Re: engraving question - temporary voices in vocal music

[Janek Warchoł]

2011/2/21 Phil Holmes <address@hidden>:
> I was simply illustrating that the standard of professional engraving at
> around 1900 wasn't very precise.

Ah. Perhaps i missed your point, sorry.

> I am transcribing Gondoliers to LilyPond,
> and if you count accidentals where they shouldn't be, there are literally
> hundreds of errors.

Whoa! I'm glad that we live in XXIst century then :)
And have Lily available :D


2011/2/21 James Lowe <address@hidden>:
> Hello
>
> )-----Original Message-----
> )From: Janek Warchoł [mailto:address@hidden
> )Sent: 20 February 2011 22:54
> )To: James Lowe; colinpkcampbell
> )Cc: Phil Holmes; address@hidden; Trevor Daniels; Shane
> )Brandes; Francisco Vila; lilypond-user
> )Subject: Re: engraving question - temporary voices in vocal music
> )
> )W dniu 20 lutego 2011 01:50:15 UTC+1 użytkownik James Lowe
> )<address@hidden> napisał:
> )> Don't string players have to put up with this kind of thing all the time?
> )>
> )> They just add the notation 'div'/'non-div' or 'unison'.
> )>
> )> Why not for vocal?
> )
> )I don't know how to explain this... I mean, there is only one melody
> )throughout that measure, no structural changes. In my opinion it should
> )either have all notes double-stemmed, or all notes single-stemmed.
> )Maybe the attachment will explain what i mean.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to create some examples.
>
> As a non-vocalist I immediately think that the notes that are NOT 
> double-stemmed are played (sung) by all -
> else there would be rests in the appropriate voice. As unless you are a Tuvan 
> throat singer it is unlikely that
> even if the notes were constructed in the < x x > style vs << { x } \\ { x } 
> >> style that you'd expect the same voice
> to sing two notes at the same time so the direction of the stems seems 
> unimportant for vocal -
> so I still stand by what I said before that you can use 'div' and 'unison' 
> markups to make it clear :)
>
> Now of course I am probably making huge sweeping generalizations through 
> hundreds of years
> of engraving traditions based on little more than having to learn to how to 
> engrave a few Violin parts this weekend.
>
> But when I look at these examples it is pretty clear to me.

I'm also fine with both < x x > style and << { x } \\ { x } >> style.
What bothers me is that in the *last three* examples i posted there is a
change from << { x } \\ { x } >> style to < x x > style for no
apparent reason :)

cheers,
Janek

ambiguities.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document