On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Eric Galluzzo wrote: > In practice, I have found that I usually don't include that many > dynamics on one line, so most Y: lines (at least in my music) would > probably end up looking something like this: > Y: | | * p | | * <( |
That's exactly the reason why I don't like the idea of having a separate line for dynamics: it will be much more work to enter them, and it won't make the notation any prettier. > To be honest, the %%staves directive is much easier for me to read. :) > I can easily tell what goes where. But I may well just be in the > minority here, and I'll bow to whatever the consensus is. One beef is > that I don't know if "merge" means that the voice should merge with the > previous voice or the next voice. I fully agree on that with you. Since the %%staves notation uses a graphical notation, it is much more intuitive to understand. I do not think you're in the minority here. > Yup, quite right. All this seems like information that pertains to that > particular voice. But the staff grouping marks seem like "metastaff" > information -- or information about staff groups (as Lilypond would call > them), so I feel that they shouldn't go on the actual voices themselves. You hit the nail on the head: meta information should be specified with a %% command. Irwin To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
