After reading http://www.henle.com/english/info/portrait.html
IMHO this group needs a glossary.
Engraving
1.) Incising or etching a copper plate
for printing.
2.) Photoengraving. Drawing music with ink
in a manner similar to drafting or
engineering drawing, using similar
tools.
Autograph
1.) A manuscript in the composer's own
hand.
2.) Music prepared for photoreproduction
by freehand drawing, with only the
aid of a straightedge ruler and
T-square, which attempts to emulate
engraving. This required more skill
than engraving.
Music Copying
1.) A music copyist did fast freehand
scores and parts on preprinted staff
lines for performance. Some of their
conventions (e.g.: the placement of
noteheads on stems) varied slightly
from those of engravers. Some of their
practices (not that) were superior and
could well be adopted by music
typesetters. This also required more
skill than engraving.
Music Typesetting
1.) LilyPond, etc.. Microcomputers were
preceded by specialized machines.
2.) A music typewriter produced most of the
work. (There were several kinds.)
Whatever could not be typed was done
using transfer letters (rubbed down
from film). Little pieces of paper
were waxed down onto a paste-up
called a mechanical. Many of them
did superior work and you can't tell
it was not engraved.
The best autographers of course produced better work than
the best engravers, in the sense that the Book of Kells is
better work than the New York Times. No matter how good
the printed music of the past was, there is absolutely
nothing good enough to serve as an ideal model for all
computer typesetting.
I must confess that I panicked when I saw that the dots
weren't right. There was never an ambiguity in having a
second on one stem where one dot overwrote the other. It
looks kind of stupid, but there can be no doubt as to its
meaning because it is illegal to have two different time
values on the same stem. You have solved the problem of
two adjacent notes, but not that of three or four
adjacent notes on one stem. IMHO the only recourse is to
place them on two stems close together.
/-----------------------------3------------
/-----------5------\
/-0--\
___________________ 8th note beam
| | | | | |
| .| . | | | |
|^.|o. |
|^ |o <========= 4 notes on adjacent lines and spaces
A zero tuplet bracket could embrace everything played at the
same time. A zero tuplet bracket also solves the problem of
the natural note and its sharp on the same stem. Here is
Gardner Read's solution:
|
|
|
/ \
/ \
nx/ #x\
This lunacy was actually implemented in the Encore music
program from Passport Software.
To clarify the appearance of the tuplet bracket:
________ ) _________ Where )
/ ) \ ) is supposed to look
/ \ like an italic 3
Please start looking at
guitar music, where you often have three or even four
parts on a single staff. The Guitar Music of Heitor
Villa-Lobos was published by Max Eschig, which was
part of the Schott combine, and it is available complete
in all countries. The new edition corrects some mistakes
in the originals, leaves others, and even inserts a few
new ones. The book is a very very good job of engraving,
but also shows examples of how some practices which may
work just fine in rendering 19th century music are revealed
to be illogical and inadequate to the challenge of 20th
century polyphony on a single staff.
What I want out of this is useable software. There are
dozens of word processors, for example, that work fine.
There is nothing even remotely approaching adequacy
to compete with LilyPond, if the standards are made
high enough.
I have actually done some music engraving. I didn't do
it well (and I thought that Gardner Read knew
something about music notation), but I learned how
demanding an occupation it was. The thing that is really
impressive about Barenreiter's or Schott's engraving is not
how pretty it is, but the way that those underpaid
pieceworkers had the mental concentration to make so few
mistakes. The only thing that they did which demonstrated or
which required real drawing skill was to draw slurs, ties,
phrase marks, and tuplet arcs. Drawing lines with varying
thicknesses and taper is really hard, and you can't blame
one for not wanting to break them, so the result is not
pretty when there is not enough white space left, because even
very skilled engravers, when desparate,
either drew right over stems or had little success
with maintaining the weight or
thickness of the lines when they broke them.
(more stuff up here, no room to draw tie)
_< | >_ (Tie or slur breaks before obstacle [stem]
/ | \ but [hooraay!] maintains its weight.)
|x y| |x
| |z |
| | |
(more stuff down here, no room)
With lilypond, however, ties could have some limit as to how
high or low they would bend, and they could maintain their
taper and still allow some white space around whatever might be
in the way, thus providing an appearance and clarity superior
to that of the best engraved music. It is better to slide
ties up the stems to get out of the way of obstacles rather
than bow them too much, but is easily possible, even with
only three parts, to run out of room altogether.
I was totally, utterly, completely wrong about indention.
My excuse: Music should not be free, but it should be cheap.
I was thinking of the 15 mm or so as just wasted space. By
applying *reason* to the question I came to see the error
of my ways. I could not care less how many engravers did
what 60 or 100 years ago.
I haven't even started on slurs, but it's coming.
I hope that no one would never even consider snapping a tie to
the end of a stem--or would you, if you saw it in Schott? ;-)
--
Peace, understanding, health and happiness to all beings!
((((((( g__n__u f_o_r_c_e )))))))
lily_lily__lily MN[-------------------->mm@ _lilypond__
dave No Va USA David Raleigh Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
