==============HW:
[this has also been sitting in my mailbox for a long time. Not ccd to
the mailing list]
-------------------
Mine have intermittently been lost in the sauce. I have acquired a
domain name, but no web page yet.
==================
conclusion). Iow, in my personal experience r4. is easier to read,
especially if people would use dotted notation for ternary meters and
tied notation for duple meters consistently.
----------------
You know that I don't really care if others use dotted rests as long as
I don't have to, but I think that,
looking down the road,
the logic affects the code.
What 2 vs 3? I never accused anyone of using a dotted rest where they
would not use a dotted note. My problem with the logic is that if you
consider (+1) a dotted rest to be a new and more efficient symbol, then
you have (-1) three symbols for every two, and (-2) more dots in the
score, which is not a minor matter, especially since your treatment of
dots is unfinished business, to say the least, according to your test
document.
Putting a dot in the space above for a note in a space is never never
never ok. If any authority says it is you should burn his books.
Cleverness is at work again. *What if* there is another part with a note
in that space? You're broken. Better to let some of the dots overwrite
each other, because if one note of a given color on a single stem is
dotted, the rest necessarily are also. Of course that would also be far
from satisfactory, and it only helps for two stems or less. Much better
yet a tuplet bracket, which provides a real solution:
/---0---\
That way:
* you can have any number of close parts with
dotted notes and/or accidentals, altered primes,
ties, slurs, etc., without problems.
* No new typography is necessary. I submit that
any musician would understand it instantly.
===============
Chlapik's book is practically worthless, to tell you the truth.
-------------
So are they all, all, all.
======================
Gardner Read, ... p112. Perhaps
you should also check out the second edition of this book I think your
Read-bashing is not justified (in this case at least)
---------------
I was afraid of that, which is why I included more descriptive
information than the page numbers in the citation. As you say, I must
mollify my condemnation of Dr. Read. He did *eventually* revise his
book, but he could never have made such a basic mistake if he were the
expert that he claimed to be, and that was always the cause of the
bashing. Also the revision was not soon enough to save Encore (or
Finale), and I bought the damn thing. Thus his ignorance cost me, and
still is costing me, time, money, and aggravation.
I wish you had said about,
when the 2nd ed. came out.
Furthermore, if these fool's books were the product of an open forum,
perhaps they would not be so worthless.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** GNU LilyPond - The Music Typesetter
http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/hanwen/lilypond/index.html
--
Peace, understanding, health and happiness to all beings!
U U u ^^ ` 'U u U ''`'`
_-__o|oO|o-_|o_o_-_MN[-->mm@_-_--___o|o|oU_|o_o__lilypond
dave N Va USA David Raleigh Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
