Re: engraving question - temporary voices in vocal music

[James Lowe]

Hello,

-----Original Message-----
From: Janek Warchoł <address@hidden>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:06:12 +0100
To: Phil Holmes <address@hidden>, <address@hidden>,
Trevor Daniels <address@hidden>, Shane Brandes
<address@hidden>, Francisco Vila <address@hidden>
Cc: lilypond-user <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: engraving question - temporary voices in vocal music

>Dear all,
>
>thank you for your answers. I think i'll use explicit notation for
>clarity's sake, especially because it doesn't take much space in this
>case and composer asked for it.
>
>2011/2/19 Phil Holmes <address@hidden>:
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janek Warchoł"
>> <address@hidden>
>> To: "lilypond-user" <address@hidden>
>> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 8:00 PM
>> Subject: engraving question - temporary voices in vocal music
>>
>> Just to back up my "either is OK" comment, here's a little bit from
>> Chappell's version of the Gondoliers.  Personally I think this is lazy,
>>but
>> it's how they've done it.
>
>Your example puzzles me, as i see no reason to mix two kinds of notation
>here...
>

Don't string players have to put up with this kind of thing all the time?

They just add the notation 'div'/'non-div' or 'unison'.

Why not for vocal?

James (A Trumpet player)

>