[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Score parts: instrument and duration

From: Mats Bengtsson
Subject: Re: Score parts: instrument and duration
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:03:57 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511

Hans Aberg wrote:
On 15 Aug 2005, at 15:21, Mats Bengtsson wrote:

My conclusion here is that LilyPond can never be expected to provide
automatic support to handle all special cases of information that
people might want to squeeze into the title of a piece, not to mention
all possible layouts.

Probably not. In addition, the typesetting needs of moderns times might be different from those of the past.

What I think may be important is that the musicians that get hold of the print quickly can extract the information needed for the performance. The other stuff, one can get used to.

So I think that the idea of having the instrument in the same type in all places, and putting it up left on the front page might be to make it easily recognizable, in a heap of other score parts.

Right, I have always typeset the instrument name in the page header
when preparing instrumental parts. Especially when the piece fills
several pages, it's very useful to have the instrument name on the top
of every page.

The example you show here is fairly easy to obtain
using the already existing layout fields and one or two
\markup{\column{...}} and a few font size changing commands.
Also, if you want the same layout in a number of scores, it's fairly
easy to to modify the titling layout functions as described in the

I figure so. But I do not know the worth of the effort of pursuing it. One can perhaps draw a parallel to the TeX macro package LaTeX, which in its original form was too rigid for general use, and too difficult to reprogram; therefore, in part for such reasons, the LaTeX3 project was created.

I would rather view LaTeX as a great success and I have to admit I
haven't seen any useful output of the LaTeX3 project, but that's off


reply via email to

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