Mark Polesky wrote: > > -Eluze wrote: >> i'm not sure i would like the dynamics of one voice above >> the staff in a polyphonic guitar piece - but you can use >> \dynamicUp to do so! > > The authorities are unanimous on this point. > > Kurt Stone, ch.1, "Placement of Dynamics...", p.31: > "A. Dynamics > 1. INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC (SCORES AND/OR PARTS) > Single staves with two or more polyphonic parts: > at the stem side of the up- and downstemmed parts." > > Ted Ross, ch.4, "SHARING A STAFF", p.205: > "If [the voices] move independently of each other, each > part may require its own dynamics, above and below the > staff." > > Gardner Read, ch.14, "NOTATIONAL PRACTICES", p.253: > "The general rule is, of course, altered should there be > inadequate room because of elements [...] related to the > staff just below, or when different dynamic markings > affect two voices written on one staff..." >
i go with Ross: "If [the voices] move independently of each other, each part may require its own dynamics, above and below the staff." (emphasized by me) he is pointing out that the voices are moving independently - which in many guitar pieces is not the case. therefore i am grateful that Lilypond does not automatically imply \dynamicUp or \dynamicDown with \voiceOne or \voiceTwo. in your example there is a conflict since both voices require a (different) dynamic mark at the same time - maybe Lilypond should detect this and - if not automatically correct it - issue a warning!? finally - what would/could you do with pieces having three or more voices? -Eluze -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/voiceOne-dynamics-should-go-above-the-staff-tp29747634p29750401.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
