Re: voiceOne dynamics should go above the staff

[David Kastrup]

Mark Polesky <address@hidden> writes:

> Are you saying that, in a 2-voice 1-staff setting, it makes
> no sense to separate the dynamics when they both voices are
> at the same dynamic?  Like this:
>
> \relative c'' {
>   << { c2\p } \\ { a2\p } >>
> }
>
> Okay, I suppose I might be able to agree with that.  The
> first note of Beethoven's 2nd symphony has 5 such instances
> of a combined dynamic, though that's not what you're
> referring to since those instances are not each played by
> single musicians.  Besides, compile that fragment --
> LilyPond prints 2 p's anyway.
>
> And it makes *every* sense to separate the dynamics for a
> single player when the dynamics are different.  And please
> don't make me place all of these manually, or you might as
> well ask me to manually place every articulation, slur, tie,
> etc.  IIUC, \voiceOne already implies the following:
>
>   \dotsUp
>   \phrasingSlurUp
>   \slurUp
>   \stemUp
>   \tieUp
>   \tupletUp
>   [... also articulations, fermatas, etc. go up]
>
> So why doesn't it also imply \dynamicUp ?

Because that will be startling for basically homophonic voicing with
only short not-actually-a-voice-but-we-need-to-write-it-such passages.

As I said: the right thing to me seems to put the dynamics in every
voice (and let the performers work from that), and give the dynamics
engraver options to funnel them off to a common place as long as they
can be unified (like in the middle of a piano stuff).

> \relative c'' {
>   << { c2\f } \\ { a2\p } >>
> }
>
> In my mind, this is so obviously a bug, I'm surprised by all
> this resistance.  I mean, what legitimate code would
> possibly break by changing this?

\relative c'' {
    << { c2\f } \\ { a2 } >>
}

Namely code that makes use of the fact that a dynamic specification in a
single voice contaminates all other voices (and the Midi) by default.

If all other dynamic specifitions end up below the staff, you'll be
surprised at this one.

I consider it bad style to write like this, but there have not been
convincing alternatives yet, have they?

-- 
David Kastrup