<<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

<<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Gianmaria Lari
The attached image shows a measure of a accordion piece from Bogdan Precz. 

I tried to engrave it writing:

<<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

and it looks fine except for the slur. How can I add the slur?
Thank you, g.



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

precz.png (262K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Thomas Morley-2
Am Fr., 4. Jan. 2019 um 10:20 Uhr schrieb Gianmaria Lari
<[hidden email]>:

>
> The attached image shows a measure of a accordion piece from Bogdan Precz.
>
> I tried to engrave it writing:
>
> <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>
>
>
> and it looks fine except for the slur. How can I add the slur?
> Thank you, g.

I'd rather use one voice with scaled durations:

{
  \key aes \major
  \clef bass
   aes,2.*1/3(
   ees2*1/2
   bes4)
}

HTH,
  Harm

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

N. Andrew Walsh
But maybe also as an aside:

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 10:34 AM Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> wrote:
Am Fr., 4. Jan. 2019 um 10:20 Uhr schrieb Gianmaria Lari
<[hidden email]>:
>
> The attached image shows a measure of a accordion piece from Bogdan Precz.

I'm not sure why you're coding this with spacer rests anyway. If you want to control stem direction, you can do that with \stemUp and \stemDown. But even without them, Lily would likely set the stems in the direction shown in the image on her own, so I'm not sure why you have all the extra code at all. For example:

\relative c {
  \time 6/4
  \key aes \major
  \clef bass
   aes2.(
   ees'2
   bes'4)
}

But maybe I'm missing something. What is it you're trying to achieve that this version does not?

Cheers,

A

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Martin Tarenskeen
In reply to this post by Gianmaria Lari


On Fri, 4 Jan 2019, Gianmaria Lari wrote:

> The attached image shows a measure of a accordion piece from Bogdan Precz. 
>
> I tried to engrave it writing:
>       <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>
>
>
> and it looks fine except for the slur. How can I add the slur?
> Thank you, g.


If it were 6/4 time (that's what the image looks like) it would be easy.

{ as,2.( es2 bes4) }

But from your description it seems to be 3/4 time with invisible rests.
It depends on the context of this kind of notation is a good idea, or if real
rests, or a notation with floating ties would be better.

But that doesn't answer your question.

--

MT
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Gianmaria Lari
My apologies, I didn't specify the fact that it is 3/4 time. 

Thomas solution is graphically perfect.... but I have to manage the midi output "manually ".

Budanov solution is ok for midi but graphically it's not perfect (slur position is not ok). Here it is the budanov solution:

\version "2.19.82"
{ \time 3/4 \clef bass \key aes \major 
 <<{aes,2.} \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {\hideNotes aes,4(\unHideNotes s4 bes4)}>> }

I will try to fix them :)
Thanks everybody.
g.

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Thomas Morley-2
Am Fr., 4. Jan. 2019 um 11:17 Uhr schrieb Gianmaria Lari
<[hidden email]>:
>
> My apologies, I didn't specify the fact that it is 3/4 time.
>
> Thomas solution is graphically perfect....

Well, my suggestion meets the image. Actually, the composers notation
is simply wrong, strictly speaking.
I've seen it many times, though.

> but I have to manage the midi output "manually ".

I don't care much about midi, why do you do? It's never music.

>
> Budanov solution is ok for midi but graphically it's not perfect (slur position is not ok). Here it is the budanov solution:
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> { \time 3/4 \clef bass \key aes \major
>  <<{aes,2.} \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {\hideNotes aes,4(\unHideNotes s4 bes4)}>> }
>
> I will try to fix them :)
> Thanks everybody.
> g.

For the record, one could do:

\layout { \context { \Voice \remove Slur_engraver } }

\new Staff \with { \consists Slur_engraver }
{
  \key aes \major
  \clef bass
  \time 3/4
  <<
      aes,2.\=7( \\ { s4 ees2 } \\ s2. \\ { s2 bes4\=7) }
  >>
}

This has serious drawbacks, you'll not happy using it...

Cheers,
  Harm

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Mats Bengtsson-4

On 1/4/19 11:55, Thomas Morley wrote:

> For the record, one could do:
>
> \layout { \context { \Voice \remove Slur_engraver } }
>
> \new Staff \with { \consists Slur_engraver }
> {
>    \key aes \major
>    \clef bass
>    \time 3/4
>    <<
>        aes,2.\=7( \\ { s4 ees2 } \\ s2. \\ { s2 bes4\=7) }
>    >>
> }
>
> This has serious drawbacks, you'll not happy using it...

If you don't use phrasing slurs too much, you could do the same trick
with a phrasing slur instead of a regular slur, perhaps with somewhat
less serious drawbacks:

\layout { \context { \Voice \remove Phrasing_slur_engraver } }

\new Staff \with { \consists Phrasing_slur_engraver }
{
   \key aes \major
   \clef bass
   \time 3/4
   <<
       aes,2.\( \\ { s4 ees2 } \\ s2. \\ { s2 bes4\) }
   >>
}

    /Mats


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Heikki Tauriainen
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2
On Fri, 2019-01-04 at 11:55 +0100, Thomas Morley wrote:

> Am Fr., 4. Jan. 2019 um 11:17 Uhr schrieb Gianmaria Lari
> <[hidden email]>:
> > My apologies, I didn't specify the fact that it is 3/4 time.
> >
> > Thomas solution is graphically perfect....
>
> Well, my suggestion meets the image. Actually, the composers notation
> is simply wrong, strictly speaking.
> I've seen it many times, though.
>
> > but I have to manage the midi output "manually ".
>
> I don't care much about midi, why do you do? It's never music.

One could argue the same thing about the typeset output (depending on
your definition of music, of course) :-)

Anyway, the output from the original code could possibly be improved by
instantiating the voices explicitly instead of using \\:

\version "2.19.82"
\new Staff {
  \time 3/4 \clef bass \key aes \major
  <<
    { aes,2. }
    \new Voice { \voiceTwo s4 ees2 }
    \new Voice {
      \voiceOne \hideNotes aes,4^(\unHideNotes s4 \voiceTwo bes4)
    }
  >>
}

--
Heikki Tauriainen



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Gianmaria Lari
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2


On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 11:56, Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> wrote:
Am Fr., 4. Jan. 2019 um 11:17 Uhr schrieb Gianmaria Lari
<[hidden email]>:
>
> My apologies, I didn't specify the fact that it is 3/4 time.
>
> Thomas solution is graphically perfect....

Well, my suggestion meets the image. Actually, the composers notation
is simply wrong, strictly speaking.
I've seen it many times, though.

Yes it's wrong but I think it is used because it better complies with the need to be easy to write it and to be less "dense" (and then someway easier to read) than traditional/correct way. Maybe the composer could add a small footnote but in my (not expert) opinion it is a very good solution. For example I found ugly and "difficult" to read the bass part of the BWV846 (c major prelude). 
 

> but I have to manage the midi output "manually ".

I don't care much about midi, why do you do? It's never music.

For didactical reason. And for that, it is pretty important.

[...]For the record, one could do:

\layout { \context { \Voice \remove Slur_engraver } }

\new Staff \with { \consists Slur_engraver }
{
  \key aes \major
  \clef bass
  \time 3/4
  <<
      aes,2.\=7( \\ { s4 ees2 } \\ s2. \\ { s2 bes4\=7) }
  >>
}

This has serious drawbacks, you'll not happy using it...

What's the equal sign? never saw before.

What's about this?

\version "2.19.82"
\score {
  
\time 3/4 \clef bass \key aes \major 
 << {\hideNotes aes,2.} \\ {\hideNotes s4 ees2} \\ {\hideNotes s2 bes4} \\ {aes,2.*1/3( ees2*1/2 bes4) }>> }
\layout {}
\midi {}
}

I know I could use tag but I tend to avoid them if possible....

Ciao and thank you, g.

 

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Thomas Morley-2
Am Fr., 4. Jan. 2019 um 13:07 Uhr schrieb Gianmaria Lari
<[hidden email]>:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 11:56, Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Am Fr., 4. Jan. 2019 um 11:17 Uhr schrieb Gianmaria Lari
>> <[hidden email]>:
>> >
>> > My apologies, I didn't specify the fact that it is 3/4 time.
>> >
>> > Thomas solution is graphically perfect....
>>
>> Well, my suggestion meets the image. Actually, the composers notation
>> is simply wrong, strictly speaking.
>> I've seen it many times, though.
>
>
> Yes it's wrong but I think it is used because it better complies with the need to be easy to write it and to be less "dense" (and then someway easier to read) than traditional/correct way. Maybe the composer could add a small footnote but in my (not expert) opinion it is a very good solution. For example I found ugly and "difficult" to read the bass part of the BWV846 (c major prelude).

Disagreed.

>
>>
>>
>> > but I have to manage the midi output "manually ".
>>
>> I don't care much about midi, why do you do? It's never music.
>
>
> For didactical reason. And for that, it is pretty important.
>
>> [...]For the record, one could do:
>>
>> \layout { \context { \Voice \remove Slur_engraver } }
>>
>> \new Staff \with { \consists Slur_engraver }
>> {
>>   \key aes \major
>>   \clef bass
>>   \time 3/4
>>   <<
>>       aes,2.\=7( \\ { s4 ees2 } \\ s2. \\ { s2 bes4\=7) }
>>   >>
>> }
>>
>> This has serious drawbacks, you'll not happy using it...
>
>
> What's the equal sign? never saw before.

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-as-curves#slurs

>
> What's about this?
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> \score {
>
> {
> \time 3/4 \clef bass \key aes \major
>  << {\hideNotes aes,2.} \\ {\hideNotes s4 ees2} \\ {\hideNotes s2 bes4} \\ {aes,2.*1/3( ees2*1/2 bes4) }>> }
> \layout {}
> \midi {}
> }

A dot is missing.
That's because the two dots are of the two aes2. are joined into one
single dot. Which is hidden by \hideNotes.

Cheers,
  Harm

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Gianmaria Lari
> Yes it's wrong but I think it is used because it better complies with the need to be easy to write it and to be less "dense" (and then someway easier to read) than traditional/correct way. Maybe the composer could add a small footnote but in my (not expert) opinion it is a very good solution. For example I found ugly and "difficult" to read the bass part of the BWV846 (c major prelude).

Disagreed.

Maybe you're too trained :)))

[...]
 
> What's the equal sign? never saw before.

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-as-curves#slurs

Thank you!
 
>
> What's about this?
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> \score {
>
> {
> \time 3/4 \clef bass \key aes \major
>  << {\hideNotes aes,2.} \\ {\hideNotes s4 ees2} \\ {\hideNotes s2 bes4} \\ {aes,2.*1/3( ees2*1/2 bes4) }>> }
> \layout {}
> \midi {}
> }

A dot is missing.
That's because the two dots are of the two aes2. are joined into one
single dot. Which is hidden by \hideNotes.

Yes I saw the problem :( But I don't understand why it happens only with the dot and not also with the aes note.....

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Gianmaria Lari
In reply to this post by Heikki Tauriainen
[...] 
Anyway, the output from the original code could possibly be improved by
instantiating the voices explicitly instead of using \\:

\version "2.19.82"
\new Staff {
  \time 3/4 \clef bass \key aes \major
  <<
    { aes,2. }
    \new Voice { \voiceTwo s4 ees2 }
    \new Voice {
      \voiceOne \hideNotes aes,4^(\unHideNotes s4 \voiceTwo bes4)
    }
  >>
}

You're right! Thank you Heikki!
g. 

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

N. Andrew Walsh
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2


On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:45 PM Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> wrote:

A dot is missing.
That's because the two dots are of the two aes2. are joined into one
single dot. Which is hidden by \hideNotes.

Cheers,
  Harm

holy moly, this way of notating is so wrong I had no idea what was actually going on. So, what's happening here is that the aes and the ees both start on the first beat? They're simultaneous, but offset horizontally and with their stems pointing opposite from normal?

Yeesh, that is terrible.This is why it's important to follow good notation practice: I was so confused by this bad typesetting that I thought the bar was 6/4 time, and now my day is ruined.

Cheers,


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Aaron Hill
On 2019-01-04 9:12 am, N. Andrew Walsh wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:45 PM Thomas Morley <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> A dot is missing.
>> That's because the two dots are of the two aes2. are joined into one
>> single dot. Which is hidden by \hideNotes.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>   Harm
>>
>
> holy moly, this way of notating is so wrong I had no idea what was
> actually
> going on. So, what's happening here is that the aes and the ees both
> start
> on the first beat? They're simultaneous, but offset horizontally and
> with
> their stems pointing opposite from normal?

I believe this is a 3/4 measure where each note begins on subsequent
beats and is sustained for the remaining beats.  That is, it is a slowly
arpeggiated chord.

You could probably write it...

     { <aes,~>4 <aes,~ ees~> <aes, ees, bes> }

...to better show the progressive building of the chord with the
drawback that it is visually more dense with all of the extra notes and
ties.  I think the original engraver wanted a way to save ink.

> Yeesh, that is terrible.This is why it's important to follow good
> notation
> practice: I was so confused by this bad typesetting that I thought the
> bar
> was 6/4 time, and now my day is ruined.

Unless someone is doing academic work where it is critical for the
typesetting to precisely match that of a reference work, all new
typesetting ideally should follow the current wisdom of notation.  There
is little reason to continue to propagate archaic and non-standard
practices, especially if they are more likely to cause confusion.

Go to the pub and have a beer.  Hopefully the rest of your day can be
salvaged.

-- Aaron Hill

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Wols Lists
On 04/01/19 18:41, Aaron Hill wrote:

>
>> Yeesh, that is terrible.This is why it's important to follow good
>> notation
>> practice: I was so confused by this bad typesetting that I thought the
>> bar
>> was 6/4 time, and now my day is ruined.
>
> Unless someone is doing academic work where it is critical for the
> typesetting to precisely match that of a reference work, all new
> typesetting ideally should follow the current wisdom of notation.  There
> is little reason to continue to propagate archaic and non-standard
> practices, especially if they are more likely to cause confusion.

This is exactly what I *H*A*T*E* about people who proclaim "This is
correct".

Take my case - which would you choose between "follow the current
wisdom" and "music that is readable (and hence playable)". Note that
this *IS* an either/or choice! How often have I moaned on this list
because I need to over-ride lily's defaults because the result is
otherwise pretty much unplayable ...

I make no comment about the current piece being discussed - it sounds
like it's incomprehensible to orchestral musicians, but why should
everybody be forced to speak "orchestra"? We don't all speak English, or
write in the Latin script!

Cheers,
Wol

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Aaron Hill
On 2019-01-05 2:40 am, Wols Lists wrote:

> On 04/01/19 18:41, Aaron Hill wrote:
>>
>>> Yeesh, that is terrible.This is why it's important to follow good
>>> notation
>>> practice: I was so confused by this bad typesetting that I thought
>>> the
>>> bar
>>> was 6/4 time, and now my day is ruined.
>>
>> Unless someone is doing academic work where it is critical for the
>> typesetting to precisely match that of a reference work, all new
>> typesetting ideally should follow the current wisdom of notation.  
>> There
>> is little reason to continue to propagate archaic and non-standard
>> practices, especially if they are more likely to cause confusion.
>
> This is exactly what I *H*A*T*E* about people who proclaim "This is
> correct".
>
> Take my case - which would you choose between "follow the current
> wisdom" and "music that is readable (and hence playable)". Note that
> this *IS* an either/or choice! How often have I moaned on this list
> because I need to over-ride lily's defaults because the result is
> otherwise pretty much unplayable ...

I disagree.  The two options are not mutually exclusive--they are one
and the same.  That is, I see following classical and modern wisdom as
tools to aid in achieving what will be readable and playable.  But the
goal is very much the latter, not the former...

> I make no comment about the current piece being discussed - it sounds
> like it's incomprehensible to orchestral musicians, but why should
> everybody be forced to speak "orchestra"? We don't all speak English,
> or
> write in the Latin script!

Since you make the comparison to natural languages, let me be clear that
I am not a prescriptivist.  I do not believe in the idea that written
language must align to some preordained guidelines.  Rather, I am a
proponent of descriptivism, where the primary (or possibly only) goal is
simply to ensure clear communication of thoughts and ideas.  If your
reader can understand you with reasonable unambiguity, then you have
succeeded.

The problem I have with something like Elements of Style is that the
work is largely arbitrary yet presented as if it were based in fact.  
Modern research and analysis of written works through history do not
agree with Strunck and White's conclusions.  Based on that, one might
all too quickly throw out the Elements; but putting aside the ego of the
authors, there is still wisdom in its pages.  It is ultimately born out
of understanding why and how a rule can be useful in different
situations.  And to quote a cult classic, "Sometimes you have to know
when to break the rules."

In the world of music notation, it would seem that Gould has filled a
similar role.  I have seen many folks cite their work as the rational
basis for engraving something a particular way.  It would be my approach
to take this work not as "you must strictly adhere to these various
commandments" but rather "while ideal to follow this path as closely as
reasonable, stray from it should it make things clearer."

Given that, you should definitely feel free to experiment with notation
and treat it like an artist who has much freedom with their brush.  If
your music is particularly unusual, perhaps an equally unusual engraving
is most apropos.  And hopefully LilyPond is and will continue to be
malleable enough to accommodate the whims of the unusual.

But for matters of the not-so-unusual, have no disillusion your
engraving (or writing) will be readily clear if you choose to stray too
far from the path.


-- Aaron Hill

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Mark Stephen Mrotek
Aaron,

Thank you for the caveat regarding Gould.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: lilypond-user
[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
Aaron Hill
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2019 9:35 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

On 2019-01-05 2:40 am, Wols Lists wrote:

> On 04/01/19 18:41, Aaron Hill wrote:
>>
>>> Yeesh, that is terrible.This is why it's important to follow good
>>> notation
>>> practice: I was so confused by this bad typesetting that I thought
>>> the bar was 6/4 time, and now my day is ruined.
>>
>> Unless someone is doing academic work where it is critical for the
>> typesetting to precisely match that of a reference work, all new
>> typesetting ideally should follow the current wisdom of notation.
>> There
>> is little reason to continue to propagate archaic and non-standard
>> practices, especially if they are more likely to cause confusion.
>
> This is exactly what I *H*A*T*E* about people who proclaim "This is
> correct".
>
> Take my case - which would you choose between "follow the current
> wisdom" and "music that is readable (and hence playable)". Note that
> this *IS* an either/or choice! How often have I moaned on this list
> because I need to over-ride lily's defaults because the result is
> otherwise pretty much unplayable ...

I disagree.  The two options are not mutually exclusive--they are one and
the same.  That is, I see following classical and modern wisdom as tools to
aid in achieving what will be readable and playable.  But the goal is very
much the latter, not the former...

> I make no comment about the current piece being discussed - it sounds
> like it's incomprehensible to orchestral musicians, but why should
> everybody be forced to speak "orchestra"? We don't all speak English,
> or write in the Latin script!

Since you make the comparison to natural languages, let me be clear that I
am not a prescriptivist.  I do not believe in the idea that written language
must align to some preordained guidelines.  Rather, I am a proponent of
descriptivism, where the primary (or possibly only) goal is simply to ensure
clear communication of thoughts and ideas.  If your reader can understand
you with reasonable unambiguity, then you have succeeded.

The problem I have with something like Elements of Style is that the work is
largely arbitrary yet presented as if it were based in fact.  
Modern research and analysis of written works through history do not agree
with Strunck and White's conclusions.  Based on that, one might all too
quickly throw out the Elements; but putting aside the ego of the authors,
there is still wisdom in its pages.  It is ultimately born out of
understanding why and how a rule can be useful in different situations.  And
to quote a cult classic, "Sometimes you have to know when to break the
rules."

In the world of music notation, it would seem that Gould has filled a
similar role.  I have seen many folks cite their work as the rational basis
for engraving something a particular way.  It would be my approach to take
this work not as "you must strictly adhere to these various commandments"
but rather "while ideal to follow this path as closely as reasonable, stray
from it should it make things clearer."

Given that, you should definitely feel free to experiment with notation and
treat it like an artist who has much freedom with their brush.  If your
music is particularly unusual, perhaps an equally unusual engraving is most
apropos.  And hopefully LilyPond is and will continue to be malleable enough
to accommodate the whims of the unusual.

But for matters of the not-so-unusual, have no disillusion your engraving
(or writing) will be readily clear if you choose to stray too far from the
path.


-- Aaron Hill

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Wols Lists
In reply to this post by Aaron Hill
On 05/01/19 17:34, Aaron Hill wrote:
> On 2019-01-05 2:40 am, Wols Lists wrote:
>> On 04/01/19 18:41, Aaron Hill wrote:
>>>
I *H*A*T*E* about people who proclaim "This is

>> correct".
>>
>> Take my case - which would you choose between "follow the current
>> wisdom" and "music that is readable (and hence playable)". Note that
>> this *IS* an either/or choice! How often have I moaned on this list
>> because I need to over-ride lily's defaults because the result is
>> otherwise pretty much unplayable ...
>
> I disagree.  The two options are not mutually exclusive--they are one
> and the same.  That is, I see following classical and modern wisdom as
> tools to aid in achieving what will be readable and playable.  But the
> goal is very much the latter, not the former...

They may not be mutually exclusive for you. But as you may remember, I
regularly struggle to eliminate page-breaks, and if that leads to
cramped, hard-to-read music so be it - the alternative is unplayable.
>

>
> The problem I have with something like Elements of Style is that the
> work is largely arbitrary yet presented as if it were based in fact.
> Modern research and analysis of written works through history do not
> agree with Strunck and White's conclusions.  Based on that, one might
> all too quickly throw out the Elements; but putting aside the ego of the
> authors, there is still wisdom in its pages.  It is ultimately born out
> of understanding why and how a rule can be useful in different
> situations.  And to quote a cult classic, "Sometimes you have to know
> when to break the rules."
>
> In the world of music notation, it would seem that Gould has filled a
> similar role.  I have seen many folks cite their work as the rational
> basis for engraving something a particular way.  It would be my approach
> to take this work not as "you must strictly adhere to these various
> commandments" but rather "while ideal to follow this path as closely as
> reasonable, stray from it should it make things clearer."
>
> Given that, you should definitely feel free to experiment with notation
> and treat it like an artist who has much freedom with their brush.  If>
> -- Aaron Hill
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

> your music is particularly unusual, perhaps an equally unusual engraving
> is most apropos.  And hopefully LilyPond is and will continue to be
> malleable enough to accommodate the whims of the unusual.

I agree with you, "Elements of Style", "Gould", "The Oxford English
Dictionary" are all necessary to *define* *standards* to make it easy
for us to understand each other :-)
>
> But for matters of the not-so-unusual, have no disillusion your
> engraving (or writing) will be readily clear if you choose to stray too
> far from the path.
>
?????

But standards are of no use if applying them results in output that is
not "fit for purpose" as English law puts it ... :-)

Cheers,
Wol


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Kieren MacMillan
Hey all,

>> The two options are not mutually exclusive--they are one and the same.
> They may not be mutually exclusive for you.

I think we must remember that different scores serve different purposes.

Daily I am frustrated with the poorly-engraved scores I am forced to use as a musical theatre director. “Why”, I ask, “does this piano-conductor score of <Show X> not look like Boosey & Hawkes full score of ‘West Side Story’ or the published ‘Sweeney’ piano-vocal score?!?!” And then I remind myself that <Show X> P/C score was almost certainly cranked out under extreme pressure right up until the opening night of the premiere performance (and maybe even during the run!), whereas B&H’s “West Side” orchestral score was commissioned after the fact as a published [essentially 'critical'] edition. Those are two very different purposes — and hence very different engravings.

Does “readable” mean “sight-readable”, or rather “can be parsed sufficiently well under calm study and practice conditions”? Does the same score need to be used for both study/practice and performance? If so, which of those two [possibly quite different] arenas take precedence?

K.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: [hidden email]


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

Aaron Hill
In reply to this post by Wols Lists
On 2019-01-05 11:30 am, Wols Lists wrote:

> On 05/01/19 17:34, Aaron Hill wrote:
>> But for matters of the not-so-unusual, have no disillusion your
>> engraving (or writing) will be readily clear if you choose to stray
>> too
>> far from the path.
>>
> ?????
>
> But standards are of no use if applying them results in output that is
> not "fit for purpose" as English law puts it ... :-)

One could say it is misapplying the standards if it results in poor
output.  But also keep in mind, styles and conventions are primarily
about consistency, not correctness.  That is to say your content must be
correct in and of itself before you apply any guidelines of style.  
Following or not following style is not inherently correct nor
incorrect.

Consider the silly example: you have notated an A flat with a whole note
when you intend the player to play a D natural for only a brief moment,
but you are concerned about how much space to place on either side of
the whole note.  This absurd situation is well beyond the scope of style
as the original notation is quite likely objectively wrong.  (I leave
some room for subjectivism here, simply because I'm sure some composer
somewhere either has or will eventually write a piece where notes don't
mean what we typically think they mean and all bets are off.)

Providing we are solid on the intent of the music, then we can look at
improving the overall fitness.  Bringing things close to our collective
notion of standard notation (but no closer than necessary) helps us
ensure consistency.  That is what provides a readily clear
interpretation to your audience.  But ultimately these rules themselves
need to be applied with care and intention, not as a one-size-fits-all
solution.

LilyPond's defaults try to be the one-size-hopefully-fits-most solution,
and it sounds like many of them are born from the guidance of folks like
Gould.  But rarely will any rule be universally applicable, so it is
necessary to be able to adjust default behavior in certain cases.  
Otherwise, we are stuck with LilyPond applying standards without any
thought to the situation.  We can try to provide LilyPond with more data
to make a better-informed decision; but it's still going to be a
machine.  It will likely always take a human to make the final choices.

And I guess that is my long-winded conclusion: be the master, not the
machine.  Do not blindly follow rules nor blindly reject them.  Use your
own critical thinking while leveraging the conventional wisdom around
you.  Feel confident in the choices you make, but always be prepared to
reevaluate them as new information becomes available.

P.S.  I would like to add that, as a performer who has great disdain for
annoying page turns, I will join you in the battle for promoting sane
typesetting.  Slightly squished and/or "creative" notation is far better
than wrestling with (and wasting) paper.


-- Aaron Hill

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
12