[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: R\fermata: How to build a markup in C++?

From: Malte Meyn
Subject: Re: R\fermata: How to build a markup in C++?
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:55:39 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1

Am 19.04.19 um 19:50 schrieb Dan Eble:
On Apr 16, 2019, at 06:58, Malte Meyn <address@hidden> wrote:

In all these cases \fermata behaves the same as \fermataMarkup, because both 
simply create a MultiMeasureRestText. It’s placed on the first measure of 
expanded MMRs

Is that the most reasonable result or should it be treated as a known issue?  
Wouldn’t it be more logical for an expanded R1*3\fermata to be engraved like R1 
R1 R1\fermata?

I don’t think that it would be more logical; two thoughts on that:

1. You probably wouldn’t use fermatas on compressed multi-measure rests but instead spell them out because otherwise the player would not know which measures are affected:
%%%%%%%% BEGIN %%%%%%%%

  R1*3\fermata    % IMO unlikely
  R1*2 R1\fermata % clearer
  R1\fermata R1*2 % clearer

  % and a player could even interpret it as
  R1\fermata R\fermata R\fermata
%%%%%%%%% END %%%%%%%%%
So if you wouldn’t write R1*3\fermata with compressed rests, why would you with expanded ones? → The default placement is irrelevant.

2. Texts like “Allegro” or “ritardando” or “change to piccolo” on compressed multi-measure should be placed on the first measure if expanded:
%%%%%%%% BEGIN %%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%% END %%%%%%%%%
I think that it would be good to have consistent behaviour of scripts (like \fermata) and text scripts (like -"ritardando"). → The default placement of MultiMeasureRestScripts should be the same as for MultiMeasureRestTexts as it currently is.

reply via email to

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