Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge

[Urs L. <ul...@op...>]

Am 10.01.2014 14:02, schrieb Phil Holmes:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <ul...@op...>
> To: "Phil Holmes" <ma...@ph...>;
> <ope...@li...>
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 12:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge
>
>
>> Am 10.01.2014 13:34, schrieb Phil Holmes:
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <ul...@op...>
>>> To: <ope...@li...>
>>> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 11:21 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [oll-user] [Challenges] Engraving challenge
>>>
>>>
>>>> Am 10.01.2014 11:33, schrieb Phil Holmes:
>>>>>
>>>>> The other issue is that this is clearly an odd piece of music - the
>>>>> beaming
>>>>> patterns are very atypical, and any music typesetting program with
>>>>> require
>>>>> substantial hacking to set this.
>>>>
>>>> This is intentional - I would like to see how each program performs
>>>> with
>>>> extreme tasks.
>>>> But we can discuss if this really is a good idea for a first challenge.
>>>> I'd like to hear more opinions on this.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>>> Some of the crossing notes are not really
>>>>> all that easy to read - see the 2nd beat of bar 3, for example.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really understand what you mean. Please narrow it down some
>>>> more.
>>>
>>> On the 2nd beat of bar 3, a dotted quaver c in the treble stave crosses
>>> to a semi-quaver a (?) in the bass clef, colliding with the beam for the
>>> LH.  I'm not convinced it's easy to read that.
>>
>> the dotted quaver c' crosses to the c' in the bass clef.
>> But I still don't quite understand why this is objectionable. It's not
>> easy to read that, but it's the logical notation in that context. And
>> it's not ambiguous. It's not even ambiguous compared to the
>> corresponding points in the next bar where the melody is in triplets.
>
> It's objectionable because the stem goes clean through the beam (without
> being even visible in the beam).  It would be clearer and better looking
> to leave it in the treble stave.
>

OK, I see now what you mean.
Two aspects:
a)
It _has_ to be in the lower stave because it's to be played with the 
left hand.

b)
Looking thorugh the score it seems the engraver treated this aspect 
inconsistently, sometimes there are stems between the beams, sometimes not.
I think this is a case that can be neglected. The intention is *not* to 
replicate the original as closely as possible, but to engrave the music 
as good as possible.

Urs
> FWIW, also check out the first 4 notes in the LH in bar 3.  No stems in
> the beams.
>
> --
> Phil Holmes


-- 
Urs Liska
www.openlilylib.org