Re: missing dots with merge-differently-dotted

[Matthias Kilian]

On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 01:50:10PM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> > \version "2.1.15"
> > \score {
> >   \notes \relative c {
> >     \time 1/4
> >     \key d \minor
> >     \clef bass
> >     << <cis a' cis>4 \\ {g'8. bes16} >>
> >   }
> >   \paper {}
> > }
> 
> Does B&H arrange the heads in the same way as LilyPond?

As far as I can see, LilyPond does the same as B& H most of the time. Only
that critical situation in my example is handled differently. However,
I'm currently on page 2 of 19, so I expect lots of future surprises :-)

> LilyPond only
> tried to rearrange heads to avoid obscuring dots.  I've made fix in
> CVS.

Thanks, I'll checkout it later.

> > ps: may be that Busoni's transcription of Bach's d minor Chaconne is a
> > good torture test for LilyPond.
> 
> Yes, hit me harder!

Well, it's also good for learning LilyPond, may be a little bit too hard
for a beginner :-)

> > I've two printouts of that tune (one from gdr, early 80's, one from
> > brd, mid 90s), both of equally (bad) quality. If you're interested,
> > I'll send an exemplar to you (or to Han-Wen). However, LilyPonding
> > it seems to be non-trivial :-/
> 
> I'd rather look for a good engraving if we're going to use it to model
> LilyPond.  What about the B+H edition?

I think it's good in sense of engraving style, especially spacing and
slurs, with some exceptions (in rather complicated situations). The
quality problem is a problem of reproduction, not engraving.

The very first edition must have been great. Even from my slightly blurred
exemplars it's possible to play directly from the notes.
[Modulo the player's skills -- some parts of it are every hobby-pianist's
nightmare :-)]

Ciao,
        Kili