Re: Older bar type.

[Tim Nowaczyk]

On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 11:53:23AM +0200, Rune Zedeler wrote:
>Tim Nowaczyk wrote:
>>  I'm in the process of typesetting a Diabelli piece from 1825.  The
>>  "|." indicator in this piece is four-dots, a thin line, and a thick
>>  line.  Is there a way I can typeset this symbol?
>
>I don't understand.
>Something like this:
>
>-------+-X
>     * | X
>-------+-X
>     * | X
>-------+-X
>     * | X
>-------+-X
>     * | X
>-------+-X
>
Yes.  I should have tried ascii art instead of explaining it.  I guess
its meaning wrong though.

On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 08:46:22AM -0400, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>It's just an obsolete repeat sign.  No one will understand it.  Unless
>you are a forger, use a modern one.
>
  Here's my main intention in asking.  It gets into musical preservation
  in general and mutopia in particular.  I'd like my transcription to be
  close to the original.  Should I update the over 150 year old
  manuscript to use modern musical conventions, or try to recreate the
  original with computer typesetting?  I feel this is a tough question
  with good arguments on both sides.

  I'm not in musical acadamia.  I can't make value judgements of this
  sort.  I simply want to make old, unadultered music available, for
  free, to the masses.  For me, this means accuratly reproducing the
  original score.  I'll let the scollars debate the details.

  Sorry for the simple question turned to streem-of-conciousness moral
  debate.  This is something I feel somewhat passionate about.  Since I
  don't feel that the addition of this bar symbol is something that's
  wanted in general, I'm not going to push it.  However, is there a way
  I can greate this new bar symbol with scheme code in my score?

  Thanks for your help,
  Tim Nowaczyk
  
-- 
----------Tim address@hidden
| <>< Truth
|
| GPG fingerprint = 1612 3E41 D649 63ED 222D  EB27 E84D 4274 392C A50A