Re: GDP: Time to plan the revision of NR 2 "Specialist Notation"

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:09:01 +0200
Mats Bengtsson <address@hidden> wrote:

> Valentin Villenave wrote:
> >
> > If we decide to add "bowing indications" in Strings, we should
> > consider adding "Breathing indications" to Wind instruments,
> > shouldn't we?
> >   
> I've often seen breathing indications both in string music as well as
> vocal music.

True.  IIRC, it was pretty obvious how to get \breathe from
NR 1.3 Expressive, though.  Ditto for \downbow and \upbow.

Perhaps we should introduce a @seealso in each NR 2.x which links
to areas of NR 1 that are of particular interest?  Hmm, actually
that isn't ideal, since NR 1.3.x.y probably wouldn't include
\downbow explicitly.

Maybe add a "Constructs often used by" subsubsection, which gives
specific examples (of bowing, breathing, etc) along with links to
the earlier sections?

As you all know, I'm not at all fond of duplication in the docs,
but I'm having difficulty arguing that "String music" would be
easier to understand if we omitted discussion of bowings.  And
artificial harmonics, for that matter -- those are covered in
Pitches.

Cheers,
- Graham