On Tuesday, 18 January 2000, Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> [8va entry]
> > > people think?
> >
> > >From a typesetting point of view I totally agree with you - and the purpos
+ e
> > of such brackets is improved typesetting.
>
> seconded
Maybe I don't understand, but to me this seems contradictory:
> There are two ways the 8ve could be handled. The can be entered as
> being in the octave they are written, and then performed an octave
> higher/lower,
I take it, you would enter
\octavate +1 { a' }
which, after parsing results in the pitch for a''. So, you don't
perform an octave higher/lower, you state the exact octave, but
partly by giving an \octavate command. The `octavate' then takes
care of the 8va bracket.
Similar to \times 2/3 { a8 a8 a8 }, where you don't say a8 is
`performed' with a shorter duration, but instead the \times 2/3
is part of the duration specification.
> or they can be entered in the octave they should be
> performed, and then engraved an octave lower or higher.
> My personal preference is for the former, especially since it makes
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
