IMO Lilypond should render musical Unicode characters using the same font as the music itself, and the default size/alignment of the glyphs within text markup should not require adjustment to look correct.
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 |
+ ---------------------------------------------- +