Paul Scott wrote: > joe ferguson wrote: > >> My experience is pretty well limited the choral literature. In that >> genre the usual interpretation of the tenuto is one of subtle >> emphasis, as an indication of phrasing. >> >> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: >> >>> >>> I would say that this is a more universal observation. E.g. the >>> interpretation of sfz , > and ^ also depend on the composer/era. >> >> > IOW I don't care what you call it. I just want to be able to engrave > the musical symbol. We could discuss how to interpret it for a long > time but that's not really the job of the LilyPond docs.
The glossary is supposed to deal with how to interpret it. Who disagrees that the tenuto mark is the worst dog's dinner in music notation? As long as the glossary entry makes clear that it's interpretation is not certain I would think that few would object. A list giving a variety of different definitions might help. daveA _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
