Re: <<aes,2. \\ {s4 ees2} \\ {s2 bes4}>>

[Aaron Hill]

On 2019-01-05 2:40 am, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 04/01/19 18:41, Aaron Hill wrote:
> > > Yeesh, that is terrible.This is why it's important to follow good
> > > notation
> > > practice: I was so confused by this bad typesetting that I thought 
> > > the
> > > bar
> > > was 6/4 time, and now my day is ruined.
> >
> > Unless someone is doing academic work where it is critical for the
> > typesetting to precisely match that of a reference work, all new
> > typesetting ideally should follow the current wisdom of notation.  
> > There
> > is little reason to continue to propagate archaic and non-standard
> > practices, especially if they are more likely to cause confusion.
>
> This is exactly what I *H*A*T*E* about people who proclaim "This is
> correct".
>
> Take my case - which would you choose between "follow the current
> wisdom" and "music that is readable (and hence playable)". Note that
> this *IS* an either/or choice! How often have I moaned on this list
> because I need to over-ride lily's defaults because the result is
> otherwise pretty much unplayable ...

I disagree.  The two options are not mutually exclusive--they are one 
and the same.  That is, I see following classical and modern wisdom as 
tools to aid in achieving what will be readable and playable.  But the 
goal is very much the latter, not the former...

> I make no comment about the current piece being discussed - it sounds
> like it's incomprehensible to orchestral musicians, but why should
> everybody be forced to speak "orchestra"? We don't all speak English, 
> or
> write in the Latin script!

Since you make the comparison to natural languages, let me be clear that 
I am not a prescriptivist.  I do not believe in the idea that written 
language must align to some preordained guidelines.  Rather, I am a 
proponent of descriptivism, where the primary (or possibly only) goal is 
simply to ensure clear communication of thoughts and ideas.  If your 
reader can understand you with reasonable unambiguity, then you have 
succeeded.

The problem I have with something like Elements of Style is that the 
work is largely arbitrary yet presented as if it were based in fact.  
Modern research and analysis of written works through history do not 
agree with Strunck and White's conclusions.  Based on that, one might 
all too quickly throw out the Elements; but putting aside the ego of the 
authors, there is still wisdom in its pages.  It is ultimately born out 
of understanding why and how a rule can be useful in different 
situations.  And to quote a cult classic, "Sometimes you have to know 
when to break the rules."

In the world of music notation, it would seem that Gould has filled a 
similar role.  I have seen many folks cite their work as the rational 
basis for engraving something a particular way.  It would be my approach 
to take this work not as "you must strictly adhere to these various 
commandments" but rather "while ideal to follow this path as closely as 
reasonable, stray from it should it make things clearer."

Given that, you should definitely feel free to experiment with notation 
and treat it like an artist who has much freedom with their brush.  If 
your music is particularly unusual, perhaps an equally unusual engraving 
is most apropos.  And hopefully LilyPond is and will continue to be 
malleable enough to accommodate the whims of the unusual.

But for matters of the not-so-unusual, have no disillusion your 
engraving (or writing) will be readily clear if you choose to stray too 
far from the path.


-- Aaron Hill