Re: ottava bassa

[Phil Holmes]

--
Phil Holmes


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Patrick Horgan" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: ottava bassa


> On 01/12/2011 07:42 AM, Phil Holmes wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: <address@hidden>
> > > > If you modify that function in scm/define-music-callbacks.scm to
> > > 'Voice
> > > > instead of 'Staff, then \ottava only applies to the current voice
> > > (which > is,
> > > > however, probably now what we want by default).
> >
> > > i guess you meant that this is *not* what we want? it really isn't? i 
> > > mean, if you instantiate two voices and put the \ottava indication  only 
> > > in one, i guess you only want the octave change only in that  voice. not 
> > > uncommon in piano music, among other cases.
> >
> >
> > The problem with this approach is: if you want the ottavation to apply to 
> > the staff, which is common, would you need to set it in each voice?  And 
> > then you'd need to detect that it had already been set and not typeset 
> > it.
> Isn't that frustrating.  We know that this situation (a voice or a section 
> of voice that is written an octave differently than played) occurs in 
> written notation, not commonly, but not infrequently, and that it wasn't 
> in the mind of the person who first wrote this part of lilypond.  Has 
> someone written a bug for this?  Sounds like it will be a bit of work to 
> get it right.  Would it be possible to have two functions, one for voice 
> ottava and one for staff ottava?  i.e. if you copy the 17 lines of 
> make-ottava-set and change the function name to make-voice-ottava-set and 
> the 'Staff to 'Voice, does that solve the problem, or will there be 
> conflicts in the offing?  I would guess that you'd either want to use one 
> or the other, I can't think of times that they'd both be in the offing.
>
> Patrick

I've added this as issue 1473 
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1473