[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       lilypond-devel
Subject:    Re: NR: Document \remove "Keep_alive_together_engraver" (issue 318580043 by git@ursliska.de)
From:       Simon Albrecht <simon.albrecht () mail ! de>
Date:       2017-02-17 15:43:38
Message-ID: b621764c-ccdc-30fd-7df9-5d8f09487fa7 () mail ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

On 17.02.2017 16:29, Urs Liska wrote:
> Am 17.02.2017 um 09:21 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Urs Liska <ul@openlilylib.org> writes:
>>> Am 17.02.2017 um 08:34 schrieb dak@gnu.org:
>>>> Ok, I'll bite.  What kind of piano music is written like
>>>>
>>>> \score {
>>>>    \new PianoStaff <<
>>>>      \new Staff = "up" <<
>>>>        \structure
>>>>        \v.1
>>>>        \v.2
>>>>      >>
>>>>      \dyn.1
>>>>      \new Staff = "mid" <<
>>>>        \structure
>>>>        \v.3
>>>>        \v.4
>>>>      >>
>>>>      \dyn.2
>>>>      \new Staff = "lo" <<
>>>>        \structure
>>>>        \v.5
>>>>      >>
>>>>    >>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Because that is the example underlying your report.
>>> Piano Music, at least starting with Liszt, all the way through into the
>>> 20th century and until today.
>>> The Ravel piece here requires five individual voices that are basically
>>> distributed among three staves (frequent staff changes included), but
>>> are printed partially on a three-stave PianoStaff and partially using
>>> only the standard two staves.
>>>
>>> I feel it's natural to use PianoStaff here and to tell it to french
>>> the middle system if empty.
>> PianoStaff is explicitly for the case where you want staves to be
>> frenched together.  Its name does not mean "Piano inside" but rather
>> "Use frenching conventions common in piano music".
> Then I'm tempted to file a bug report about PianoStaff being misnamed.
> What else should the name PianoStaff imply than "Piano inside"? What you
> are describing may be what developers have thought when inventing the
> PianoStaff context, but for a user it is obvious that it refers to
> "piano". Besides, "contexts explained" gives yet another explanation,
> namely GrandStaff with support for grouped instrument names.
>
>> And you actually would still not want it to french out multiple staves
>> in an orchestral context: it should retain at least the two outer
>> voices.
> Then PianoStaff should have a (so-far-nonexistent)
> Remove_all_but_two_staves engraver by default.

I think the remove-layer concept is the best solution at hand (if, 
indeed, we have it at hand?). I agree that PianoStaff should keep its 
name and its definition be changed so it sensibly allows for more than 
two staves, of which the extra ones may be removed.

Best, Simon

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]