Hi Paolo,
well there are pros and cons both ways.
Am 07.04.20 um 18:51 schrieb Paolo Prete:
> as said to Kieren, this is not a good rule.
I know that you said it already but I disagree. I find it easier to read.
> I never saw any music engraver who uses it.
and most of my piano scores of publishing houses do it like this. I have
examples here by Schott and Henle.
Hi Joram,
This sounds new to me and I would be very interested in looking one of these examples. Can you provide one?
Also a matter of taste and (more importantly) use case. I have a piece
at hand with very regular pedal marks. It is basically a repitition of
the same pattern. It is much cleaner to enter this with skips than in
one of the voices. (By the way: Which one? The lowest?)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
notesA = {c'4 c' c' c'}
notesB = {c,4 c, c, c,}
dynsAndPedPattern = {s4\sustainOn s s s\sustainOff}
%%%%%%%
% GOOD
%%%%%%%
{
\partcombine
{ \notesA } { \dynsAndPedPattern }
r1 r1 r1 r1 r1
\partcombine
{ \notesB } { \dynsAndPedPattern }
r1 r1 r1 r1 r1
\partcombine
{ \notesA } { \dynsAndPedPattern }
}
%%%%%%%
% BAD: see the holes and the redundancy
%%%%%%%
<<
\new Staff { \notesA r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 \notesB r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 \notesA }
\new Dynamics { \dynsAndPedPattern r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 \dynsAndPedPattern r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 \dynsAndPedPattern }
>>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Cheers,
P