Re: shortened flags affair, part 7 - downstem full-length 64th and 128th flags

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Janek Warchoł" <address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: shortened flags affair, part 7 - downstem full-length 64th and 
128th flags


2011/3/18 Phil Holmes <address@hidden>:
> > Janek,
> >
> > I prefer the newer ones,
>
> Glad to hear this!
>
> > although I doubt I'll use them too often in real music!
>
> > Me too :)
>
> > However, I was looking at my Gardner Read and think that, strictly, all 
> > the
> > flag shapes are a little wrong according to his "rules". The quaver flag 
> > is
> > too short, and the shorter note flags don't join the stem properly. To 
> > be
> > honest I'm not too bothered, but wondered what other people think. 
> > Please
> > see the attached scan from his book, which is a few excerpts from pages
> > stuck together.
>
> Thanks for providing this example.
> In my opinion it's a matter of taste and font design. Read describes
> how the flags that he is "used to" look, but i'd say that we are free
> to make our own design decisions, as long as they are consistent and
> don't look too strange.
> I prefer our Feta font.
>
> thanks,
> Janek

In general I do agree with your approach of making our own decisions based 
on what's published, rather than just following it.  However, I do think the 
current flags are inconsistent if you compare the up-stem quaver with the 
semi-quaver.  The quaver's flag stops at the top of the notehead, whereas 
the semi-quaver (and all the shorter notes) runs down to the middle of the 
notehead or below.  I think it might be better if the quaver's flag was 
about 1/2 a space longer?

--
Phil Holmes