[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Feature request: 'line' articulation

From: Michael Käppler
Subject: Re: Feature request: 'line' articulation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:54:37 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20071114)

Me too, #4 or #5. But I think the long stroke could be longer, maybe
1.2*staff_space or so?

Like in the attached file? In this case, I'm inclined to favour #5 (or
maybe even #6), but I'm only judging this based on the appearance on
the screen because I don't have a good printer at hand. Thus any
further opinions or suggestions for improvement are still very
I've just printed your pdf now: #5 is definitely too thick in my opinion. Maybe #3 is already enough, let's wait for more opinions. As a little nitpick I would suggest to raise the stroke a little bit more above the stem.

Today I've looked into two scores to see if I could figure out some conventions. First a score taken from the NMA(New Mozart Edition), VIII/20/Abt.1/1 (String quartets, volume one) for today's engraving standards. There the strokes are always centered with the noteheads and they are slightly shorter than they are in your last version. Also their shape is like a drop (the thickness decreases near the note), nearly like the current \staccatissimo. Then I had a look at a faksimile edition of Händel's Orlando (London 1733). There the strokes are thicker and longer, like in your last version. Also they are centered with the object they are placed beneath. (Either stem or notehead) The shape there is also a little bit like a drop - it seems the engraving is oriented on the shape that arises with a quill.
Personally I prefer the variant I found in the old Händel print.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]