|
From: | Graham King |
Subject: | Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext) |
Date: | Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:17:58 +0000 |
On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 18:44 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:Am 11.11.2015 um 11:14 schrieb Graham King: Alas. Many thanks for your help and support anyway.<snip>OK, I think I have a reasonable test case (attached). Toggling the block comment at lines 66 & 79 shows the effect of moving \annotationProcessor between the Score and Staff contexts.This passeth my understanding.annotate "installs" itself in the Score context, and in polymetric scores the timing-translator has to be removed from that context. So to approach the issue one would have to remove \annotationProcessor from the Score context and "consist" it in another context. I don't know what would happen if it would be added to more than one context (I can't really imagine it would work). What would probably work *in principle* is adding that to the context Kieren would take as the "master" context. I too have spent part of today delving into both the default bar-numbering mechanism and the Measure_counter_engraver, but both seem to be built on the same foundation, which appears not to allow for the case where the Default_bar_line_engraver has been moved into the Staff context. But I might be a bit hard-of-thinking and hence wrong. To the general audience on the list: In case anyone can breathe life into the issue at some future date, my objective (perhaps refined and stated too late to be presently helpful) is: "to enable ScholarLy to report annotations to a polyrhythmic score in such a way that the position in the score, to which each annotation refers, can be clearly, concisely, and unambiguously stated (in the endnotes). " To that end, I have assumed that bar-numbering for polyrhythmic music is required, even at the expense of both a non-standard approach and the possible need for manual intervention at a late stage of score preparation. I believe, in any case, that bar numbers are generally helpful to performers, at least among those with whom I work. At risk of turning this paragraph into a manifesto, let's add: It is true that Renaissance music had no regular barlines, and indeed I sing it, with friends, from facsimile editions in which we have to rely on the signum congruentiae if everything falls apart. However, in modern times most singers require modern notation, and tackle a far larger repertoire of polyphony on (arguably) less rehearsal than our fifteenth- and sixteenth-century forebears. So we need all the navigational help we can get. As for the polyrhythmic modern editions that cause the present difficulty: part of the point is to help preserve the clos est possible link to the original mensuration and proportion, and thereby to mitigate the inappropriate rhythmic straightjacket of the modern barlines. So, for the time being, I'll continue to add ScholarLy annotations to the source, against the day when the software might be able to process them. But I'll take the log output, add a manually-derived bar number, and publish the result in a manually-maintained \markup block. best regards -- Graham
|
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |