On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:36 PM Noeck <noeck.marb...@gmx.de> 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
