[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: New fonts for chords

From: Carl D. Sorensen
Subject: Re: New fonts for chords
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:35:12 -0600

On 4/25/09 2:36 PM, "Pekka Siponen" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Indeed it (suffix position) is a personal preference, and not correct
> most likely. I find that there is no standard for chord names, they have
> been around only for a short time historically, and mostly everything is
> based on personal preferences.. as are all traditions when you go back
> far enough. :P Usually the suffix is on the baseline, but it is beacause
> finale standard layout is that way. The publishers in finland usually
> only accept finale based work. For me the suffix is nice when top
> aligned. Also more compact.

There are certainly plenty of chord names around with raised suffixes.  I
was just hoping that you had some place you could point to a standard, so
we'd improve our understanding.

> Sharps and flats: sorry I can't point you to any authority that would
> say so, except basic typographical books. The sharps and flats look like
> they don't belong there. They should look like a natural part of the
> text, not something added later by a different program. =) No offence
> intended.

None taken.  And no offense intended by me, either.  I agree with you that
the chord names should look nice typographically.
> Alas, I am only proficient in using fonts, not making them. :(

And I am proficient in neither, so you're one up on me!

I think that you should post your requests for improved alignment of raised
7 and sharps and flats to bug-lilypond, along with a sample of current
LilyPond output and a sample of desired output for each of your cases.  It
will show up as an enhancement request, and may be an engraving nitpick,
with low priority, but it *will* be on the list.

> The override is indeed simple, but for a novice user learning the
> override and the things behind it, is a big step (worth taking
> perhaps..). Also it is basic typographical thing to keep it simple with
> fonts; if there is no need to start mixing fonts, so why do it..?

I'm not sure who has the decision authority to change the default chord name
font to roman, but if lots of users made that request on lilypond-user, I
would guess that it would happen.

In the meantime, we could add a snippet to the LSR that shows how to change
the chord name font to roman.  As a matter of fact, *you* could add that
snippet to the LSR, and it would be available for others to use.  And you'd
be part of LilyPond development team.  We'd love to have you come along with

BTW, the LSR is found at

> I tried to make a fairly complex but simple chords-notes(with
> alternative repeats)-lyrics score. I found out everything that is
> needed, but still failed. One of the reasons was this typographical
> dilemma. It was getting too complicated, and I think would soon have
> required some programming (and font-making) knowledge.

Have you asked for help on the user list?

This should be relatively straightforward, except that I don't understand
what "complex but simple" means.

If you can create a simple example of your score that demonstrates the
difficulties, I'm sure you'll get help here.

The typographical dilemma for chord names may be able to be resolved (at
least temporarily) with some not-so-simple overrides...

> I was very pleased with the spacing with the LilyPond, also some glyphs,
> especially the natural, received positive comments from the musicians:
> it was easily distinguished from the sharp.. it had a distinctive color. :)

Good -- I'm glad you found the quality desirable!



reply via email to

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