On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 06:34:52AM -0400, David Santamauro wrote: > I believe this is all related to the dynamics (more to the point, the > termination: \!. If we forget the misplacement of “Solo” for a moment > and observe the behavior of \partCombine with just the dynamics, it > seems to have real difficulties with dynamics termination.
I use \partCombine quite extensively, and have observed that it's very finicky when it comes to dynamics. Basically, before it can combine two parts correctly, the dynamics must be identical in both parts. Identical meaning that any dynamics like \f, \p must fall in exactly the same beat, and any cresc/decresc must begin and end at the same place. In particular, if you have a cresc or decresc ending on a particular beat in one part but not in the other (e.g., the other is silent or has an unchanging dynamic like \f or \p), then it will *not* combine the parts on that beat. This applies not only to dynamics per se, but also to any additional events in the two parts aside from notes, such as \set commands (like \set Staff.midiExpression, and so on). The presence of any such commands must be identical across the two parts, otherwise \partCombine will refuse to combine it (and if forced to, is likely to produce incorrect results). Because of these issues, I have resorted to the hammer-fisted approach of using \tag and \removeWithTag to "hide" certain things from \partCombine or "inject" "fake" dynamics in certain places to make the two parts match where they otherwise wouldn't. In the instrumental parts the hacks would be suppressed so that the actual dynamics are printed correctly. T -- Answer: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. / Question: Why is top posting bad?
