Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
> To: "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 2:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Changing voice order...
>
>
>
>> There are by now two components to my proposal: fading out \voiceOne
>> ... \voiceFour since they _never_ correspond to voices 1/2/3/4 in a
>> four-voiced context but to voices 1/4/2/3.  And changing the meaning of
>> << \\ \\ \\ >>.
>
>
> I'm concerned by this.  I don't believe I have ever used more than 2
> voices in choral music: typically the sops/tenors get voice one, and
> the alto/basses get voice two.  If any of these is doubled (e.g. sop1
> and sop2) then they are shown as chorded notes, still in their normal
> voice.  If it gets more complex than this, then current vocal music
> almost always resorts to a stave per vocal group.  It looks to me like
> the proposal would end up with voiceTwo having upstems.

Nope.  What is now called \voiceTwo would be renamed to \voiceDown or
something of that kind.

> I am very much against that.  It would mean I would have to update a
> lot of music to make it usable.  I don't use concert-ly 'cos I find it
> a pain on Windows.
>
> Who uses four voices on one stave in vocal setting?

Using the current meanings of \voiceOne...\voiceFour, you'd get the
following assignments:

<< \voiceOne \\ \voiceTwo >>
<< \voiceOne \\ \voiceThree \\ \voiceTwo >>
<< \voiceOne \\ \voiceThree \\ \voiceFour \\ \voiceTwo >>

So the assignment of the \voiceXXX-like settings depends on the number
of \\ and you cannot deduce the settings before you actually know how
many \\ constructs are present.  For two voices, your main use case, the
behavior will be absolutely identical.

Now the Voice contexts are still going to be assigned sequentially as
"1"/"2", "1"/"2"/"3", "1"/"2"/"3"/"4" (nothing else makes sense really).
So in order not to cause confusion by having "1"/"2"/"3"/"4" correspond
to "One"/"Three"/"Four"/"Two", I want to rename the \voiceXXX constructs
as well.  The old ones will be available still but no longer promoted
and/or documented prominently, instead using something like \voiceUp,
\voiceDown, \inner \voiceUp, \inner \VoiceDown ...  Those names are
still accurate when more than two voices are involved while the relation
between name and behavior for \voiceTwo becomes tenuous as soon as more
than two voices are involved.

So your objections are to something different than what I propose.
I mean, it could perfectly well be that you still object.  I'd just like
you to object to the actual proposal when you do.  It gives me a better
picture.

-- 
David Kastrup