lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: staff section


From: Till Rettig
Subject: Re: staff section
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:57:12 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022)



Trevor Daniels schrieb:
Hi Till

Might the tempo indication and metronome marks be better placed in the Rhythm section?  If you think so let me know, as I'm working on Rhythms right now.

Trevor D
  
Hi,
I think we should leave it as it is, after all it is nothing to do with _rythms_ specifically to indicate the tempo. I think it relates more with markup questions so I will see how to link to that section and explain only the relevant stuff directly related to the placement of context elements to a staff (as I would see tempo and instrument name...)

Till
  
-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+t.daniels=treda.co.u
address@hidden]On Behalf Of
Till Rettig
Sent: 24 February 2008 13:19
To: lilypond-user Mailinglist
Subject: GDP: staff section


Hi GDP-helpers!

I started now finally with the staff section of NR1.
As with the repeat section, I would also suggest 
some new grouping.
The order of the section is now the following:

# 1.6 Staff notation
    * 1.6.1 Displaying staves
          o 1.6.1.1 System start delimiters
          o 1.6.1.2 Staff symbol
          o 1.6.1.3 Hiding staves
    * 1.6.2 Writing parts
          o 1.6.2.1 Metronome marks
          o 1.6.2.2 Instrument names
          o 1.6.2.3 Quoting other voices
          o 1.6.2.4 Formatting cue notes

I was first wondering why "writing parts" is here 
at all, but I guess 
this should not be discussed too broad now, 
because it had been 
discuessed when we decided about the GDP chapter 
order. I was just 
thinking that "combining parts" and "writing 
parts" would be together 
something like a "orchestral" chapter -- even 
though you use it also in 
chamber music and the like. So I hope this 
grouping as it now is is 
intuitive enough to a new user that he figures 
out where to look for.

The 1.6.1 section is really unevenly distributed 
over the three 
subsubsections, I was thinking of introducing a 
new subsection: 
modifying staves which would contain most of 
6.1.1 and 6.1.2
So the new section model could be:

1.6 Staff notation
    1.6.1 Displaying/writing/setting staves
       1.6.1.1 Initiating a new staff (short 
basics, also one sentence 
about \new and \context, here should also go the 
example about starting 
stopping additional staves)
       1.6.1.2 Grouping staves (about system 
start delimiters
       (maybe: 1.6.1.3: Deeper nesting of staff groups)
    1.6.2 Modifying staves
       1.6.2.1 Staff symbol, (and how to modify 
the different parameters)
       1.6.2.2 Ossia staves
       1.6.2.3 Hiding staves
    1.6.3 Writing parts
       ...

I have concentrated for now on this part leaving 
the parts section 
alone, I want to come back to it only when the 
first part is in better 
condition.
There are still some general questions for the 
parts section for which I 
would like to hear some feedback:

-Why is the metronome mark described here? It 
applies as well to a whole 
score (where it would be agreedly on the top 
stave...), and I think it 
should go together with a general description on 
how to write tempo 
indications (and also with a workaround to align 
the indication with the 
key or the meter, not with the first note of the 
first bar). Where could 
this section go?
It is currently discussed in text marks, 1.8.1.4, 
but meant to write 
rehearsal marks, not tempo indications.

-I think it is actually almost a bug in lilypond 
that there is no easy 
way to center the beginning of a tempo 
indictation on the key symbol, so 
I think it is important to provide at least an 
workaround clearly marked 
as such for this purpose.

-We see the parts section as the sections that 
explains everything 
general about single parts -- so in this sense 
the metronome mark 
belongs here and also the tempo indication. But 
to me (and my German 
ears) the section caption points at preparing 
parts for each instrument 
of a bigger score. So I think we should change 
this section's caption. 
Ideas?

-To me there is a distinction between the two 
first subsubsections 
(metronome marks and instrument names) and the 
two last (quoting voices 
and cue notes): the first two I would see more 
generally apllying to 
staves for each instrument/voice, the two last 
are what I understand by 
the word "part", mainly concerned about the case 
where one has only 
one's own part and needs to get some context into 
it. So I could even 
imagine still a new subsection:

1.6.3 Additions to specific staves
    1.6.3.1 tempo indication
    1.6.3.2 metronome mark
    1.6.3.3 instrument name
1.6.4 Adding context to a single part
    1.6.4.1 quoting
    1.6.4.2 cue notes

But this is only a first thought.

Greetings
Till
      


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

    

  

reply via email to

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