On Nov 3, 2016 12:55 PM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Flaming Hakama by Elaine <ela...@flaminghakama.com> writes: > > > 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. > > Sorry, I don't get your point. Stem direction and displacements do not > change for voice crossings: that's the sole way to actually recognize > them. > > -- > David Kastrup
Maybe you should read the whole of my post. I think we agree that the vertical order of voices/notes has nothing to do with their stem direction and indentation. Which is why any set of names that imply order (like one, two, etc.) are bad choices for the voice names.
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
