Re: [Tex-music] Font-based slurs in PMX
Furthermore, if you look at some well-typeset scores, you can distinguish slurs and ties by shape (slurs should be more curved and ties should not be higher than approx. 1,5 space). Also the musical meaning of a slur and a tie between the same notes is differrent, not to mention the tie behaviour in chords. Stanislav. Don Simons wrote: Dirk wrote: Thus, t is indeed a poor brother of s, its only virtue being that in one very special case its use saves one some manual adjustment. I suspect the original reason for the "t" slur was only because, before labelled slurs, one needed two different slur symbols in the slur-over-a-tie situation. Given that the use of labelled slurs now allows enormous flexibility, it seems that the t slur is retained in PMX for the sake of backward compatibility only. New scores need not use it at all. Am I wrong in saying this? No, you are not wrong. As you noted , the manual states "For font-based slurs, the unique aspect of t slurs is that if one starts or ends on the same note as an s slur, the former will be moved away from the notehead to avoid a collision. This only works if neither slur has an ID code. This feature is only retained for backward compatibility." I suppose I should fine-tune this wording to make it clear that it is font-based t-slurs in their entirety--and not just one particular feature of them--that are retained for backward compatibility. --Din Simons ___ Tex-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://icking-music-archive.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music ___ Tex-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://icking-music-archive.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
Re: [Tex-music] Font-based slurs in PMX
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Dirk Laurie wrote: > I have been using PMX for seven years, but confess to still basically being in > the dark about the difference between font-based s and t slurs. So I did > some systematic experiments. > > Here is everything the PMX Reference Manual has to say on the topic. > > "With font-based slurs, t is equivalent to s but with several minor > differences to be explained later. ... ID codes cannot be used with > font-based t slurs. ... For font-based slurs, the unique aspect of t slurs > is that if one starts or ends on the same note as an s slur, the former will > be moved away from the notehead to avoid a collision. This only works if > neither slur has an ID code. This feature is only retained for backward > compatibility. ... To specify a font-based tie in PMX, use a slur command and > include the option t in it, somewhere after the initial ( , ) , s or t." > > In practice, some not-so-minor differences are encountered. The first of > these flatly contradicts the User's Manual. > > c44 d e f g a b g c2 tt c tt > ERROR in line 17, bar 3 Cannot use "t" as an option on a tie > > c44 d e f g a b g c2 t-1 c t-1 > ERROR in line 17, bar 3 "+|-" for slur height only allowed in "s"-slurs > > Thus, t is indeed a poor brother of s, its only virtue being that in one very > special case its use saves one some manual adjustment. > > I suspect the original reason for the "t" slur was only because, before > labelled slurs, one needed two different slur symbols in the slur-over-a-tie > situation. > > Given that the use of labelled slurs now allows enormous flexibility, it seems > that the t slur is retained in PMX for the sake of backward compatibility > only. New scores need not use it at all. Am I wrong in saying this? > Only partly: i) "the t slur is retained in PMX for the sake of backward compatibility only" --> True for font-based slurs, ii) "New scores need not use it at all" --> False! new scores will generally use PostScript slurs; and in that case new scores definitely need t slurs if they want to have true ties! RTFT! (last T stands for my tutorial: http://icking-music-archive.org/software/pmx/pmxccn.pdf Section B 4.11.4 "Special considerations for font-based slurs" That particular chapter took VERY much time (and lots of correspondence with Don Simons, I admit, so I can second your initial statement about having been in the dark so long. But I cannot see where the errors quoted "flatly contradict the users' manual" --- the manual is just simply too short on all this. ccn. -- Prof.Dr. Cornelius C. NoackPhones: Inst. f. Theor. Physik FB 1 office : +49 (421) 218-2427 Universit"at Bremen secretary: -2422 Otto-Hahn-Allee Fax : -4869 D - 28334 Bremen home : +49 (421) 34 22 36 Fax: 346 7872 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW-page: www.itp.uni-bremen.de/~noack ___ Tex-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://icking-music-archive.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
RE: [Tex-music] Font-based slurs in PMX
Dirk wrote: > >>> > Thus, t is indeed a poor brother of s, its only virtue being that > in one very > special case its use saves one some manual adjustment. > > I suspect the original reason for the "t" slur was only because, before > labelled slurs, one needed two different slur symbols in the > slur-over-a-tie > situation. > > Given that the use of labelled slurs now allows enormous > flexibility, it seems > that the t slur is retained in PMX for the sake of backward compatibility > only. New scores need not use it at all. Am I wrong in saying this? No, you are not wrong. As you noted , the manual states "For font-based slurs, the unique aspect of t slurs is that if one starts or ends on the same note as an s slur, the former will be moved away from the notehead to avoid a collision. This only works if neither slur has an ID code. This feature is only retained for backward compatibility." I suppose I should fine-tune this wording to make it clear that it is font-based t-slurs in their entirety--and not just one particular feature of them--that are retained for backward compatibility. --Din Simons ___ Tex-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://icking-music-archive.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
