jensgc wrote > The reason I don't like the idea of a global "structure" definition is > that I have the individual parts (e.g. the quartet and the choir parts) > defined in seperate files to be able to test and work with them > independently. Having the \time and \key definitions in a part that is > "active" makes a lot more sense to me compared to having them in an > otherwise "empty" skeleton.
To elaborate a bit: The score I'm working on uses highly polyphonic dynamics - e.g. a crescendo, \mp or text annotation in one voice is not placed at the same bar/note in the other voices. In that way, it doesn't really help to put all dynamics in one place, because these markings are not vertically aligned in the score. In regards to tempo markings, it is a different matter, since any change in tempo needs to apply to each and every voice in the system. It makes perfect sense that the \tempo marking always goes to the System - I just don't understand why it is much more difficult to give a ritardando or stringendo the same behavior. -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/no-subject-tp157866p157901.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
