Re: Rounded beams

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi all,
>
>> I am starting to think there are two general classes of musicians,
>> the functionalists, and the aestheticists.
>> […] I suspect these groupings may be mutually exclusive!
>
> I think a binary view like that is limiting, and in general unhelpful.
>
> I, for one, take great care to make sure that my scores are both
> functional *and* beautiful.
> And I’m glad Lilypond has the tools to let me work on both the
> functionality and beauty of my scores.
>
>> Have a look at a Gutenberg Bible. I am certain Mr Gutenberg regarded
>> his work as art and not just cranking out a work-a-day functional
>> text.
>
> The visual splendour of Gutenberg Bibles are in sharp contrast with
> the 99.9% of printed — and, yes, far more functional — Bibles that are
> used by real people in real churches (and elsewhere) every day.

I think this misses the historical context completely.  Gutenberg was in
competition with handwritten bibles.  In the typographic part, alignment
and correctness and readability were his selling points but would not
have been competitive.  So the rather crude typography was embellished
with hand-painted illuminations and other elements that were to mask the
mechanical reproducibility and imperfections of the bulk of the printing
process.

But in the comparative scale of things, the Gutenberg bibles were the
medieval Penguin Classics.  Yes, they did cost an arm and a leg, but
that was a step forward from costing a village.

-- 
David Kastrup