[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: missing dots with merge-differently-dotted

From: Matthias Kilian
Subject: Re: missing dots with merge-differently-dotted
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:16:58 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 09:59:29AM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> > As far as I can see, LilyPond does the same as B& H most of the time. Only
> > that critical situation in my example is handled differently.
> How?

By putting the stem-down, dotted eight *right* of the stem-up chord. I
try a little ASCII art (using `O' for the chord's and `@' for the single,
dotted note's head). B&H the following:

   | @.
  O |

where the LilyPond way is:

   @ |.
  |  |
  | O 

Both solutions take about the same width. However, in B&H the stems are
more close and the dot is much closer to it's head. On the other hand,
in LilyPond the heads of chord vs. single note look more related, so
I'm not sure wether LilyPond or B&H does the better job here.

Just in case: remember that this difference only appears when the single
dotted  note has to be shifted far left because there's no space to put
it between the chord's heads (in <<{<c a' c>}\\{g'-.}>> the head of a
is in the way).

Unfortunately, I didn't find the time to scan that part of B&H edition. If
everything else fails, I'll try to make a freehand drawing with some paint
program to prepare an example. I'll also look for other (traditionally
engraved) pieces using similar placings.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]