Re: Unicode accidentals vs. Markup accidentals

[William Rehwinkel]

Dear Saul,

I don't see why this would be surprising... as you said it's the 
difference of using the unicode symbol from the text font (such as 
unicode symbol https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+266D for a flat) for 
an accidental and pasting in the lilypond musical font symbol for that 
accidental. You can prove this by loading a different font either for 
the serif font or musical glyph font. (Sorry for probably using wrong 
terminology here)

In my opinion using the lilypond font accidental in a markup block is 
probably intended for other use cases, such as putting an editorial 
accidental above or below a note instead of in its usual place.

As for how it looks, I suppose that is a matter of taste. But I would 
probably use the unicode accidental symbols if the need for writing an 
accidental in a piece of text came up in the future. You could 
definitely make the text using lilypond accidentals look right by 
changing the font size of either the text or the accidental, it's just a 
matter of the size and alignment.

-William

On 1/15/23 01:05, Saul Tobin wrote:
> Surprisingly, typing the Unicode characters for accidental symbols does 
> not produce the same font output as using the markup commands:
>
> <<
>    \new Staff {
>      c'1^"B♭"
>      c'1^"C♯"
>      c'1^"D♮"
>    }
>    \new Staff {
>      c'1^\markup { B \flat }
>      c'1^\markup { C \sharp }
>      c'1^\markup { D \natural }
>    }
>  >>
>
> And neither looks particularly great IMO.

--
+ ---------------------------------------------- +
|    William Rehwinkel - Oberlin College and     |
|                           Conservatory '24     |
|          william@williamrehwinkel.net          |
| PGP key:                                       |
| https://williamrehwinkel.net/static/pubkey.txt |
+ ---------------------------------------------- +

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature