Re: flags, beams and stem length in forced directions - output improvement

[Carl Sorensen]

On 12/29/10 1:23 AM, "Janek Warchoł" <address@hidden>
wrote:

> 2010/12/28 Carl Sorensen <address@hidden>
>> 
>> On 12/28/10 12:28 PM, "Janek Warchoł" <address@hidden>
>> wrote:
>> 
> 
> Maybe. But from what i've heard, there are few things that actually
> can be called standards. I heards that engraving books don't agree
> with each other quite often; i'd gladly check myself if this is true,
> but i don't have those books. I've searched for engraving resources -
> see "music engraving resources in the internet" thread on -user - but
> i didn't found much. And there are different opinions even in these
> resources that i found! Look here
> http://mpa.org/music_notation/standard_practice.pdf , page 9: it says
> to do things differently (key cancellation) than LilyPond does. Since
> MPA is some kind of authority, how do we defend ourselves? If we cite
> opinion of some engravers in our defense and they cite other engravers
> in their defense, how can it be decided who is right after all?

In such a case, there are different standards, and we apply both, with a
variable to choose between the different behaviors.  That's why we have
different accidental behaviors.

>>> Surely, they had their reasons, but looking at the scores won't
>>> explain what the reasons were. Maybe they don't exist now? For
>>> example, according to this article
>>> http://icking-music-archive.org/lists/sottisier/sottieng.pdf the
>>> reasons behind steep angles of the beams in the 19th century were the
>>> physical limits of printing technology (page 4) - this sounds
>>> reasonable. Now we have better printers and the standards changed.
>> 
>> Personally, I much prefer the older standard, and LilyPond implements the
>> older standard.  I'm glad it does.  Just because this article suggests it
>> could be different doesn't necessarily make it right....
> 
> There are 3 "correct" examples of beaming of the same passage there:
> one labeled "Peters", one "Henle" and one "recommended". Certainly i
> don't like Henle, but doesn't LilyPond output look more like
> "recommended" than "Peters"? LilyPond rarely puts the beam parallel to
> the noteheads.

LilyPond follows the recommended practice in Stone (IIRC).  And I prefer
LilyPond's beam to any of those in the example you've pointed to.



>>> 2010/12/27 Carl Sorensen <address@hidden>:
>>>> 
>>>> I have now reviewed the engraving books.  I will give the answers that they
>>>> have.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for sharing this!
>>> 
>>> I must admit that i'm surprised to see a shorter variation of flag in
>>> the Stone scan. However there is (should be?) at least one
>>> intermediate stem length between 3.5 and 3. What shall we do with it?
>> 
>> Why is there an intermediate stem length between 3.5 and 3?  If there is,
>> then we use the size 3 flag, I think.
> 
> If there is no intermediate stem length, the point of transition
> betweeen 3.5 and 3 looks bad.
> This leads me to another related question i was going to ask. Look at
> the attachment and tell me which line looks best for you? (i'm asking
> this question to anyone who is still following this thread - by the
> way, is there anyone else? :) )
> 

I like A the least. I'm ambivalent between B and C.  Either one looks fine
to me.

I'm afraid that C would greatly complicate the engraver, requiring a look at
a lot of notes ahead and behind the current note, and that the benefit of
doing that would not be worth the cost.

>> 
>> I'll be happy to add 3-space flags to the font.  It won't take too long.
>> But before I do it, I'd like to see some prototype code that would use them.
>> Here's a suggestion.  How about if you write code that uses some other flag
>> for short stems (take your pick; it doesn't matter what flag you choose) and
>> then send me a copy of your patch. At that point, I'll make shorter versions
>> of flags.d3, flags.d4, flags.u3, and flags.u4.
> 
> I'll do this as soon as we decide on the issues related to this one
> (for example about the attachment).
> And I hope it won't take too long - but, as i've said before, i'm
> quite inexperienced.

Great!

Thanks,

Carl