Am 24.03.2014 13:33, schrieb Richard Shann:
An example of this, typeset using LilyPond is posted here:
http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/278632
To do this I set tuplet timing around the entire bass part and used
doubled time signatures (one hidden IIRC)
Richard
The following is completely off-topic, but I'd like to share some
observations I often make and thoughts I have and ask for your opinion:
Looking at this score confirms me in my opinion that LilyPond default
output alone is no guarantee for a good-looking result in accordance
with typographical good use. This may be partly due to an older lilypond
version used, but there are some basic issues I see with this:
-- For what I know of best practice in typography, it is normally
unnecessary to use slurs for indicating melismata. Beaming
(\autoBeamOff, melismata with []), placement of syllables and
hyphenation/extender lines make the lyrics assignment unambiguous and
easy to read in all but the most complex cases (that is, when the
rhythmic complexity requires that the beaming corresponds to beat groups
and legibility would suffer in the opposite case---which will rarely
occur before 1900).
Certainly I know that the Lily authors knew what they were doing, when
they recommended using slurs for this purpose. This is used in excellent
hand-engraved editions as well, I think especially later in the 20th
century. Nevertheless I vote for the supposedly older use, as described
before.
-- The default Denemo output reflects the now common, but faulty
practice of writing syl- la- ble instead of syl - la - ble (with the
hyphens centered between syllables). The corresponding Lilypond code
would be { syl -- la -- ble }, see Learning Manual, Aligning lyrics to a
melody
<http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/learning/aligning-lyrics-to-a-melody>.
-- The beginning of the first recitative is a good example where
inserting a line break at half-measure would significantly improve the
visual impression by a more even horizontal spacing. I found that it was
common in traditional hand-engraved scores to do such mid-measure breaks
(if measures aren't rather short), and thus I am often using \bar "" at
half-measure. Sometimes I even use an extra voice for something like
\repeat unfold 35 { s2 \bar "" s2 } and thus create more flexibility in
line-breaking. The disadvantage is that there is no possibility to
differ in likeliness between mid-measure and full-measure breaks, which
would then be desirable.
-- As always, the default margins are too small. This is already being
discussed as issue 3808
<http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3808> and will
hopefully be changed soon. I once read a comprehensive article
<http://www.dante.de/tex/Dokumente/KohmSatzspiegel.pdf> (in German) on
this topic from the German Tex user group's magazine, and the author
pointed out that in medieval manuscripts and renaissance prints an
outstandingly pleasing appearance is achieved by page margins which
cover up half of the page's space! This is luxury, of course, and
usually unaffordable, but I find it evident that having "unusually"
large margins (and simple ratios between the measurements of the page
and margins, and the top-margin smaller than the bottom-margin and so
on...) much improves the look of the page. It might necessitate to
decrease staff size, though, but anyway 16 pt are no way too small.
-- In order to increase legibility and clarity it's also much advisable
to use at least one StaffGroup, e.g.
\new StaffGroup {
\new Staff = "fl" {}
\new StaffGroup {
\new Staff = "vl1" {}
\new Staff = "vl2" {}
}
...
}
Using LilyPond unfortunately doesn't in itself guarantee "flawless"
typography (as Denemo advertises itself). You need to use it correctly
also, following the instructions in the manuals...
I hope I haven't been too "moralist" there, nor too extensive... sorry
if I have.
Best regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
