Re: voiceOne dynamics should go above the staff

[-Eluze]

Mark Polesky wrote:
> 
> -Eluze wrote:
>> i'm not sure i would like the dynamics of one voice above
>> the staff in a polyphonic guitar piece - but you can use
>> \dynamicUp to do so!
> 
> The authorities are unanimous on this point.
> 
> Kurt Stone, ch.1, "Placement of Dynamics...", p.31:
>   "A. Dynamics
>       1. INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC (SCORES AND/OR PARTS)
>          Single staves with two or more polyphonic parts:
>          at the stem side of the up- and downstemmed parts."
> 
> Ted Ross, ch.4, "SHARING A STAFF", p.205:
>   "If [the voices] move independently of each other, each
>   part may require its own dynamics, above and below the
>   staff."
> 
> Gardner Read, ch.14, "NOTATIONAL PRACTICES", p.253:
>   "The general rule is, of course, altered should there be
>   inadequate room because of elements [...] related to the
>   staff just below, or when different dynamic markings
>   affect two voices written on one staff..."
> 

i go with Ross:    "If [the voices] move independently of each other, each
  part may require its own dynamics, above and below the
  staff." (emphasized by me)

he is pointing out that the voices are moving independently - which in many
guitar pieces is not the case. therefore i am grateful that Lilypond does
not automatically imply \dynamicUp or \dynamicDown with \voiceOne or
\voiceTwo.

in your example there is a conflict since both voices require a (different)
dynamic mark at the same time - maybe Lilypond should detect this and - if
not automatically correct it - issue a warning!?

finally - what would/could you do with pieces having three or more voices?

-Eluze
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/voiceOne-dynamics-should-go-above-the-staff-tp29747634p29750401.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.