drarn wrote:
>
> Why not use a spread bracket \__/ for pedal?
>
> \---- ped -----/\-p3-/\----------una corda---------/
>
> and tuplets?
>
> /--------11---------\
>
> and bis?
>
> /------------ bis ------------\
>
> and impossible chords?
>
> /-0-\
>
> The tuplet should align with the stem ends and beams,
> but the others could be entirely horizontal. The bis
> must begin and end at barlines. You might want to be
> able to begin and/or end a pedal at a barline also (?).
>
> Advantages of spread over straight bracket:
>
> * No need to change angles at ends
> * No confusion with beams or stems
> * Better pedal indication
> * Advantages of straight and curved bracket
> with disadvantages of neither
> ----------------------------------------------------
It could be better if the user is allowed to specify the type of bracket
to be used for pedal/tuplet/8ve and other stuff. Choice is one thing.
Another is that I am more comfortable with orthogonal brackets for
pedal, slurs for triplets, and straight brackets for large value
tuplets, e.g. 23-tuplet, which could spread over 2 measures. And then
composers may have their own use of different notations of the brackets,
and their intention is written into the score. Let's say, for pedal
brackets, I have
| <- barline
|________| |___________|
and
|______/\_____|
The first one looks like I should release the pedal a bit earlier than
usual, and leave some gap in time before depressing the pedal again.
The second looks like to release and then depress the pedal as fast as I
can to maintain smoothness of the sustained effect. If spread brackets
were used, then the first case would look like the second (though
obvious enough to see the difference). In fact, I may even want a
smooth bump (/-\, hemicircle) instead of angular bump (/\) to indicate a
half-release of the pedal, so that what has been sustained will be
"half-sustained" in the next depression of the pedal. (Certainly I will
write this intention in words on the score.) That's why I prefer to
have choice.
> It doesn't matter that typesetters leave a bar off the
> beginnings of lines. What matters is the reason. One
> does not have two barlines between measures, and that
> would be the case if the end of one line and the
> beginning of the next both had bars. One might wonder
> where the other measure went. It would be a
> good idea, therefore, to have a barline at the
> beginning of a piece *if* it starts on the first
> beat. It would make more sense, because then the
> number of bars would equal the number of measures,
> which is the way it should be, excepting coincidental
> double bars or repeat signs. This is yet another
Yes, to a certain extext. But consider a hymn around 18-19 c. that has
a pick-up at beat 4 (in 4/4). One then expect that each line in the
verse would start on beat 4, and in fact that is the case. The score
will look something like this:
| | | | | | | | | |
| O O O O | O O O | <- End of system 1
| | | | | | | |
| O | O O O O | ... <- Beginning of system 2
It becomes easier for the singer to sing the first word of a line in the
verse if that word begins in a new system. Also note the leftmost
barline in system 2. Hymns are usually in 4 parts which require 2
staves, so at least we need a left barline (even without a bracket) to
group them. Then, the left barline could be interpreted as a staff
grouping line, and staff brackets are for further grouping or group
function indicator (e.g. voice, piano, etc.) If we take this
interpretation, then a one-staff system doesn't need a left barline.
> opportunity for lilypond to do better than the
> engravers did. The measure is the consequence of
> having barlines, historically and logically.
> Engravers always lacked historical perspective,
> because they never had money. Maybe that affected
> their powers of reasoning too. ;-)
>
> --
> Peace, understanding, health and happiness to all beings!
> U U u ^^ ` 'U u U ''`'`
> _-__o|oO|o-_|o_o_-_MN[-->mm@_-_--___o|o|oU_|o_o__lilypond
> dave N Va USA David Raleigh Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
