Hello Werner,
Thanks for the clarification!
JM
> Le 13 juil. 2022 à 16:40, Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> a écrit :
>
>
>>> In MusixXML, this sign is <spiccato/> (The <spiccato/> element |
>>> MusicXML 4.0 (w3.org)
>>> <https://www.w3.org/2021/06/musicxml40/musicxml-reference/elements/spiccato/>),
>>> the same sign is named \staccatissimo in Lilypond.
>>> In MusixXML, <staccatissimo/> looks like this: (The <staccatissimo>
>>> element | MusicXML 4.0 (w3.org)
>>> <https://www.w3.org/2021/06/musicxml40/musicxml-reference/elements/staccatissimo/>),
>>> but it seems there is no corresponding articulation in Lilypond and no
>>> glyph in the Emmentaler font.
>>>
>>> So the question is: is there interest among the LilyPond community to
>>> add the latter glyph in some way?
>
> I consider the distinction between these two glyphs completely
> arbitrary. At normal size, the difference between a concave and a
> convex top is not really visible.
>
> If you look at
>
> https://w3c.github.io/smufl/latest/tables/articulation.html
>
> you can see that both glyph shapes in question are defined as variants
> of 'staccatissimo' – for spiccato, there doesn't exist a symbol. And
> rightly so: I've never seen a symbol for spiccato except an ordinary
> staccato point with the word 'spicc.' (if at all).
>
>
> Werner
My apologies - I haven't been paying attention, and I don't know where my head was at. I think it's important that spiccato is a bowing technique, and staccato is an articulation (a quality of sound) which can be accomplished through spiccato (and, depending on the circumstances, other bowing techniques). Also, I would imagine that staccato is possible on instruments on which spiccato is impossible : flute, guitar, maybe piano?
All the best,
Ralph