Re: Beam positions and time signature spacing

[Janek Warchoł]

2013/11/11 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Gilberto Agostinho <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> I disagree.  LilyPond should output things as best as possible within
> the framework of notation elements.
>
> Elaine Gould is not a standard.  She is _the_ expert, and it is usually
> a bad idea to go against expert advice when one isn't an expert.  But a
> _description_ of existing practice is not the same as an _advice_ to
> that practice.
>
>> 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.
>
> Ambiguousness is not the only question.  There are also the question how
> much vertical space is usually caused solely by the numbers, and how
> easy they catch the eye even in bad lighting conditions (at the end of a
> rehearsal regime, most of the score is important only as a general
> reminder and patterning tool, but score numbers remain something you
> need to look up explicitly).
> [...]

I agree with David.

best,
Janek