2011/2/21 Phil Holmes <[email protected]>: > I was simply illustrating that the standard of professional engraving at > around 1900 wasn't very precise.
Ah. Perhaps i missed your point, sorry. > I am transcribing Gondoliers to LilyPond, > and if you count accidentals where they shouldn't be, there are literally > hundreds of errors. Whoa! I'm glad that we live in XXIst century then :) And have Lily available :D 2011/2/21 James Lowe <[email protected]>: > Hello > > )-----Original Message----- > )From: Janek Warchoł [mailto:[email protected]] > )Sent: 20 February 2011 22:54 > )To: James Lowe; colinpkcampbell > )Cc: Phil Holmes; [email protected]; Trevor Daniels; Shane > )Brandes; Francisco Vila; lilypond-user > )Subject: Re: engraving question - temporary voices in vocal music > ) > )W dniu 20 lutego 2011 01:50:15 UTC+1 użytkownik James Lowe > )<[email protected]> napisał: > )> Don't string players have to put up with this kind of thing all the time? > )> > )> They just add the notation 'div'/'non-div' or 'unison'. > )> > )> Why not for vocal? > ) > )I don't know how to explain this... I mean, there is only one melody > )throughout that measure, no structural changes. In my opinion it should > )either have all notes double-stemmed, or all notes single-stemmed. > )Maybe the attachment will explain what i mean. > > Thanks for taking the time to create some examples. > > As a non-vocalist I immediately think that the notes that are NOT > double-stemmed are played (sung) by all - > else there would be rests in the appropriate voice. As unless you are a Tuvan > throat singer it is unlikely that > even if the notes were constructed in the < x x > style vs << { x } \\ { x } > >> style that you'd expect the same voice > to sing two notes at the same time so the direction of the stems seems > unimportant for vocal - > so I still stand by what I said before that you can use 'div' and 'unison' > markups to make it clear :) > > Now of course I am probably making huge sweeping generalizations through > hundreds of years > of engraving traditions based on little more than having to learn to how to > engrave a few Violin parts this weekend. > > But when I look at these examples it is pretty clear to me. I'm also fine with both < x x > style and << { x } \\ { x } >> style. What bothers me is that in the *last three* examples i posted there is a change from << { x } \\ { x } >> style to < x x > style for no apparent reason :) cheers, Janek
ambiguities.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
