Hi Kieren, no answer but I'm extremely interested in the topic too as I'm very soon going to tackle the choir parts of our Fried score.
Urs Am 25. Dezember 2014 03:23:01 MEZ, schrieb Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca>: >Hello all! > >I’m about to dive in to [re]engraving a choral piece. > >Like many choral works, it regularly alternates between “choral unison” >(which can effectively be displayed using a single staff), homophonic >sections (which require two staves), and polyphonic stuff (which >require more than two staves, usually four). For example, the first >verse of my piece requires a minimum of > A) 1 staff for mm 1-8 > B) 2 staves for mm 9-12 > C) 4 staves for mm 13-16 > D) 1 staff for mm 18-19 > >There are at least two obvious ways to code this, with the intention of >optimizing the code: > >1. Write the soprano (melody) part out in full, quote it in the other >four chorus parts during sections A and D (i.e., for the “unisons”), >and use \showStaff (\showLyrics, resp.) and \letStaffVanish >(\letLyricsVanish, resp.) to help Lilypond make appropriate layout >decisions. > >2. Write everything in one \DivisibleStaff, splitting out the parts as >necessary. > >What is the consensus (if there is one) about the best practice? >It seems to me that #1 is better — but that may simply be because I >don’t know the \DivisibleStaff mechanism that well. >(I always use the current unstable/development version, in case that >makes a difference to the answer.) > >Thanks, >Kieren. >_______________________ > >Kieren MacMillan, composer >www: <http://www.kierenmacmillan.info> >email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info > > >_______________________________________________ >lilypond-user mailing list >lilypond-user@gnu.org >https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
