[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: improved accidental algorithm (with images)
From: |
Jan Nieuwenhuizen |
Subject: |
Re: improved accidental algorithm (with images) |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Jul 2002 21:45:04 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2 (i386-debian-linux-gnu) |
Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:
>> * accidentals for octaves always have same x-position (unless
>> maybe this eats too much x-space in chords with accidentals on
>> seconds). See Fig 2.
>
> Interestingly, this rule isn't a very strong one in piano music,
> especially if seconds occur.
Uh, I think that's exactly what Wanske says, and what I wanted to
say. Maybe the 'unless' should have been in all-caps, and not inside
parentheses. I think fig 2 shows this, as optimal example?
> Most engravers prefer to tweak accidentals horizontally as much as
> possible, dropping the octave alignment. All my examples were real
> examples found in well-engraved editions of Liszt, Chopin, etc.
Yes, less horizontal space -- good.
>> However, I don't understand why in your chord3.png, you put the flat
>> closer to the chord than the c's natural sign. See Fig 1.
>
> The idea is that the position of the accidentals imitate the positions
> of the affected notes in the chord; this avoids that one of the three
> accents is too far away.
Oops. I overlooked that. I think that you may be right.
> BTW, I was in doubt whether the lowest accidental can really move that
> far to the right for this interval (since it still touches the note
> above); it is perhaps difficult to code also.
Indeed, it touches. Where the y distance one half staff space
greater, it would be ok. Now I think it would be a matter of the
available space, and the engraver's taste. I'd say next to impossble
to code.
To summarize, it looks like your algorithm is quite ok.
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org