On 10/8/10 6:40 AM, "Valentin Villenave" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The printed scores I looked at are quite inconsistent about that. Most > of the time their brackets start well before the note anyway, so it's > hard to tell whether accidentals make a difference or not. I spotted a > few places where the bracket is clearly aligned with the accidental, > but it's hardly consistent. > > What do Ross&Co. have to say about that? For ottava indications: As far as I can see, Ross and Stone say nothing about it, and they have no examples with accidentals. Read says "The sign itself --8 , or 8va or 15, for example -- should go directly above or below the *first note* of the passage affected. It should not start over rests, barlines, tied notes, or -- to put it plainly -- anywhere else." (emphasis in original. I could find no examples showing accidentals. In most of the examples shown in Read, the number is centered on the notehead, and the bracket continues until the end of the final note in tha passage, including any dots. There are a few examples where the start of the octavation indication starts just before the notehead. I don't think it would be wrong to have the number line up with the accidental, but I don't think it's required, either. For pedal indications: Pedal indications are under the notehead, not under the accidental (Reed example 18.4) Brackets seem to enclose the notes (example 18-23 has them including an arpeggio indicator), even though the text says "is is essential that the sign be placed *precisely under* the beat or fraction of the beat" (emphasis in original). As far as I can see, there is nothing that says accidentals should be included in brackets. HTH, Carl _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
