Mark Polesky wrote Sunday, September 19, 2010 3:54 PM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
But a quick look through some of my music shows dynamics
are more commonly placed above the staff, so I wonder why
placing them below is the default? But I don't have any
instrumental parts to hand - where are the dy
Trevor Daniels wrote:
> But a quick look through some of my music shows dynamics
> are more commonly placed above the staff, so I wonder why
> placing them below is the default? But I don't have any
> instrumental parts to hand - where are the dynamics in
> these usually placed?
Vocal dynamics ar
On 2010-09-19 13:18, Trevor Daniels wrote:
[...] This argues for making
the default dynamic placement independent of voice,
leaving the rarer case to be treated as an exception.
But a quick look through some of my music shows dynamics
are more commonly placed above the staff, so I wonder
why pla
Mark Polesky wrote Sunday, September 19, 2010 9:23 AM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
We have to be careful to interpret this correctly. None
of these writers were familiar with the use of "voice" in
the computer engraving sense. By "voice" these writers
mean parts that are on one staff but are to be
"Mark Polesky" wrote in message
news:500436.44248...@web83404.mail.sp1.yahoo.com...
voiceOne Dynamics end up in the worst possible place...
- Mark
* * * * * * * * * *
\version "2.13.34"
\relative c'' {
<<
% "f" should go above the staff; but appears
% below the staff, below the "p" (!
Mark Polesky writes:
> Are you saying that, in a 2-voice 1-staff setting, it makes
> no sense to separate the dynamics when they both voices are
> at the same dynamic? Like this:
>
> \relative c'' {
> << { c2\p } \\ { a2\p } >>
> }
>
> Okay, I suppose I might be able to agree with that. The
>
Oh no, not one of these threads...
Trevor Daniels wrote:
> We have to be careful to interpret this correctly. None
> of these writers were familiar with the use of "voice" in
> the computer engraving sense. By "voice" these writers
> mean parts that are on one staff but are to be played or
> sun
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> Mark Polesky wrote Sunday, September 19, 2010 2:37 AM
>
>> Gardner Read, ch.14, "NOTATIONAL PRACTICES", p.253:
>> "The general rule is, of course, altered should there be
>> inadequate room because of elements [...] related to the
>> staff just below, or when differe
Mark Polesky wrote Sunday, September 19, 2010 2:37 AM
-Eluze wrote:
i'm not sure i would like the dynamics of one voice above
the staff in a polyphonic guitar piece - but you can use
\dynamicUp to do so!
The authorities are unanimous on this point.
Kurt Stone, ch.1, "Placement of Dynamics.
wo.
in your example there is a conflict since both voices require a (different)
dynamic mark at the same time - maybe Lilypond should detect this and - if
not automatically correct it - issue a warning!?
finally - what would/could you do with pieces having three or more voices?
-Eluze
--
View t
-Eluze wrote:
> i'm not sure i would like the dynamics of one voice above
> the staff in a polyphonic guitar piece - but you can use
> \dynamicUp to do so!
The authorities are unanimous on this point.
Kurt Stone, ch.1, "Placement of Dynamics...", p.31:
"A. Dynamics
1. INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC (
bble.com/voiceOne-dynamics-should-go-above-the-staff-tp29747634p29749190.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
voiceOne Dynamics end up in the worst possible place...
- Mark
* * * * * * * * * *
\version "2.13.34"
\relative c'' {
<<
% "f" should go above the staff; but appears
% below the staff, below the "p" (!)
{ c2\f c }
\\
{ a2\p a }
>>
}
13 matches
Mail list logo
