Graham Percival wrote:
"Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The latest draft of the proposed section headings for the
reorganisation of NR 2 is now posted on
http://web.uvic.ca/~gperciva/NR2-draft.txt , labelled Draft 5.
Where do all the "for fingerings, see @ref{fingers}" comments go?
Do we need entries in Specialist notation for fingering? This seems
too ubiquitous to be called "specialist", unless there are some special
considerations for some instruments - harp, maybe? Or thumb for
strings? If so, then an example of these could be shown, as below.
But I do anticipate sections like this in NR 2:
2.3 Unfretted string instruments
2.3.1 Bowed instruments
2.3.1.1 Artificial harmonics
For a general description of special noteheads see
@ref{Note heads}. The use of diamond-shaped noteheads to
indicate harmonics on stringed instruments is shown below.
@lilypondfile{..} [..]
(Example showing use of \harmonic)
@end lilypondfile
2.3.1.2 Bowing indications
For a general description of expressive marks see
@ref{Expressive marks}. An example of using expressive
marks to indicate up-bow and down-bow is shown below.
@lilypondfile{..} [..]
(Example showing up-bow and down-bow markings)
@end lilypondfile
2.3.1.3 Fingering for bowed instruments [if needed]
For a general description of fingering see
@ref{Fingering}. An example of using fingering for
bowed strings is shown below.
@lilypondfile{..} [..]
(Example showing indication of thumb etc)
@end lilypondfile
Examples are pulled in from lsr and will be
updated automatically if commands change.
We could also reference anything in lsr tagged with
"specialist, bowed instruments" etc to enable new examples
to be automatically included without the need to touch any
.itely files. This would mean defining quite a few more tags
though - would this be aceptable?
- Graham
Trevor D
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
