Re: Henle piano template

[David Rogers]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hi Urs (et al.),
>>
>>> I'm probably biased but I find the appearance of the 'old' score
>> infinitely superior.
>>
>> Immediately, one notices [in the newer version] what a poor choice it
>> is to have the triplet number (over the middle of the triplet) above,
>> as it is easily confused with the fingering number immediately to its
>> right.
>>
>>>> in general, we are more interested in the inspiration by state of
>>>> the art plate engraving rather than state of the art computer engraving,
>>>> since LilyPond wants to be a frontrunner in computer engraving.
>>
>> Agreed — I will always be aiming for that with these stylesheets.
>
> Well, that's a bit like making a Bauhaus impression by picking the right
> tapestry: the main responsibility lies with the placement and spacing
> algorithms, and the stylesheets then have to combine with them into a
> coherent whole with a consistent look that avoids making the algorithms
> fall apart.
>
> So the stylesheets are sort of coevolving with the algorithms
> responsible for the _work_ part of our look.


I admit that I don't really understand any of what you just said,
David. Maybe I'm about to say almost the same thing, or the opposite, or
unrelated - I can't quite tell.

Some very significant reasons IMO that the old Henle score looks
"Henle":

- the notehead shapes

- the stem thickness (to my eyes, thinner relative to noteheads than LP)

- the notehead size relative to staff size (Henle's noteheads are
  subjectively "fat" or "slightly over-sized" compared to LP; just my
  opinion, I didn't measure. Maybe it's tight spacing fooling my
  eyes...)

- the staff-space relative to page size (relatively large I think)

- the default-staff-staff-spacing (relatively smaller than LP default, I
  think)

- the horizontal spacing algorithms (a big one IMO, doesn't sound easy)

- the clef styles


... and if I wanted to make my score look "Henle", I would think at
least some of those things would have to be first on the list. They
might be regarded as "just cosmetic", but this whole exercise is about
the cosmetic, isn't it?


For example, without the Henle notehead shapes/sizes, staff-space
adjustments, and stem thicknesses, I think everything else in a Henle
template will (should!) look "off" until they are brought in. Am I
totally off track?

-- 
David R