Simon Albrecht <[email protected]> writes:
> Am 04.05.2017 um 18:47 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Simon Albrecht <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Am 04.05.2017 um 18:13 schrieb Johannes Roeßler:
>>>> With the direction of the stems indicating the hand
>>> I think in order to really judge it one needs more context. From what
>>> time is the music, are you in touch with the composer, what kind of
>>> editorial policies are imposed, … ?
>>> If it were 18th century music, the voice notation and stem direction
>>> would certainly not indicate hand distribution and turning the lower
>>> two voices into chords of one voice would be a sensible editorial
>>> decision (if I played it I’d probably distribute hands like that).
>> If it were 18th century music, mushing together separate voices into
>> chords would be a complete no-no. Even when played on a simplistic
>> one-manual keyboard (or the new-fangled pianoforte), the player would be
>> expected to keep the separate voices coherent or he could without loss
>> be replaced with an automaton.
>
> Come on, don’t exaggerate. If they’re written as chords, an
> intelligent player like you envisage would still recognise them as two
> voices and play them appropriately.
> I’m very much in favour of sticking with the original notation, but I
> agree with Urs that that’s not really feasible here.
I showed a version that looked fine without beaming, but you can even
get it to work close to the original with beaming:
\version "2.19.59"
\relative c'{
\voices 3,1,2
<<{a'8[ b b] }\\{\override Beam.beamed-stem-shorten=#'(-1.6 -1.4 -1.2) dis16[ e] e[fis] fis[gis32 a] }\\{fis,8[ g dis]}>>
}
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
