Re: Horizontal spacing bug?

[David Wright]

On Fri 04 Oct 2019 at 11:15:09 (+0200), Pierre Perol-Schneider wrote:
> Ok, here's a -- simple -- snippet (I should have start with it, sorry):
> 
> %%
> \version "2.19.83"
> { s1 cis'4 }
> { s1 ais4 }
> { s1 fis4 }
> { s1 ais''4 }
> { s1 cis'''4 }
> { s1 eis'''4 }
> %%
> 
> So it seems that the LP alignment changes after more than two ledger lines
> (probably because of the accidentals vertical-skylines limit).
> Again: does that follow the traditional -- state-of-the-art -- rules?

I don't know of any rules covering this, and I don't have access to
the texts that might do so. Finding examples in my own scores would
take time: I have few solo parts as these are normally rented, not
bought. So most of my music is in several staves, which makes such
occurrences.

I took a look at the Dover Beethoven string quartets, where you can
find a few examples (often spoiled by linebreaks and key changes),
but the engraving isn't consistent enough to really form a judgement.

Opus 59 no 2, page 6(160), system 4: measure 2 is tight at the left,
measure 3 leaves ample space for the sharp in the viola part, but the
measure 4 sharps almost touch the barline. So how much weight can be
given to page (155)1 system 4, measure 3 where the natural could
hardly be closer to the barline, even though there'd be every excuse
to leave more space so that the dynamics didn't have to involve
wiping out the barline spanners.

When I set your first example from your OP, I couldn't work out why
you have an aesthetic problem with the layout. Is it that you don't
like the extra space left for the accidentals in the first line, or
the fact that each first note in the measures on the second line is
equidistant from the barline?

Cheers,
David.