Re: Doc-suggestion re lyrics/melismas

[Urs Liska]

Am 25.05.2012 07:43, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Colin Hall<address@hidden>  writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:36:21PM +0200, Urs Liska wrote:
> > > Am 23.05.2012 00:43, schrieb -Eluze:
> > > > Urs Liska-3 wrote:
> > > > > Doc suggestion concerning melisma behaviour.
> > > > >
> > > > > in
> > > > >
> > > > > 2.1.1 Common notation for vocal music
> > > > >
> > > > > section
> > > > >
> > > > > Multiple notes to one syllable
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > before or after the second example (about slurs) please add something
> > > > > like:
> > > > > "Note that phrasing slurs don't affect the creation of melismas."
> > > > personally I don't think anybody would expect that phrasing slurs affect
> > > > melismata…
> > I agree.
> If he had considered the consequences and there were no technical
> obstacles.
>
> > > Well, through the (Slurs) documentation one is somehow led to
> > > believe slurs and phrasing slurs are practically the same and only
> > > separated for nesting purposes.
> > I agree with this too.
> >
> > > So it would be nice if at this point of the NR it was clearly
> > > pointed out that there _are_ differences for the handling of
> > > melismas.
> > I've created a documentation tracker here:
> >
> > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2565
> And I think it's important since it stops making the choice sort of
> arbitrary.
Maybe if someone knows more about the real (internal and practical) 
differences, it would be good to add some explanation also in 1.3.2, the 
original place where slurs and phrasing slurs are introduced. (Does this 
need a separate tracker item?)
I have to admit that so far chose quite arbitrarily between the two (if 
I didn't need to nest them). I was only pointed towards the issue when I 
stumbled over three different instances shortly after another:
- different layout at line breaking
- a score someone else entered where they were mixed even much uglier 
(source-wise) than in my own existing scores
- seeing the difference in melismas.

I won't right now make such a suggestion, as I'm not sure about its 
technical content, but here are a few suggestions.

The first mention of phrasing slurs is:

   "Simultaneous or overlapping slurs are not permitted, but a phrasing
   slur can overlap a slur. This permits two slurs to be printed at
   once. For details, see Phrasing slurs
   
<http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/notation/expressive-marks-as-curves.html#phrasing-slurs>."

Now I see that exactly this is what leads the reader to think Phrasings 
slurs are there for syntactical differentiation.

The paragraph introducing the idea of Phrasing slurs being different is:

   "Typographically, a phrasing slur behaves almost exactly like a
   normal slur. However, they are treated as different objects; a
   |\slurUp| will have no effect on a phrasing slur.

Although it explicitely states that they are different objects, you can 
still think that this only applies to the syntactical function 
(especially if you already have this in mind: The explanation (with 
\slurUp) only points to this direction.

I think there are two things to add:

 * Mention the actual differences between the objects (maybe with
   visual example, e.g. re line breaking)
 * (optionally) Encourage the user to chose as deliberately as
   possible, maybe telling sth. about conceptual differences.
   (although this isn't possible to do really systematically. How
   should one always decide in a printed model score if there is a Slur
   or Phrasing slur?).

If someone posts a list of differences I can write a doc-suggestion.

Best
Urs