Graham Percival wrote Saturday, September 11, 2010 8:30 PM
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Trevor Daniels
<t.dani...@treda.co.uk> wrote:
2.1.8 Opera and stage musicals ready for review
Err... 2.1.6 in today's current git? ok, doing so. I've
forgotten
anything else we've discussed about 2.1 vocal music, which may or
may
not be a good idea for this doc review.
My mistake - it used to be 2.1.8 before I reorganised
the first two sections.
- I see significant material in the "top" of 2.1.6. Remember that
some people only look at the "leaves" of the documentation. In
this
case, that's "References for opera and stage musicals".
In the html view the pages are split only at the
numbered sections, so the whole of 2.1.6 appears
as a single page. So I think this is fine at this
level.
I'm not certain how important the definition of conductor's score,
orchestral parts, libretto, etc., are, but if they stay where they
are, then the rest of this subsection should not assume that the
reader has seen those definitions.
See previous comment.
I'd also be tempted to move some of these definitions to the
Glossary,
and omit the others. I mean, I'd expect that people are
sufficiently
familiar with "conductor's score" and "orchestral parts", whereas
"libretto" could definitely use a Glossary entry. At first
glance,
I'd then make this material merely:
The music, lyrics and dialogue to opera and stage musicals are
usually
set out in one or more of the following forms: a conductor's
score,
the orchestra parts, a vocal score, a vocal book, and a libretto.
...
actually, I think I definitely recommend moving this material into
the
References, and splitting the long list of References into their
relative sections. i.e. have two lists:
"... one or more of the following forms:"
* Conductor's score:
- grouping staves, nested staff groups. (you're missing a
comma
before the "see Nested staff groups, btw)
- hiding parts
- separating systems
NB: umm, aren't those all the subsections of 1.6 ? I'd
be
sorely tempted just to say "Many useful techniques for preparing
conductor scores are presented in Staff notation". I mean, it's a
short section, and at least 80% of it is highly relevant to
preparing
scores. It's not too much to suggest that the user to read the
whole
thing.
- is Page formatting any more relevant to musicals than other
forms of
music? I suppose it might be important for preparing a small
booklet
(i.e. print on 4 sides of a folded a4 sheet). OTOH, I'd expect
that
to be relevant to hymn as well, and possibly choral stuff in
general.
I'm quite willing to believe that we should improve the docs for
spacing (especially since I've been publicly saying that I wanted
a
complete rewrite of that chapter for the past 3 years :). And in
particular, it might be good to have a dedicated section for small
booklets / alternate forms of music display / etc.
OK, let's drop the page formatting bit.
- notwithstanding all the above, I like the specific mention of
instrument names for character names. I still think that you
should
only have a single link to Staff notation, but I think it's
definitely
worth having 1-2 sentences explaining about the instrument name
trick.
Alternately, this could be done with a @lilypond . For
comparison,
see 2.3.1 Bowing indications, Harmonics, etc. None of that is
*new*
notation (pretty much everything is already in the articulation
appendix), but we decided that it's worth giving a few short
examples
for clarity.
I think I'll do this in a separate subsubsec
- Character names.
And I think I'll make separate sections for cues
as well.
Then I'll see if the remaining references need
re-arranging as you suggest.
... err, does anybody know why snap pizzicato is a snippet?
Yes, you replied on 6 Oct 2008 to my query:
= "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> wrote:
=> What do you think about including the Bart__k pizzicato as a
=> @lilypondfile in this section? It's quite technical, so I've
left it
=> as just a marker for now while I canvass opinion and let my own
=> thoughts gel.
=
= Sure.
=
= Cheers,
= - Graham
The snippet already existed. I can't remember who
prepared it.
anyway, although we really discourage duplicating material, we
make
allowances for small, well-focused cases of specific instrumental
(and
vocal) writing.
Nothing to do with vocal though ...
err, "dialogue over music" just says TBC. Am I looking at an old
version? I'm pretty certain that I just compiled the docs from
scratch (testing Carl's funky fix)... did you push everything?
I'm
wondering again about the 2.1.8 vs. 2.1.6 question... I'll stop
reviewing whatever it is that I'm reviewing, and come back to this
another day.
No - it's my stupid fault. I rushed out my note this
morning just before some visitors arrived for the day -
without stopping to think. It wasn't actually ready
for review at all. I suggested to James he might have
a think about Dialogue over music, but he's not replied
yet.
But thanks anyway - your comments have been useful.
Cheers,
- Graham
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
