Re: Beam positions and time signature spacing

[Gilberto Agostinho]

Peter Bjuhr wrote
> What she is aiming at throughout the book 
> is clarity and readability of the notation especially in a performance 
> situation. 

Although I agree with you that these things are important, there are certain
things that could make problems clearer and are not used. Ex: it is not
standard to write a little "8" under the bass clef when dealing with
Contrabass in a non-transposed orchestral score (where tranposing
instruments, such as clarinets and horns, are written in C, but octave
transposing instruments, such as contrabass or piccolo flute stay with their
registers changed). This is my point here: standards. Even if something is
prettier, simpler, nicer, it still shouldn't matter if there is a rule or
standard behind. And I think that LilyPond should output things as close as
possible to these standards, and then let the users who want to change
things use \tweaks and \overrides.

The same goes for the bar number situation I pointed on this post:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Bar-numbers-position-td153274.html
There is nothing wrong with LilyPond notation from an absolute point of
view. In fact, it is actually better since it avoids potential collisions
and misunderstandings (bar 8 could be mistaken for 8a symbol), as Janek
pointed out. The problem is LilyPond is the only engraver I know who use
this notation, and I think that we should not aim at "improving" notation
standards, but at following them. If we expect that LilyPond might become a
option for publishing houses one day, I think we should keep this things in
mind.


Peter Bjuhr wrote
> Does your analysis show any issues that should call for 
> adjustments of LilyPond's behaviour in this regard? I see no point in an 
> overall adjustment to the exact measure recommended by Gould, and that 
> has of course no one requested. 

My suggestion would be to follow a set of rules (if they exist), as I
explained above. Gould seems to be a good choice, but of course it would be
possible to have other sources. I just don't believe that we should be doing
these things "by the eye", "because it looks balanced", etc. 


Peter Bjuhr wrote
> What could perhaps merit as a subject 
> for further analycing and possible adjustments is as already mentioned 
> your third example (with clef only and with more accidentals).
> [...]
> Here the accidental could be mistakenly taken for a part of the key 
> signature if it's too close. (The example appears fine to me when I 
> compile it, but I would like to mention it anyway.)

I think the worst case on my .PNG image was the one "with clef and with more
accidentals", where there is basically no spacing at all between the clef
and the accidentals! The example you posted also seems to me to be rather
close to the key signature. 

Best regards!
Gilberto



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Beam-positions-and-time-signature-spacing-tp153538p153705.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.