Re: Orchestral strings, how to organise score and parts for divisi, solos, desks etc.

[Rutger Hofman]

Sorry to be so late to respond.

I agree with Carl that this type of tutorial doesn't have its logical 
place in the NR (Notation Reference). A separate section of the LM 
(Learning Manual) for tutorials like mine, or page LM 4.6.3. 'Real music 
example' is in my opinion most appropriate. OTOH, there are extensive 
tutorials on Scores of Beauty e.g. on French ornamentations, but I feel 
these are somehow less easy to reach than when they would live in a LM 
section that is dedicated to tutorials for dedicated purposes. My 
preference would then be to migrate this masterly tutorial-like stuff 
from Scores of Beauty to such a new section of the Lilypond LM site.

Rutger

On 6/23/20 3:13 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> In my opinion, this does not belong in the notation reference.
>
> I think there should be another volume added to the documentation, perhaps something like 
> "Advanced Engraving".
>
> The information you are trying to add is tutorial in nature, rather than 
> reference.
>
> A reference manual aims at answering the question "What is the proper syntax for working with 
> specific bits of notation?"   A tutorial manual aims at answering the question "How do I 
> accomplish something I'd like to do?"
>
> We created the Learning Manual because we saw that the Notation Reference 
> didn't answer the needs of people beginning to use LilyPond.
>
> I think it's time to create a manual that is tutorial for doing complicated 
> things like orchestral scores.
>
> In my opinion, trying to put advanced tutorial information in the Notation 
> Reference will be a poor compromise and lead to a combined manual that doesn't 
> meet either of its needs as well as it could have.
>
> A case in point -- in Valentin's admirable work to get *something* in the manuals about 
> divisi staves, he introduced a relatively complex piece of music.  And because he needed 
> to deal with the complexity, he "talked through the code".  That was a big 
> no-no in our standards for the Notation Reference.  I thought about objecting, but I 
> didn't want to because it was obviously good to have something about handling divisi 
> staves somewhere.
>
> But if Graham were reviewing that addition, he never would have let it through. 
>  I ended up with lots of explanations tossed on the cutting room floor, because 
> it is a notation *Reference*, not a notation *Tutorial*.
>
> I believe Graham was absolutely correct in his standards for the Notation 
> Reference.  But I also believe we need some advanced tutorial information.  And 
> the Learning Manual is not the place for advanced tutorial.  (But neither is 
> the Notation Reference.)
>
> Hence, my suggestion for a new manual.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carl

(I include the message from Valentin Villenave that this responds to:)

Valentin Villenave writes:
> On 6/7/20, Rutger Hofman <rutger@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
> > My first attempt is here:
> > https://www.rutgerhofman.nl/lilypond/divisi-doc/divisi-doc.html
>
> Very nice!  I have a few minor remarks:
> - The writing style differs a bit from our recommended style, see CG
> 5.5.3 and 5.5.4
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.21/Documentation/contributor/documentation-policy
>
> - If we’re to make that a part of the NR (as I’m wishing for),
> cross-references, index entries etc. will have to be added;
> @lilypondfile examples will need to be directly embedded as @lilypond
> blocks, etc.
>
> - Some trimming or summing-up will certainly be needed; besides, the
> keepAliveInterfaces example I recently added could be merged with your
> quoteDuring example etc.
>
> - I think your PMP macros could (and should) be integrated upstream,
> by making them as general and universally-applicable as possible. In
> which case you’ll need to think of more suitable names, doc strings
> etc.
>
> But that does look promising indeed!
>
> Cheers,
> -- V.