I wanted to jump in here because in this discussion, a lot of people have
said or implied things like (paraphrasing) "top to bottom in << // // // >>
should correspond top to bottom in the score", and suggesting naming
conventions based on this.
These thoughts, while well-intentioned, are bad since they are misleading
for this important reason:
!!! Top to bottom on the staff has precisely nothing to do with any
conventions of << // // // >> !!!
Top to bottom on the staff has ONLY to do with the relative pitches. For
example, whenever an Alto part goes lower than the Soprano in an SATB
arrangment, then the staff order (during that voice crossing) from top to
bottom is ASTB, not SATB. So, staff order is not necessaritly a fixed
property, even within a single << // // // >>. Also, unlike stem
direction, the top-to-bottom score order cannot be overridden, so it is not
even a property of this construct.
Therefore, in terms of making it clear to someone trying to use this for
the first time (and thereafter remembered), it seems to me to make sense to
try to use names that make it clear that the two main visual dimensions are:
1. Stem direction
2. Indentation level
Since these are what the << // // // >> construct actually does to the
music you enter.
So, I like the suggestion of \voiceUpOne \voiceDownOne \voiceUpTwo
\voiceDownTwo except that the "One" and "Two" don't tell you anything
useful about what your voice will look like graphically, musically or in
code order.
Also, the only voice whose number matches its order is "UpOne". The second
voice is "DownOne"? Aren't we back where we started with misnumbering?
In terms of this approach, I think it would be clearer as:
\voiceUpOne
\voiceDownTwo
\voiceUpThree
\voiceDownFour
\voiceUpFive
\voiceDownSix
However, I most liked the spirit behind the previous suggestion for
something like \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceUpInner \voiceDownInner, although
I don't like the word Inner since it suggests something about the relative
pitch order of the voices, which (if you bought into my rant above) is bad.
So, I would suggest the term "Indent" or something else that indicated that
the voice is to be treated visually as such:
\voiceUp
\voiceDown
\voiceUpIndent
\voiceDownIndent
\voiceUpIndentMore
\voiceDownIndentMore
Or, if you prefer Teletubbies vernacular, for these last two:
\voiceUpIndentAgain
\voiceUpIndentAgain
David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
self-immolation.info
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
