Andrew Bernard <andrew.bern...@gmail.com> writes: > I think he should adhere to the original look and feel. After all the > work is entirely embedded in the 18c cultural milieu – figured bass > practice, can’t get much more 18c than that – and the urge to squash > everything into our Barenreiter Common Era practice look and feel > should be relaxed somewhat occasionally. This is really closely > related to the seemingly unpopular thread recently on curved beams. I > for one take effort to make my contemporary scores match the aesthetic > of the composer they are from, and my 18c scores to have some sort of > 18c feel where possible. Perhaps I should buy some copper sheet and a > set of gravers. :-)
The point of an Urtext is to convey the same musical information as the original (usually a manuscript) using modern typography. That very much is in line with "squash everything into our Barenreiter Common Era practice look and feel". Realistically, that's what a program like LilyPond is able to support reliably with realistic effort. If you instead want to reinvent 18th century visual aesthetics, you'll either be writing and maintaining your own versions of computer typesetting programs and algorithms, or you are indeed best served with acquiring the traditional tools of the trade. However, don't underestimate the tool set of the 18th century: you'll invest a lot of money and effort to come anywhere even close to best practices. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
