The short answer is that that isn’t the way Bartók chose to do them, even if I
would personally do them that way and if a goal is to represent the composer’s
intent, then that’s changing things. As others in the thread indicated, it’s
more common than I realized, so it presumably serves a
On 14.01.20 18:15, Arle Lommel wrote:
Why Bartók didn’t simply show the bottom D in the treble clef is an
interesting question. I think he was trying to keep the relationship
between the hands clear, but couldn’t quite include the upper D in a
way that made sense without splitting it like
Hi Andrew,
> Not at all uncommon.
Agreed.
> for the case with the notehead on the opposite, you now have lots o good
> solutions.
Well… I wouldn’t necessarily call my hack a good solution. It would be nice to
have some syntactic sugar that would handle these kinds of cases gracefully,
Hi Arie,
Not at all uncommon. In the New Complexity scores that I engrave for a
colleague composer we have this continuously, in the piano music. It's
actually a fairly standard modernist notation, and true enough indicates
the distribution of hands but also that this is a single dyadic chord
> The more things interact unnecessarily, the harder it becomes doing
> things reliably. The more we manage to get LilyPond to behave to naive
> expectations, the more useable power the average user has at their
> convenience.
>
> So we should not try overexercising the "music is complex, so
Arle Lommel writes:
>> Hope that helps more!
>> Kieren.
>
>
> Thanks much. One of the challenging things for folks like me who dip
> in and out is keeping track of all the different ways that things can
> be done and how all the elements interact. But that is inherent to
> this: Music notation
> Hope that helps more!
> Kieren.
Thanks much. One of the challenging things for folks like me who dip in and out
is keeping track of all the different ways that things can be done and how all
the elements interact. But that is inherent to this: Music notation is orders
of magnitude more
Hi Arle,
> That did indeed help. It got me 90% of the way there. When I actually applied
> it in the piece I’m setting, I found that the length of the overridden stem
> was pushing the other staff away. It didn’t do this in the example you made,
> so I’m not sure what was interfering
You
Írta Kieren:
> p.s. Maybe this helps?
That did indeed help. It got me 90% of the way there. When I actually applied
it in the piece I’m setting, I found that the length of the overridden stem was
pushing the other staff away. It didn’t do this in the example you made, so I’m
not sure what
Thank you. This seems to do it nicely. I’d not submitted a MWE because I didn’t
have anything I was confident was even the right sort of starting point and was
looking for a pointer where to even start. Fortunately (for me), you filled the
gap very nicely with this. I’ll need to adapt it for
p.s. Maybe this helps?
\version "2.19.83"
\layout {
\context {
\PianoStaff
\consists #Span_stem_engraver
}
}
{
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff {
bes'8[ ]
}
\new Staff {
\clef bass
\voiceOne
\autoBeamOff
\crossStaff { \tweak
Hi Arle,
> How would I achieve this effect? All of the crossStaff examples I find have
> the note heads on the same side of the stem and the stem extends above or
> below one of the notes. I’ve tried to get them to work with moderate success,
> but not with this arrangement.
Please always
12 matches
Mail list logo
