But one would not usually find, say,
"rit." in the right hand and "accel." in the left (except in Nancarrow's
music!)
David
> > From: Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca>
> > To: Noeck <noeck.marb...@gmx.de>
> > Cc: Lilypond-User
Hi Joram and David,
> you should rather stick to the right syntax
David *is* using the right syntax: “rit” (etc.) is a tempo marking
(MetronomeMark), not an arbitrary text markup (TextScript).
> I have now discovered that this does not work too well when the
> mark comes at the beginning of a
Hi David,
you should rather stick to the right syntax and tweak the appearance of
these texts:
\version "2.19.21"
\layout {
\override TextScript.font-series = #'bold
}
{
a^"rit." a a a
}
Or, if you want to use it only occationally:
{
a^\markup \bold "rit." a a^"other" a
}
Cheers,
with the note itself, but I haven't
> managed to work out how to do that.
>
> How can it be done?
>
If playback isn't too much of a concern, this should do what you need:
%%%
rit = \markup { \bold "rit." }
\relative c' {
\tempo "Allegro"
c8 d e f c d e f
c8
Hi Joram,
> Even editions that print it above the top staff sometimes print it in
> italics or less bold or somehow reduced compared to Allegro, Tempo I
> and so on (the general tempo).
Here’s what Gould writes on that issue (pg. 182): “Older scores use small
italic type for general indication
Hi Kieren,
>> marks like 'Allegro' are valid for a whole piece or at least large parts of
>> it
>
> Not really… A metronome marking is only valid until the next time the tempo
> changes in any way. That change could be immediate and extreme (e.g., “Molto
> Lento”) or immediate and
Hi Kieren,
Am 19.11.2015 um 19:23 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
>> you should rather stick to the right syntax
> David *is* using the right syntax: “rit” (etc.) is a tempo marking
> (MetronomeMark), not an arbitrary text markup (TextScript).
Thinking about it twice, I realize that you are right.
Hi Noeck,
> It is just that I am used to a different tradition
That is the older tradition, yes.
But it is not recommended in modern scores (cf. Gould pg. 182).
> I still think that there is some difference between ‘rit' and 'Allegro’.
What is that difference? (I think they’re identical.)
Hi David,
> In particular, Kieren's suggestion is interesting.
Woo hoo! What do I win? ;)
> we are effectively neutralising the usual alignment adjustments at the break.
> Is this correct?
That’s how I understand it.
> Is it not possible to have an empty list?
I just tested the snippet I
iling List <lilypond-user@gnu.org>
> > Subject: Re: Aligning a tempo marking with a note
> > Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 13:23:21 -0500
> >
> > Hi Joram and David,
> >
> > > you should rather stick to the right syntax
> >
> > David *is* u
Hi Kieren,
>> I still think that there is some difference between ‘rit' and 'Allegro’.
>
> What is that difference? (I think they’re identical.)
Well, they are closer than cresc and rit for example. But in scores I am
used to, marks like 'Allegro' are valid for a whole piece or at least
large
Hi Joram,
> Well, they are closer than cresc and rit for example.
Definitely! =)
> marks like 'Allegro' are valid for a whole piece or at least large parts of it
Not really… A metronome marking is only valid until the next time the tempo
changes in any way. That change could be immediate and
Although many scores use a similar italic font for "rit.", "accel." etc.
as they do for dynamic changes such as "cresc.", I prefer to use an
upright bold font - the same as for other tempo markings such as
"Allegro".
The easiest way for me to do this (at least until now) is to use '\tempo
"rit."'
13 matches
Mail list logo
