Re: Unwanted warnings/errors on pedals for multiple voices

[Paolo Prete]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:36 PM Noeck <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi Paolo,

well there are pros and cons both ways.

Am 07.04.20 um 18:51 schrieb Paolo Prete:
> as said to Kieren, this is not a good rule.

I know that you said it already but I disagree. I find it easier to read.

> I never saw any music engraver who uses it.

and most of my piano scores of publishing houses do it like this. I have
examples here by Schott and Henle.

Hi Joram,

This sounds new to me and  I would be very interested in looking one of these examples. Can you provide one?

 

Also a matter of taste and (more importantly) use case. I have a piece
at hand with very regular pedal marks. It is basically a repitition of
the same pattern. It is much cleaner to enter this with skips than in
one of the voices. (By the way: Which one? The lowest?)

 

 

I don't think so. Please have a look at this http://lilybin.com/8ufzza/1 :

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

notesA = {c'4 c' c' c'}
notesB = {c,4 c, c, c,}
dynsAndPedPattern = {s4\sustainOn s s s\sustainOff}

%%%%%%%
% GOOD

%%%%%%%
{
\partcombine
{ \notesA } { \dynsAndPedPattern }
r1 r1 r1 r1 r1
\partcombine
{ \notesB } { \dynsAndPedPattern }
r1 r1 r1 r1 r1
\partcombine
{ \notesA } { \dynsAndPedPattern }
}

%%%%%%%
% BAD: see the holes and the redundancy
%%%%%%%

<<
\new Staff { \notesA r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 \notesB  r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 \notesA }
\new Dynamics { \dynsAndPedPattern  r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 \dynsAndPedPattern  r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 \dynsAndPedPattern }
>>

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Cheers,

P