On 04/13/2017 03:37 PM, David Sumbler wrote:
On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 09:19 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi David,
At the moment I cannot really see how to deal with this sort of
problem, other than having completely separate input for the score
and
the part at these points, controlled by tags. But is there a
better
way - one which requires less duplication of material in the input?
Any suggestions or pointers to help with this will be gratefully
received!
If you search for ‘divisi’ on the list — and sort in reverse
chronological order (which really should be the default!) — you’ll
find many related threads, containing lots of hints and tips on how
to attack this problem (e.g., <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lily
pond-user/2016-08/msg00256.html>).
Hope this helps,
Kieren.
It does - I simply hadn't thought of searching for "divisi"! Even
after a cursory glance at some of the stuff that that search comes up
with, I can see that this is going to be very helpful.
Thanks
David
Yes, this can be accomplished with the divisi engraver (or whatever it
is called), but I would recommend to use this only in the full score,
and keep all variants of e.g. Violin I in one part, including
first/second half, solo parts etc. From what I have seen, that is
customary in professional editions. I have seen a Messiaen Violin I part
where the divisi is in (uh... what was it... ) 8 or 10 or so solo parts,
and all were in the same physical Violin I 'part'.
For winds, this is a different matter. A separate part for each
instrument is usual, although sometimes the parts for e.g. the two
flutes are combined into one 'part'. I have seen that mostly in French
editions, FWIW.
Rutger
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
