<snip> >Since I noticed (and moaned about) format-mark-letter omitting the >letter I a few months ago, I've been looking for examples. And I have >yet to find ONE. Of the thirty or so pieces I've played since then, if >they had an H, it was followed either by an I or the end of the piece. >And while I haven't looked especially, I think the use of bar numbers >outnumbers the use of numbers as a rehearsal mark. So that's why the >other one's necessary.
What we see is that this engraving standard has become bastardized by both bands and orchestras increasingly since the 60s. If you look at the old band scores of Holst, for instance, especially those by B&H, you'll notice they're also missing the "I." The Hammersmith comes to mind immediately as one that skips from H to J (though I can't remember if that's a Boosey score or another publisher). Modern orchestras are using I more and more, but from a performer standpoint I'd much prefer none of the media have adopted I. Does it make sense alphabetically? Yes. But in the middle of a rehearsal that's being run very swiftly it's very easy to confuse I and J if it's not typeset well. Now, having said all that I think it's a good idea to have as much flexibility as we can have if it doesn't create too much confusion in implementation. This seems straight-forward enough and as long as I don't have to use it -- fine by me. :) Cheers, Bryan... _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
