Re: Problem with r2. in two voices

[Cynthia Karl]

> On Feb 7, 2015, at 9:07 PM, Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Hi Cynthia,
> 
>> In fact the output generated is just nonsensical.  Two stacked augmentation 
>> dots?  That just doesn’t seem right.
> 
> No, it’s perfectly sensible, if you want (need) to make it visually explicit 
> that there are two voices at the same time — otherwise, how would the reader 
> know?

But I don’t want to make it visually that there are two voices here, I want to 
make it visually explicit that there is a single voice.  That’s why each voice 
has issued the \oneVoice command before asserting the r2.  And why is it only 
rests and notes that have augmentation dots are affected in \oneVoice mode this 
way? There is no way other than clashing note column warnings to tell that two 
voices have each issued concurrent rests in \oneVoice mode.  It’s just kind of 
weird that augmentation dots get this special treatment.

I guess the only way out is to rewrite the two voices so that one of them 
issues hidden rests in the score, but the rests in the parts, via tags.
> 
> Consider, for example, the following related snippet:
> 
> \version "2.19.15"
> \score {
>  \new Staff <<
>    \time 4/2
>    { d''2 c''1. }  \\
>    \new Voice { b'2 c''1. }
>>> 
> }
> 
> The reason this output makes sense is the same reason there are two stacked 
> augmentation dots in your rest example.


On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 12:03AM , Paul Scott wrote:

> What kind of music are you trying to write?
> 
> Paul Scott


Concerto Op3 No12 by Francesco Manfredini.