Cleanup of ugly MI and SOL shaped noteheads

Cleanup of ugly MI and SOL shaped noteheads

1. Reducing width of MI notehead, for both "regular" (Aiken, etc.)
   and "small" (Funk/Walker) heads. When Funk/Walker heads were
   introduced, a special width variable was introduced to both
   sets and the mi heads were made wider than the other noteheads.
   This does not seem to be the practice of available examples
   (Sacred Harp, Southern Harmony books, etc.) and causes issues
   with alignment, particularly with stems up, and is visually odd.
   The variables have been removed from the metafont code, making
   the MI noteheads the same width as the other shaped notes in
   their respective sets.

2. Changing the SOL notehead to more closely match the normal round
   notehead (as advertised in the mf code). The previous code uses
   the shape of the open (half note) notehead, which is visually
   unappealing. The open notehead has been defined so that it
   matches visually with both the normal Aiken/Sacred Harp heads,
   as well as the thin variants (in keeping with observed practice,
   which uses the regular open roundhead even when thin variants
   are used).

[Carl P., 2013-12-23 22:05:12]

Patch for review to make shaped noteheads conform more closely to
personally-observed practice.

[lemzwerg, 2013-12-24 00:57:53]

LGTM, codewise.  Since I don't use Sacred Harp notation, I can't give further
comments w.r.t. usefulness or correctness.

https://codereview.appspot.com/45160043/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/sour...
File Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi (left):

https://codereview.appspot.com/45160043/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/sour...
Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi:1387: First you will see a terminal
editor where you can edit the
This file's patch obviously doesn't belong to the MF changes...

https://codereview.appspot.com/45160043/diff/1/mf/feta-noteheads.mf
File mf/feta-noteheads.mf (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/45160043/diff/1/mf/feta-noteheads.mf#newcode1450
mf/feta-noteheads.mf:1450: undraw_inside_ellipse (2.5 - puff_up_factor / 3.0,
31, 0.707, 3.5 stafflinethickness#);
Please stay in the 80-char-per-line limit.

[Carl P., 2013-12-24 01:04:19]

https://codereview.appspot.com/45160043/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/sour...
File Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi (left):

https://codereview.appspot.com/45160043/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/sour...
Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi:1387: First you will see a terminal
editor where you can edit the
On 2013/12/24 00:57:53, lemzwerg wrote:
> This file's patch obviously doesn't belong to the MF changes...

I think this happened when I updated the source before submitting. How do I get
it out?

https://codereview.appspot.com/45160043/diff/1/mf/feta-noteheads.mf
File mf/feta-noteheads.mf (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/45160043/diff/1/mf/feta-noteheads.mf#newcode1450
mf/feta-noteheads.mf:1450: undraw_inside_ellipse (2.5 - puff_up_factor / 3.0,
31, 0.707, 3.5 stafflinethickness#);
On 2013/12/24 00:57:53, lemzwerg wrote:
> Please stay in the 80-char-per-line limit.

Does MF allow for line wrapping inside the function call?

[wl_gnu.org, 2013-12-24 01:18:16]

> I think this happened when I updated the source before submitting.
> How do I get it out?

You have to upload a new patch set (using the same issue ID on
rietveld).

> On 2013/12/24 00:57:53, lemzwerg wrote:
>> Please stay in the 80-char-per-line limit.
>
> Does MF allow for line wrapping inside the function call?

MF is not line but token oriented, so the answer is yes.  Simply look
at similar code to see how I tried to format everything.


    Werner

[Carl, 2013-12-24 22:57:46]

The extra width on the "ugly" mi notes was a specific design decision that was
made in conjunction with the shape note community at the time (see
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1060).

It may be correct to eliminate the extra mi width, but I don't believe it should
be done without review of a broader piece of the shape-note community.

Carl S.

[Carl P., 2013-12-24 23:22:00]

On Dec 24, 2013 5:57 PM, <Carl.D.Sorensen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The extra width on the "ugly" mi notes was a specific design decision
> that was made in conjunction with the shape note community at the time
> (see https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1060).
>
I've wondered this, but I had been unable to determine this conclusively,
and the couple of queries I had posted to the user list previously went
unanswered. I understand the design choice, since I have observed this as
well. I think most obvious cause of that optical choice is the relative
size of the sol head, which is somewhat lessened by use of the conventional
ellipse shape that is also in this patch. That said, the impression I get
from looking at the sol head in a chord with other shapes is that it looks
"droopy," as if the ellipse is being weighed down.

What is interesting is that the print examples (most from the previous 30
years) do not have wider mi heads, but do not give me the impression of an
optically smaller head (a phenomenon that is interesting given that if
rounded corners are not considered, the Aiken mi head has an equal area to
the aiken do and fa heads. Perhaps the answer may lie in a slight bowing of
the edges (but not enough to confuse with sol)?

The problem I have (and what drew me to a redesign) is that the wideness of
the mi head causes alignment issues, particularly in chords. For instance,
when mi is stacked on do, the points do not line up. In multi-staff
settings, if mi is attached to an up stem, the extra width causes the other
notes attached to that stem to be misaligned from the notes in other staves
(something that I personally give Finale users grief about when they don't
make sure simultaneous notes are absolutely aligned.

> It may be correct to eliminate the extra mi width, but I don't believe
> it should be done without review of a broader piece of the shape-note
> community.
>
This may well need to happen. As I said, I've tried a few times over the
last 8 or 9 months to inquire about the mi head particulary, with no
response.

> Carl S.
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/45160043/

Thanks,

Carl P.

[Carl, 2013-12-31 17:29:53]

On 2013/12/24 23:22:00, Carl P. wrote:

> This may well need to happen. As I said, I've tried a few times over the
> last 8 or 9 months to inquire about the mi head particulary, with no
> response.

If you're the only person on the lists who cares, then you should be able to
have it the way you want it.

I'm curious, though, about the usage in chords.  In particular, it seems that
chords in Walker notes can't possibly line up, since do is centered on the stem.
 Are chords commonly used in shape notes?  Every reference I've seen has no
chords -- only single notes.

I'm fine to have this pushed if nobody else objects.  But I do like David K.'s
suggestion of a message on -user with before and after shapes.

Thanks,

Carl S.

[Carl P., 2013-12-31 17:54:42]

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:29 PM,  <Carl.D.Sorensen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013/12/24 23:22:00, Carl P. wrote:
>
>> This may well need to happen. As I said, I've tried a few times over
>
> the
>>
>> last 8 or 9 months to inquire about the mi head particulary, with no
>> response.
>
>
> If you're the only person on the lists who cares, then you should be
> able to have it the way you want it.
>
> I'm curious, though, about the usage in chords.  In particular, it seems
> that chords in Walker notes can't possibly line up, since do is centered
> on the stem.  Are chords commonly used in shape notes?  Every reference
> I've seen has no chords -- only single notes.

Depending upon the style sheet, shaped notes have varying usage in
chords. Even in single-note formats (Sacred Harp, Southern Harmony,
etc.), there are examples of two notes being given for one part
(optional octaves or providing a second note to complete the chord,
typically SOL). For my own work, notes are nearly always written in
chords, unless the notes are less than a third apart or there is a
difference in rhythm. LilyPond's implementation of chords with Walker
is to center the stem if the notehead nearest the stem is DO or to act
normally otherwise.
>
> I'm fine to have this pushed if nobody else objects.  But I do like
> David K.'s suggestion of a message on -user with before and after
> shapes.
>

I have sample PDFs I generated showing before and after, both singly
and in chords. I haven't yet had time to convert/compress those
examples to smaller file sizes for sending to -user, but hope to in
the next couple of days. In the meantime, I'll probably take the patch
off the countdown.

Carl P.