Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

[Aaron Hill]

On 2019-01-05 11:30 am, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 05/01/19 17:34, Aaron Hill wrote:
> > But for matters of the not-so-unusual, have no disillusion your
> > engraving (or writing) will be readily clear if you choose to stray 
> > too
> > far from the path.
> ?????
>
> But standards are of no use if applying them results in output that is
> not "fit for purpose" as English law puts it ... :-)

One could say it is misapplying the standards if it results in poor 
output.  But also keep in mind, styles and conventions are primarily 
about consistency, not correctness.  That is to say your content must be 
correct in and of itself before you apply any guidelines of style.  
Following or not following style is not inherently correct nor 
incorrect.

Consider the silly example: you have notated an A flat with a whole note 
when you intend the player to play a D natural for only a brief moment, 
but you are concerned about how much space to place on either side of 
the whole note.  This absurd situation is well beyond the scope of style 
as the original notation is quite likely objectively wrong.  (I leave 
some room for subjectivism here, simply because I'm sure some composer 
somewhere either has or will eventually write a piece where notes don't 
mean what we typically think they mean and all bets are off.)

Providing we are solid on the intent of the music, then we can look at 
improving the overall fitness.  Bringing things close to our collective 
notion of standard notation (but no closer than necessary) helps us 
ensure consistency.  That is what provides a readily clear 
interpretation to your audience.  But ultimately these rules themselves 
need to be applied with care and intention, not as a one-size-fits-all 
solution.

LilyPond's defaults try to be the one-size-hopefully-fits-most solution, 
and it sounds like many of them are born from the guidance of folks like 
Gould.  But rarely will any rule be universally applicable, so it is 
necessary to be able to adjust default behavior in certain cases.  
Otherwise, we are stuck with LilyPond applying standards without any 
thought to the situation.  We can try to provide LilyPond with more data 
to make a better-informed decision; but it's still going to be a 
machine.  It will likely always take a human to make the final choices.

And I guess that is my long-winded conclusion: be the master, not the 
machine.  Do not blindly follow rules nor blindly reject them.  Use your 
own critical thinking while leveraging the conventional wisdom around 
you.  Feel confident in the choices you make, but always be prepared to 
reevaluate them as new information becomes available.

P.S.  I would like to add that, as a performer who has great disdain for 
annoying page turns, I will join you in the battle for promoting sane 
typesetting.  Slightly squished and/or "creative" notation is far better 
than wrestling with (and wasting) paper.


-- Aaron Hill