Finally got a copy of Kurt Stone's book, and I cannot for my life see
any reason why you would regard such a limited and myopic treatise to
be authoritative. There are vast areas of total ignorance in this
committee's work and many pages of stuff that is downright silly. To
speak of two great revolutions in practice the way he does is absurd,
especially when the change to computer typesetting was happening right
under his nose. That has enabled academics to have an influence which
they do not merit. The book is far from useless, but it is a problem
that you seem to take it as holy writ.
There is not now nor has there ever been any rule against multiple
stems on the same note head, even one of a different color or dotted.
You will find that if you examine old music that the dot is simply
applied to the longer time value. Since the violinist in Kurt Stone's
commettee had never seen any great amount of music with more than
three parts on a single staff he had no clue. I wonder how much
experience he had with solo playing, since he offers only the
completely stupid idea of roman numerals for string indication, and
says nothing of the surrounding circle which has been standard for
at least a century.
Roman numerals are hard to read, and they are used for too many
other things, including position.
OTOH, one of the many things that I like in the book is that he knows
how to spell leger line. Leger, not ledger.
------------------------------------------------------------
Information is not knowledge. Belief is not truth.
Indoctrination is not teaching. Tradition is not evidence.
David Raleigh Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Lilypond-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
