Re: No fiddling claim

[Jonathan Wilkes]

--- On Mon, 9/28/09, Reinhold Kainhofer <address@hidden> wrote:

> From: Reinhold Kainhofer <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: No fiddling claim
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: "Jonathan Wilkes" <address@hidden>
> Date: Monday, September 28, 2009, 8:20 PM
> Am Montag, 28. September 2009
> 19:33:09 schrieb Jonathan Wilkes:
> > Hi Jan,
> >      I don't understand the meaning of
> the statement "More often than not
> > it isn't." There are tweaks in all of the examples
> from the canon that
> > begin the sections in NR, plus there are plenty of
> engraving mistakes in
> >  those examples as well that would require more
> tweaks (i.e., fiddling) to
> >  fix. For example, in Op. 53 in NR 1.1:
> 
> Please compare with several printed versions of this
> piece:
> http://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No.21,_Op.53_(Beethoven,_Ludwig_van)
> 
> > * "cresc." should be centered
> 
> Some editions center it, some right-align it, some
> left-align it like 
> lilypond...
> 
> > * the end points of the slur in m. 36 should start
> about a half-space
> > higher (or possibly at the top of the stem on the left
> end point)
> 
> Granted.
> 
> > * sf and hairpin should be higher
> 
> Why should it be higher rather than vertically centered?

If it were higher it would be centered.  In that image I count about 11 
pixels from the bottom of the rh staff to the top of the f, and 5 pixels 
from the bottom of the f to the lh staff.

> 
> Also please note that piano centered dynamics is not a
> supported feature. In 
> particular, see section 2.2.1:
> "Dynamics are not automatically centered, but workarounds
> do exist. One option 
> is the ‘piano centered dynamics’ template under 
> Piano templates; another 
> option is to increase the staff-padding of dynamics as
> discussed in  objects 
> Moving objects."
> 
> Yes, that's a real drawback, but unless someone steps up to
> improve piano-
> centered dynamics, things will not improve

This is why I think "no fiddling" is a philosophy rather than an answer 
to "why use lilypond?"  Actually, I think I would be less critical of 
this claim if it were specific: "No note-spacing headaches" is something 
I would agree with.

> 
> 
> 
> BTW, which version are we talking about? 2.12 or 2.13 docs?
> The 2.12 dynamics 
> look perfectly centered. In 2.13 they are not, because that
> snippet uses one 
> of the mentioned workarounds, which apparently no longer
> works...

Oh, sorry, I'm looking at the 2.13 docs.

> 
> > * hairpin shouldn't touch the right barline
> 
> Granted, there should be a little space.
> 
> > * l.h. slurs in m. 34 and 36 should have more arc to
> be further from the
> > sharp sign
> 
> In almost all of the scores the slur and the accidental
> touch.

I'm looking at the dover edition edited by Schenker, and the von Bulow 
edition on the IMSLP (I can't find the second volume my Henle edition).  
In neither does the accidental actually touch the slur.  Furthermore, 
in both editions the slurs "match," von Bulow's has big broad slurs, and 
Schenker's are less exagerrated.  In the lilypond example, there is a 
mixture of curvy slurs and straight ones which is visually distracting 
(i.e., Lilypond doesn't seem to have a "house style" to its default slurs).

> 
> > * p in m. 38 should be centered
> 
> Isn't it?

No, it's basically in the same position as the sf of the previous system. 
(see above)

> 
> > and whole-note, respectively
> 
> What should be different with the whole-note?

Well, I thought the slur got to close, but now I think the problem is the 
difference between the arc of that slur and the one above it.

I'll go ahead and list the other problems I saw in the NR examples.

1.2 Rhythms

In the two scores I've looked at (referenced above), the lh notes are 
beamed in groups every eighth note- not every quarter.

Grace notes don't affect the spacing in the left hand (they are just 
fitted into the space between the eighth and the following sixteenth 
note.

In the second measure of the rh, beat 2, the sixteenths are beamed 
separately from the 32nds (same thing in m. 4).

\p\> is not centered

in the 3rd measure, the 128th-note beam seems to be shifted too far down 
(I'm not sure what the rule is for the positions of such small durations, 
however in the Schenker score the bottom of the beam stays within a half- 
space of the bottom line of the staff).

1.5 Simultaneous Notes

The hairpin in the top system collides with the slur.

The trill symbols in the second system touch each other.

The trill flat looks a little too small.

The dynamics in the system aren't centered.

Second system, 4th measure, lh: the dot of the dotted eighth rest is 
inside the f clef (should be a whole rest here anyway).

1.7 Editorial Annotations

The beam on the l.h. grace note is too high.

-Jonathan

> 
> Cheers,
> Reinhold
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reinhold Kainhofer, address@hidden,
> http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
>  * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of
> Technology, Austria
>  * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
>  * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org
>