Re: (no subject)

[jensgc]

jensgc wrote
> The reason I don't like the idea of a global "structure" definition is
> that I have the individual parts (e.g. the quartet and the choir parts)
> defined in seperate files to be able to test and work with them
> independently. Having the \time and \key definitions in a part that is
> "active" makes a lot more sense to me compared to having them in an
> otherwise "empty" skeleton.

To elaborate a bit: The score I'm working on uses highly polyphonic dynamics
- e.g. a crescendo, \mp or text annotation in one voice is not placed at the
same bar/note in the other voices. In that way, it doesn't really help to
put all dynamics in one place, because these markings are not vertically
aligned in the score. 

In regards to tempo markings, it is a different matter, since any change in
tempo needs to apply to each and every voice in the system. It makes perfect
sense that the \tempo marking always goes to the System - I just don't
understand why it is much more difficult to give a ritardando or stringendo
the same behavior.






--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/no-subject-tp157866p157901.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.