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

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

Am 10.01.2014 16:12, schrieb Marc Sabatella:
> Regarding the title, etc - since this is just one page of a multipage
> score, I think the most natural way to handle this is to create a
> multipage score, put nothing of interest on the first page (one empty
> measure, perhaps), and then just submit page two.

That sounds a good idea.

>
> However, I too question whether this except makes sense as an initial
> challenge.

By now I'm nearly talked into postponing it and considering something 
else ...

> It seems desgiend to answer the question, "how well do
> various programs do at representing notation that almost no one will
> ever need to create".

Maybe I'm biased because we just published nearly 100 pages of music 
that was very often that complex. And I have recorded around eight hours 
of comparable music over recent years, so it seemed rather natural...

> I can see eventually wanting to answer that
> question.  But isn't the far more interesting question, how well do they
> do at the common stuff?  I think we should establish that first using a
> more conventional score.

Sounds acceptable.

 > Using something simpler would also give us an
> opportunity to work the kinks out of the process itself.

This is a really good point.

So I think we postpone (but not junk it, existing work is still valid) 
the chopin-godowsky example.

I still would like to keep it (less) complex piano music.
What about the introduction of Chopin's f minor ballad op. 52 (m.1-7)
http://imslp.org/images/7/79/TN-FChopin_Ballade_No.4%2C_Op.52_BH1.jpg
?
Or is this still too complex?

Urs

> —
> Marc Sabatella
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Urs Liska <ul...@op...
> <mailto:ul...@op...>> wrote:
>
>     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
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
>     Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
>     Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
>     Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>     http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     openlilylib-user mailing list
>     ope...@li...
>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openlilylib-user
>
>