Hi David, On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:03 PM, David Sumbler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > But both of these are "work-arounds" for something which is actually > fairly normal musical notation. They are work-arounds because one > method implies that a note is not really the length that it appears to > be, and the other method implies that the dynamics actually belong to > another, silent voice. Neither of these is true in reality. >
Actually, I think I was a little imprecise talking about attaching the dynamics to a new voice here. I created SimultaneousMusic, rather than another Voice context. Note that this is done commonly enough by users parameterizing their input: one variable is used to store the notes, and another to store the dynamics. (This is not to say that there isn't some hackery at work here :) ) > Ideally one shouldn't have to use trial and error, varying the length of > the second invisible rest, to get an acceptable appearance. We know > exactly where the final dynamic should go: it should be immediately > before the bar-line. > Yes, but what of more complex examples, where a composer indicates a number of inflections on a single note? There are a number of examples of that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uav-OYUJ7BQ (including a simple one at the very beginning). How else could you notate these cases without the simultaneous music approach? Best, David
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
