Re: A suggestion - add rf to built-in dynamics

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Peter,

Well I have a library file with over 150 custom dynamics, for use with
engraving new complexity school scores. It's a big file, with all
sorts of rare dynamics. I see no need to push non-standard or rare
dynamics on everybody. Just make an include file for your score and
add 'rf'. One could argue that the original composers are in error, or
it's an obsolete convention, and perhaps this would mislead modern
players anyway (the infinite discussion of the urtext!).

I don't see a need for rf to be added to the core set.

[And amusingly I have  all the ones Malte suggested. and lots of marks
like 'f (poco)' and similar which is actually commonly found, and yet
does not need to be in the core.]


Andrew

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 at 23:42, Peter Toye <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> May I suggest adding 'rf' to the built-in dynamics? Beethoven and Brahms used 
> it quite a lot, even if it is synonymous with 'rfz' (pedants might disagree). 
> As did some other, lesser, composers (one of whose music I am currently 
> engraving).
>
> A far as I can see, it just needs adding
>
> rfz = #(make-dynamic-script "rfz")
>
> to dynamic-scripts-init.ly
>
> There's an easy workaround of course - just put that line somewhere in your 
> own music, but to me it seems as though it's common enough to build it into 
> LilyPond.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
> mailto:address@hidden
> www.ptoye.com