Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> I now see that dashed "slurs" are simply dashed
> lines (of invariant
thickness) which curve along
> the path that a slur would take between
two notes.
> What is standard engraving practice when it comes
> to such
things?
It's funny. There's a handwritten example of a
half-dashed/half-solid slur on the *cover* of Kurt
Stone's "Music Notation in the Twentieth Century"!
That particular slur is of consistent thickness but
the cover is part of a filled-out a "Notation
Analysis Form" used by the International Conference
on New Musical Notation, so it's hardly definitive.
If you have the book handy, you can read about this
on p.332.
Anyway, I try to answer notational questions by
referring to 3 sources in the following order:
Kurt Stone:
"Music Notation in the Twentieth Century"
The notations in this book are not Kurt Stone's,
the book is actually a compilation of notational
decisions made by the International Conference on
New Musical Notation. I regard this book as the
most definitive on the topic.
Ted Ross:
"The Art of Music Engraving and Processing"
Obsessively thorough with regards to minute details
of spacing positioning and layout of notational
objects.
Gardner Read:
"Music Notation - A Manual of Modern Practice"
Honestly, a last resort. This book is so famous, but
sometimes I wonder why. It has a lot of great
information, but is littered with the author's own
ideas, which are often suspect, and at times just
downright bad.
Kurt Stone discusses dashed *phrasing* slurs (which
he calls "dotted" BTW) on pp.35-36. All five of his
examples are thicker in the middle and tapered at the
ends. He does not mention dashed (regular) slurs, nor
any combination of dashed and solid, for that matter.
Gardner Read also shows examples of the dashed
*phrasing* slur on pp.272-273, and they also appear
thicker in the middle and tapered at the ends.
Ted Ross doesn't discuss dashed slurs.
So, I vote we make dashed slurs tapered. And while none
of the sources defines a half-dashed/half-solid slur
(for gradually going from staccato to legato), I would
like to see LilyPond support one. As a pianist playing
new music most of the time, I have to say I've seen
them before. And from a composer's point of view, I
think it's a clear and concise notation that could
easily be standardized.
While I'm on the topic of standardization, here are
the Conference's "Criteria for the Selection of New
Notation Signs and Procedures":
1. Proposals for standardization of new notational
devices should be made only in cases where a
sufficient need is anticipated.
2. Given a choice, the preferable notation is the one
that is an extension of traditional notation.
3. The notation should lend itself to immediate
recognition. This means it should be as self-evident
as possible.
4. The notation should be sufficiently distinct
graphically to permit a reasonable amount of
distortion due to variations in handwriting and
different writing implements.
5. Given a choice, the preferable notation is the one
that is spatially economical.
6. Given a choice, the preferable notation is the one
that has already received relatively wide acceptance.
7. Analogous procedures in different instrumental
families should, if possible, be notated similarly.
8. The notation used should be the most efficient for
the organizational principles that underlie the
respective composition.
- Mark
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
