Hello, -----Original Message----- From: Janek Warchoł <lemniskata.bernoull...@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:06:12 +0100 To: Phil Holmes <m...@philholmes.net>, <davidandrewrog...@gmail.com>, Trevor Daniels <t.dani...@treda.co.uk>, Shane Brandes <sh...@grayskies.net>, Francisco Vila <paconet....@gmail.com> Cc: lilypond-user <lilypond-user@gnu.org> Subject: Re: engraving question - temporary voices in vocal music
>Dear all, > >thank you for your answers. I think i'll use explicit notation for >clarity's sake, especially because it doesn't take much space in this >case and composer asked for it. > >2011/2/19 Phil Holmes <m...@philholmes.net>: >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janek Warchoł" >> <lemniskata.bernoull...@gmail.com> >> To: "lilypond-user" <lilypond-user@gnu.org> >> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 8:00 PM >> Subject: engraving question - temporary voices in vocal music >> >> Just to back up my "either is OK" comment, here's a little bit from >> Chappell's version of the Gondoliers. Personally I think this is lazy, >>but >> it's how they've done it. > >Your example puzzles me, as i see no reason to mix two kinds of notation >here... > Don't string players have to put up with this kind of thing all the time? They just add the notation 'div'/'non-div' or 'unison'. Why not for vocal? James (A Trumpet player) > _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
