On 9/15/16 4:15 PM, "Chris Yate" <chrisy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Please note I'm working without her examples, but I disagree about >[Lilypond's interpretation of] Gould's rules, because they appear to be >in contradiction with **every piece of published music I've ever seen**. >Given just her text, I think she has possibly not worded things as >clearly as possible. And if it is correct to have five dots on a chord >spanning a ninth == five spaces, then why is it incorrect to have three >dots for a chord spanning three spaces? >The place that her rules stop making sense is this inconsistency: >1. It's ok to have a dot a full two staff positions away from the top or >bottom of the chord. >2. BUT... if there's a dot that according to the rules turns up to be two >spaces away, don't place ANY notes outside the range of spaces occupied >by the chord *. >* spaces occupied by the chord includes the half space occupied by part >of a notehead on a line. But this "inconsistency" that you find, is exactly illustrated in her examples. She shows *precisely* the behavior you find inconsistent as the recommended behavior. See Gould2.png. Gould is silent on whether the spaces occupied by the chord includes the half-space or not, and none of her examples include a note that would use the half-space. So I don't disagree with you. >I think what she actually meant, and basing this also on guides like the >ABRSM theory books, is > >- every note needs a dot, where possible >- notes on a line need their dot moving up or down to the nearest space >- sometimes the dot needs to shift away from its parent, and that's ok >within the compass of the chord In your example 14, with a dots limit of 3, the dot from the E moves to the F space, and the dot from the F moves to the A space (within the compass of the chord), and you consider the dot on the A space to be unnecessary. So my interpretation of your personal preference is that you'd prefer to never have a dot moved more than one staff position away from its "home". Gould would put the dot in the A space, according to the written rules. You accept it, but believe it's unnecessary. If it's unnecessary, I think we should leave it out, because it's just clutter. I'm reading that if you had your preferred style, it would be left out. And I think LilyPond should have some way to support your preferred style. >- dots two or more staff _positions_ (not staff _spaces_ as written) away >from the top or bottom of the chord look strange, so exclude those. Gould specifically shows dot patterns with dots two staff positions away from a note in a space. I included them previously, and include them again here as gould1.png. Note that in gould2.png, the dots that would be only two staff positions (one space) away from the top and bottom of the chord *are* excluded, not just the one that is four positions (two spaces) away. I'm going to send you (by separate email) a scan of Gould's section on dotted notes. I'd be happy to have you show me how I've misunderstood her rules (if in fact I have). But I'm quite sure that I have them right (with the possible exception of the spaces occupied by the chord including the half-spaces of notes on the line). > >Pragmatically though, I strongly believe it's a mistake for Lilypond's >defaults to go against the grain of what most readers of music expect and >have learnt to expect, even if the holy grail appears to say it's "right". Counterexamples from high-quality hand-engraved music are certainly welcome. Contrary rules from other notation experts (e.g. Ross, Read, Stone) are also welcome. I agree that we should do what's right. Sometimes the challenge is deciding what's right. I will check Read and Ross tonight. I don't remember if I still have Stone or not. If I do, I'll check it as well. Thanks, Carl
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
