RE: Odd output

[James Lowe]

Hello,


-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden on behalf of Michael Ellis
Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 21:50
To: Keith OHara
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Odd output
 
+1 for option C
Cheers,
Mike


On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Keith OHara <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 04:09:10 -0800, Phil Holmes <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The version that Chappell uses in the Mikado is attached.
>>
>>  Nice.
> It does break the usual rules about horizontal placement, and about when to
> cancel accidentals in another voice. But, with the beaming to clarify the
> timing and linking the voices, I did not notice any rules were broken
> --until I tried to produce it with Lilypond.
>
> It would be reasonable to ask Lilypond to produce 'A' below on her own, and
> even better if she would offset the notes as in 'B' (which she does do for
> chords in one voice).  Probably a human should decide when to bend the rules
> to produce 'C'.
>
> I think it helps to show the desired behavior in the tracker, and plan to
> put what is below in a comment to 1134, unless somebody either beats me to
> it or has second thoughts.
> -Keith
>
>
> \relative c' { \time 2/8
>  << s1*0^wrong
>    { fis8 g } \\ { f f } >>
>  << s1*0^A
>    { fis8 g } \\ { f! f } >>
>  << s1*0^B
>    { fis8 g } \\
>    { \once\override NoteColumn #'force-hshift = #1
>      f! f } >>
>  << s1*0^C
>    #(set-accidental-style 'voice)
>    { fis8[ g] } \\ {
>      s64 f!8*7/8[ f] } >>
> }


---

What about when extra staff notation is needed?

For example if you needed slurs or ties?

Wouldn't A be preferable here? That is having an accidental either side of each 
note is far more clumsy than two accidentals to the left of the note then the 
slur doesn't interfere.

Also what is the purpose in the case of A B or C of the second natural? Isn't 
that implied by standard notation where the note retains the 'sharp/flat' for 
the duration of the measure unless explicitly changed?

Here is a simplified example of what Keith did above to illustrate the point.

\relative c' {
<< s1*0
#(set-accidental-style 'voice)
{ fis8[ g] } \\ { s64 f!8*7/8[ f] } 
>>
<< s1*0
#(set-accidental-style 'voice)
{ fis!8([ g] } \\ { s64 f!8*7/8~[ f] } 
>><< s1*0
#(set-accidental-style 'voice)
{ fis!8[ g]) } \\ { s64 f!8*7/8[ f] } 
>><< s1*0
#(set-accidental-style 'voice)
{ fis!8[ g] } \\ { s64 f!8*7/8)[ f] } 
>>
}

I am not a vocal specialist but just using this one simplistic example of C 
seems erroneous. Isn't the idea of the notes printed at the same moment to show 
that they need to be sung at the same moment if you see what I mean? Yes I am 
sure that a vocalist can make their own mind up, but if that is the reasoning 
then it doesn't matter what we use then does it and you can provide instruction 
accordingly.

I don't think that the beaming clarifies anything at all personally.

Just my tuppence worth.

james