Re: newbie: manual 2.2.1, staves, \clef command

[ed stuckems]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> ed stuckems <address@hidden> writess:
>
>> What's special about the \clef command in the following:
>>
>> According to section 2.2.1 of the manual:
>>
>> "To determine the number of staves in a piece, LilyPond looks at the
>> beginning of the first expression. If there is a single note, there is
>> one staff; if there is a simultaneous expression, there is more than
>> one staff."
>>
>> This would appear to be the case in the following:
>>
>> <<
>>  { f a c e }
>>  { e g b d }
>> >>
>>
>> However, if a \clef is specified, the statement doesn't appear to
>> hold.  For example, the following doesn't produce multiple staves
>> despite the fact that the beginning of the first expression starts
>> with simultaneous expression like the example above:
>>
>> <<
>>  { f a c e }
>>  { \clef "bass" e g b d }
>> >>
>
> [...]
>
>> So my question is "why does adding the \clef also require adding the
>> "\new Staff" when section 2.2.1 suggests otherwise?"  What have I
>> missed?
>
> Actually, it is not the clef that is special but rather "rhythmic
> events" like f and e.  The clef more or less works by just setting a few
> Staff properties, and since a Staff already exists at the time of \clef
> "bass", it just uses that.  The following e is no longer in the special
> position of being considered a Staff-starter.
>

>From your explanation I would say that the \clef command has the side
effect of removing any special processing of the next "rhythmic
event".  Then again, this might apply to any command like \clef that
merely set properties of a context.

> Automatically started staffs might not have been the best possible idea,
> particularly in parallel music.  It is usually least problematic to
> explicitly specify all of your staffs.
>

Got you -- alway specify staffs.

BY THE WAY,  I made a mistake by not including a subject line with the
posting.  I then resent it with a subject causing the same question to
appear in two different posts.  I apologize for the extra posting and
I'll more closely scrutinize my posts before hitting the send button
next time.  I hope my updating the subject line will fix the problem.

sorry,
eds