Re: Piano, voices and stem directions

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Noeck wrote
> Probably, that also means that using separate voices is the appropriate
> syntax, isn’t it? Can I make the slur aware of other voices’ notes?

Hi Joram,

Sometimes, decisions whether to use separate voices, temporary parallel
contexts, etc., are often more of a technical nature (coding-wise).

But in this case, at least that's my personal opinion, I think we have to
distinguish between the musical idea/content (the "illusion" created by the
pianist) and how one can actually play all this with only two hands (and the
sustain pedal).
I'd see the musical line (the semiquavers, even with a phrasing slur) as one
voice and therefore code it as one voice. The stem directions, to me, are
mere hints for the player (very valuable hints, though).

Rachmaninov managed to incorporate the intended rapid transitions between
the two hands without having to clutter the music with m.g./m.d. remarks
(main gauche/left hand, main droite/right hand) and he even hints about
pedaling without clumsy \sustainOn/Off symbols.
Pedaling is very delicate there, anyway, sometimes one might even use
half-pedaling (not just on/off).

Just using \stemUp and \stemDown seems appropriate to me, because it's one
single voice (just being divided up into two hands for physiological
reasons) and the dynamics stay where they are, it's easier to start and end
phrasing slurs, …

And, last but not least: these "encrypted playing instructions" are, just
like fingerings in general, not carved in stone and hardly justify a strict
separation of voices.
Just look at the last two down-stemmed semiquavers in the measure: Some
(most?) play them using the right hand, even if their stems are down.
Later on, I'd still use a single voice that changes staves. 
A single voice for "the line" seems most natural to me. But opinions may
differ, of course.

All the best,
Torsten



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html