[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Accidentals' font

From: Carl Sorensen
Subject: Re: Accidentals' font
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2020 14:44:56 -0600

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 2:31 PM Paolo Prete <> wrote:

> <snip>
> I think there is an incomprehension in the meaning of my words.
> Unfortunately this does not depend on Lilypond but on commercial logic in
> the production of musical fonts today. Today it seems to me that music
> software producers are more interested in the captivating aspect of fonts
> than in their actual readability. This is normal, otherwise they could not
> sell their products. Consequently, this is why there is a great
> proliferation of bold fonts of the "plate engraving" type. If you look at
> the trill glyph in Gonville, it appears much simpler than those that are
> commonly used. Commercially I think it would have little success. But
> Gonville's trill glyph does not aim to be captivating; it aims to be more
> readable.
> Lilypond currently has two possibilities:
> 1) use the Feta font (---> "plate engraving approach") as do the other
> notation softwares.
> 2) use the Gonville font (---> "readability / playability approach")
Do you have any objective data that says Gonville is more readable/playable
than Feta?  Or is this your opinion?


reply via email to

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