I tried not to change too much while rotating the clef, as it was 
suggested
by Carl and kind of approved by Han-Wen. So my first attempt was just to 
correct
the "main" axis, but this yields to a unbalanced bottom. So I moved the 
lower bulb
slightly to the right.

Making the spine nore straight so that the curl/bowl is intersected
more symmetrically whould affect the upper loop - perhaps too much,
and I definitely don't want to redesign the clef from scratch.

I thought about makeing the bulb a bit smaller to decrease the 
"left-handedness"
of the clef, but then again, the apperarance in comparison to the bass 
clef would suffer.
> I am no font designer, so please don't take this as any qualified
> analysis.  If it inspires you to try something for which you like the
> overall result better, that's fine.  If not, that's fine too.  It's just
> a bit of brainstorming, not more.
>   
My "strategy" would read as follows: I'd like to leave the clef with the 
small
corrections applied; I plan to work on the alternate segno sign (issue #659;
perhaps this will lead to two new signs, because I have seen signs with
two internal loops as well as wih three) - at the end, I hope to have gained
more insight into the font design, so I'll have enough skills to do a finer
correction of the clef if necessary.

Greetings,

Marc