|
From: | Malte Meyn |
Subject: | Re: R\fermata: How to build a markup in C++? |
Date: | Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:55:39 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 |
Am 19.04.19 um 19:50 schrieb Dan Eble:
On Apr 16, 2019, at 06:58, Malte Meyn <address@hidden> wrote:In all these cases \fermata behaves the same as \fermataMarkup, because both simply create a MultiMeasureRestText. It’s placed on the first measure of expanded MMRsIs that the most reasonable result or should it be treated as a known issue? Wouldn’t it be more logical for an expanded R1*3\fermata to be engraved like R1 R1 R1\fermata?
I don’t think that it would be more logical; two thoughts on that:1. You probably wouldn’t use fermatas on compressed multi-measure rests but instead spell them out because otherwise the player would not know which measures are affected:
%%%%%%%% BEGIN %%%%%%%% { \compressFullBarRests R1*3\fermata % IMO unlikely R1*2 R1\fermata % clearer R1\fermata R1*2 % clearer % and a player could even interpret it as R1\fermata R\fermata R\fermata } %%%%%%%%% END %%%%%%%%%So if you wouldn’t write R1*3\fermata with compressed rests, why would you with expanded ones? → The default placement is irrelevant.
2. Texts like “Allegro” or “ritardando” or “change to piccolo” on compressed multi-measure should be placed on the first measure if expanded:
%%%%%%%% BEGIN %%%%%%%% { R1*3-"ritardando" \compressFullBarRests R1*3-"ritardando" } %%%%%%%%% END %%%%%%%%%I think that it would be good to have consistent behaviour of scripts (like \fermata) and text scripts (like -"ritardando"). → The default placement of MultiMeasureRestScripts should be the same as for MultiMeasureRestTexts as it currently is.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |