Re: Special fermatas (8.4.4 in the .35 docs)

[Graham Percival]

On 21-Feb-06, at 3:24 AM, Juergen Reuter wrote:

> Long time ago, when people where repeatingly asking for "contemporary 
> music notation" and when I also had the feeling that some modern 
> notational features were missing, I added clusters and special 
> fermatas.

Thanks!  I agree that it made sense at the time to do so; thank you for 
doing it.  But at this point, (I hope that) I have the manual 
sufficiently well-organized that it isn't necessary to single out 
fermatas.

I've added some text to the beginning of "contemporary notation" on 
this issue:
This section describes notation that does
not fit into traditional notation categories, such as pitches,
tuplet beams, and articulation.  For contemporary notation
that fits into traditional notation categories, such as
microtones, nested tuplet beams, and unusual fermatas, please
see those sections of the documentation.


> Please also note, that Section 7.7 (ancient notation) is in a 
> comparable situation.  For example, all the ancient clefs could be 
> moved to Section 6.3.1, but then Section 6.3.1 would somewhat explode 
> in size, thus making it difficult to read for users that are 
> interested just in "usual" notation.  Hence, it is probably better to 
> keep the clefs separated in two different sections.

True... but IMO, ancient music is much more specialized than 
contemporary music.  Maybe it's just my contemporary music bias.  :)

It may be worthwhile to create some "advertising" about lily's 
contemporary notation, but that should go elsewhere.

Cheers,
- Graham