Re: Experiences with smaller staff sizes?

[Keith OHara]

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.