Re: voiceOne dynamics should go above the staff

[Trevor Daniels]

Mark Polesky wrote Sunday, September 19, 2010 2:37 AM


> -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..."

We have to be careful to interpret this correctly.
None of these writers were familiar with the use of
"voice" in the computer engraving sense.  By "voice"
these writers mean parts that are on one staff but
are to be played or sung by independent musicians.
With that meaning separating the dynamics is sensible.

But it makes no sense to separate the dynamics of
individual voices in music that is intended to be 
played by a single musician, such as guitar or piano
music[1].  Indeed, in piano music LilyPond provides
facilities for combining the dynamics from two staves.

[1] Unless two overlapping sequences of notes are to be
played with different dynamics, but then the positioning
depends on the particular locations of the notes on the
staff and is better done manually.

Trevor