Re: Augmentation dot positioning

[Carl Sorensen]

On 9/15/16 10:41 AM, "Chris Yate" <address@hidden> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 at 17:33 Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>
>I note that sib1.png is exactly the same chord as in the Gould scan.  And
>it has two less dots than Gould shows.  So it's not consistent with Gould.
>
>
>
>
>I'm not quite sure what she's showing in that example you scanned, but I
>thought it was about centering the dots.

It is about centering the dots.  But it is also exactly the same chord you
use in sib1.png.  And it has 5 dots, not three dots.

>
> 
>I think the trouble with Gould's rules is that they're inconsistent, or
>could at least be interpreted in such a way.  She says to use dots only
>on the spaces occupied by the chord, and yet says you MAY need to put a
>dot a space or more away from the chord.

No, let me summarize Gould's rules.

Rule 1: Every notehead in a chord must take a duration dot.

Rule 2: Move dots away from a note head on a line by moving it either up
or down (she has some guidelines for how to do this, but I'm skipping them
right now)

Rule 3: Every dot needs to have a staff space to itself.  This implies
(although it's not explicitly stated, but it is shown) that you may need
to move dots farther than one staff space away from the note head.

Rule 4: Center the dots on the chord.  This fixes problems that may show
up by applying rule 3.

Rule 5: If one of the remaining dots is two or more staff spaces from the
chord, the dot pattern is bad, so instead of having one dot per note head,
just have one dot per staff space included in the chord.

Every example she shows is consistent with these rules.  The examples you
show from Sibelius are not consistent with these rules.  That doesn't make
them wrong, just inconsistent with Gould.


> 
> 
>
>At the very least, we should be able to decide in our own scores what
>logic is used for dot placement :-)

Yes.  Perhaps we could make a scheme callback for cleaning up dots.  And
that could become a property of a DotColumn, and the user would be free to
implement their own Scheme function for cleaning up the dots.

>
>
>Are you editing the code in dot-column.cc. or is there some Scheme code
>for this too?

Just editing code in dot-column.cc.  No Scheme code anywhere that I can
see.

So what rules do you use to decide when a dot is necessary below the
bottom note of a chord, above the top of a chord, or in the middle of a
chord with an interval larger than a third?

Looking at your statements in Dots.ly, I would infer the following rules:


1. Put dots next to note heads on staff spaces.
2. Put dots in the space above note heads on staff lines.  If the space is
already taken, and the space below the note head is available, place the
dot in the space below the note head.  If the space is already taken, and
the space below the note head is taken as well, omit the dot.


I think those two rules provide the dots that you have considered to be
necessary in Dots.ly, without any of the dots you consider unnecessary.

Thanks,

Carl