Re: voiceOne dynamics should go above the staff

[Trevor Daniels]

Mark Polesky wrote Sunday, September 19, 2010 9:23 AM

> Trevor Daniels wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Trevor, I couldn't (respectfully) disagree more.  The
> computer engraving sense of the word "voice" changes nothing
> here.  A 5-voice fugue by Bach (such as BWV 849) has 5
> voices on 2 staves, computer or no computer.

I think it does.  When writing for polyphonic instruments
several voices are often required for differing rhythms.
But the dynamics are usually the same.  You would want
the placement of a dynamic marking to be dependent on  
the voice only if these were musically separate phrases
with differing dynamics, which is rarer than just 
rhythmically differing parts.  This argues for making
the default dynamic placement independent of voice,
leaving the rarer case to be treated as an exception.

But a quick look through some of my music shows dynamics
are more commonly placed above the staff, so I wonder
why placing them below is the default?  But I don't
have any instrumental parts to hand - where are the
dynamics in these usually placed?
 
> > 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...
>
> 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 } >>
> }

Yes; unless the dynamics engraver were to be enhanced 
in the way David suggests - so it were clever enough 
to recognise they should be combined.  That's maybe
desirable, but it doesn't sound an easy or imminent
change.

Trevor