Thank you for the perspectives! It's nice to know that it comes across clearly. I was afraid it might look too cluttered but I can always also just play with the staff spacing a bit.
Curt On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:06 AM, David Nalesnik wrote: > Hi Curt, > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Francisco Vila <paconet....@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2012/8/29 Curt <accou...@museworld.com> >>> The actual question is wondering if anyone thinks there is a >>> better/clearer way to notate the following figure. Hands alternating, with >>> melody in the pinky. The pattern continues throughout the piece (with >>> different notes). Right hand stays in the same general location, right hand >>> wanders down an octave or so at times. >> >> Now to your actual question: at first sight, beaming on 16ths suggests >> same hand despite of being cross staff. In this case I would indicate >> clearly R.H. on the 16ths in upper staff. It would be more kludgy but >> also doubtless (on how to play it) to use alternate 16ths and silences >> instead of cross beaming. >> > > I think the way you notate this is perfectly clear. Distributing > notes between the staves depending on which hand the player should use > is expected in notation for the piano. (You can find many instances > of this in Debussy's Preludes, for example). Indicating R.H. and L.H. > shouldn't be necessary if the staff distribution makes this obvious, > whether the cross-staff notes are beamed together or not (certainly a > good idea here). > > The passage itself is not hard with alternating hands and 3-4-5 on the > melody, but it's a different story with taking the accompaniment in > the left hand. Though doable, I don't imagine that would be a > pianist's first impulse! > > -David _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user