Re: GDP: NR 1.5 Simultaneous, second draft

[Daniel Hulme]

Karl Hammar wrote:
> Graham:
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:03:07 +0100
> > Mark Knoop <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > Given the number of emails on this list about slur, tie, etc problems
> > > arising from using the << { ... } \\ { ... } >> polyphony method,
> > > would it perhaps be a good idea to at least include an example of the
> > > "right" way to do it here?
> > >
> > > << { \voiceOne ... } \new Voice { \voiceTwo ... } >> \oneVoice
> > Is that really the "right" method?  I thought that \\ *was* the
> > right method... in fact, isn't \\ exactly the same as what you
> > propose?
> ...
>
> No,

Why not? I find myself wanting to go into two (or three) voices and back 
again very frequently when typesetting percussion parts, and the 'right' 
way is far too long-winded - often it would be longer than the music it 
encloses. I always use the method given in the second example in NR 
2.5.1.3 Percussion Staves, i.e. explicitly instantiating the voices 
beforehand and using \\, in combination with skip-of-length. Does this 
count as the right way, or is it still the wrong way? As a user, it 
would be much easier for me to just be able to tell Lilypond once that 
I'm doing drums, and then just put the music in, without using any kind 
of "method" at all.