On 05/01/19 17:34, Aaron Hill wrote: > On 2019-01-05 2:40 am, Wols Lists wrote: >> On 04/01/19 18:41, Aaron Hill wrote: >>> I *H*A*T*E* about people who proclaim "This is >> correct". >> >> Take my case - which would you choose between "follow the current >> wisdom" and "music that is readable (and hence playable)". Note that >> this *IS* an either/or choice! How often have I moaned on this list >> because I need to over-ride lily's defaults because the result is >> otherwise pretty much unplayable ... > > I disagree. The two options are not mutually exclusive--they are one > and the same. That is, I see following classical and modern wisdom as > tools to aid in achieving what will be readable and playable. But the > goal is very much the latter, not the former...
They may not be mutually exclusive for you. But as you may remember, I regularly struggle to eliminate page-breaks, and if that leads to cramped, hard-to-read music so be it - the alternative is unplayable. > > > The problem I have with something like Elements of Style is that the > work is largely arbitrary yet presented as if it were based in fact. > Modern research and analysis of written works through history do not > agree with Strunck and White's conclusions. Based on that, one might > all too quickly throw out the Elements; but putting aside the ego of the > authors, there is still wisdom in its pages. It is ultimately born out > of understanding why and how a rule can be useful in different > situations. And to quote a cult classic, "Sometimes you have to know > when to break the rules." > > In the world of music notation, it would seem that Gould has filled a > similar role. I have seen many folks cite their work as the rational > basis for engraving something a particular way. It would be my approach > to take this work not as "you must strictly adhere to these various > commandments" but rather "while ideal to follow this path as closely as > reasonable, stray from it should it make things clearer." > > Given that, you should definitely feel free to experiment with notation > and treat it like an artist who has much freedom with their brush. If> > -- Aaron Hill > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > your music is particularly unusual, perhaps an equally unusual engraving > is most apropos. And hopefully LilyPond is and will continue to be > malleable enough to accommodate the whims of the unusual. I agree with you, "Elements of Style", "Gould", "The Oxford English Dictionary" are all necessary to *define* *standards* to make it easy for us to understand each other :-) > > But for matters of the not-so-unusual, have no disillusion your > engraving (or writing) will be readily clear if you choose to stray too > far from the path. > ????? But standards are of no use if applying them results in output that is not "fit for purpose" as English law puts it ... :-) Cheers, Wol _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user