Re: GDP: staff section

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:19:04 +0200
Till Rettig <address@hidden> wrote:

> I was first wondering why "writing parts" is here at all, but I guess 
> this should not be discussed too broad now, because it had been 
> discuessed when we decided about the GDP chapter order. I was just 
> thinking that "combining parts" and "writing parts" would be together 
> something like a "orchestral" chapter -- even though you use it also
> in chamber music and the like.

That's what it was like in the old docs, but we've moved away
from "situation-specific" divisions.  As you note, we use such
notation for non-orchestral situations anyway.

I'm open to renaming the whole section, though.

> The 1.6.1 section is really unevenly distributed over the three 
> subsubsections, I was thinking of introducing a new subsection: 
> modifying staves which would contain most of 6.1.1 and 6.1.2
> So the new section model could be:
> 
> 1.6 Staff notation
>     1.6.1 Displaying/writing/setting staves
>        1.6.1.1 Initiating a new staff (short basics, also one
> sentence about \new and \context, here should also go the example
> about starting stopping additional staves)

Nope.  That's covered in LM 3.  If somebody doesn't read that,
we officially don't care about them.

>        1.6.1.2 Grouping staves (about system start delimiters

I'm totally fine with renaming this section, but IMO it should
remain as 1.6.1.1.  I'd also be tempted to reverse the order
of "groupings" in that subsection -- ie start with no brace,
then go through Piano, Choir, StaffGroups, and finally
GrandStaff.

>        (maybe: 1.6.1.3: Deeper nesting of staff groups)

Sorry, I don't understand this comment.

> -Why is the metronome mark described here? It applies as well to a
> whole score (where it would be agreedly on the top stave...), and I

Well, the Staff section was never intended to be only single-staff
stuff -- after all, it contains GrandStaff.  That said, I wouldn't
mind if you wanted to split 1.6.2 into "single-staff" and "multiple
staves", as long as no section only had a single subsection.

> think it should go together with a general description on how to
> write tempo indications (and also with a workaround to align the
> indication with the key or the meter, not with the first note of the
> first bar). Where could this section go?

Rehearsal marks are in 1.2.5.4, since that's close to bar numbers.
I think it would be stretching it to put tempo in there as well.

Staff certainly doesn't seem ideal, but I'm not certain where
else we could put it.

> -I think it is actually almost a bug in lilypond that there is no
> easy way to center the beginning of a tempo indictation on the key
> symbol, so I think it is important to provide at least an workaround
> clearly marked as such for this purpose.

That kind of thing would be a snippet.

Cheers,
- Graham