-------- Original Message --------
From: - Tue Apr 11 00:06:33 2006
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:06:17 +1000
From: Cameron Horsburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kieren Richard MacMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: dynamics: integrated or separate variable?
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Oops, must use 'Reply-All'!
Kieren Richard MacMillan wrote:
> Hey, all!
>
> Just wanted to take an informal survey...
>
> How many 'Ponders put their dynamics directly in the "note code", e.g.,
> notes = { a\pp b }
> and why?
>
> How many 'Ponders use a separate dynamics variable, e.g.,
> notes = { a b }
> dynamics = { \pp }
> << \notes \dynamics >>
> and why?
>
> How many 'Ponders use both systems, and what are the circumstances that
> dictate the choice?
>
Whilst I normally like keeping things as separate as possible, the only
time I would separate the notes and the dynamics would be as a shortcut
when setting multistaff pieces. Most of the music I set is multistaff,
but the instruments often play different dynamics. Very little time
would be saved, and things would just get confusing.
Using Point 'n' Click speeds things up when I'm making all those 'little
adjustments' when things aren't quite right.
Cameron
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
