Hi Reinhold,
all new editions of classical music published by the big German
publishers like Bärenreiter, Carus, Edition Peters, etc. still use
that "obsolete practice"...
True… but they also use obsolete practices of treating composers, so
I'm not sure that they're the best example to follow! ;-)
All kidding aside, it has often been demonstrated that singers can
more easily read the modern notation (standard beamed) than the
traditional one (only melismas beamed), for the same reason that the
old Novello "backwards eighth-note quarter-note rest" thing is harder
to read, as is any notation which does not clearly highlight the
basic metrical structure (e.g., in 4/4 time, the incorrect sequence
4. 2 8 is not as easy to read as the correct 4. 8~4. 8). In the sense
that music notation is *supposed* to be always evolving towards
*more* (not *less*) clarity, the modern melisma notation practice
makes far more sense.
I, for one, think Lilypond should strive to make the most beautiful
and useful music possible, not just replicate less-effective
historical engraving practices — users always have the option to turn
\autoBeamOff, if they want the obsolete engraving style.
Best wishes,
Kieren.
p.s. I don't have any *new* classical music by the Big Boys — out of
curiosity, do they use the obsolete practice in new music engraving,
or is it only new editions of old music?
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
