[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: ottava bassa

From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: ottava bassa
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:33:02 -0000

Phil Holmes

----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Horgan" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: ottava bassa

On 01/12/2011 07:42 AM, Phil Holmes wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: <address@hidden>
> If you modify that function in scm/define-music-callbacks.scm to
> instead of 'Staff, then \ottava only applies to the current voice
(which > is,
> however, probably now what we want by default).

i guess you meant that this is *not* what we want? it really isn't? i mean, if you instantiate two voices and put the \ottava indication only in one, i guess you only want the octave change only in that voice. not uncommon in piano music, among other cases.

The problem with this approach is: if you want the ottavation to apply to the staff, which is common, would you need to set it in each voice? And then you'd need to detect that it had already been set and not typeset it.
Isn't that frustrating. We know that this situation (a voice or a section of voice that is written an octave differently than played) occurs in written notation, not commonly, but not infrequently, and that it wasn't in the mind of the person who first wrote this part of lilypond. Has someone written a bug for this? Sounds like it will be a bit of work to get it right. Would it be possible to have two functions, one for voice ottava and one for staff ottava? i.e. if you copy the 17 lines of make-ottava-set and change the function name to make-voice-ottava-set and the 'Staff to 'Voice, does that solve the problem, or will there be conflicts in the offing? I would guess that you'd either want to use one or the other, I can't think of times that they'd both be in the offing.


I've added this as issue 1473

reply via email to

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