Re: HaraKiriStaffContext for French? style orchestral parts

[Paul Scott]

Graham Percival wrote:

> (cc'd back to lilypond-user -- it's useful to have these discussions in the
> archives)
Thanks.  I forgot to readdress it as I usually do.

> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:38:56 -0700
> Paul Scott <address@hidden> wrote:
>  
>
> > Graham Percival wrote:
> >    
> >
> > > If you're producing a score (with all instruments), then I see no
> > > problem at all.  If you're producing parts (for example, music that has
> > > th two Clarinet parts on it, or the viola part, or whatever), then don't
> > > use HaraKiri.
> > >      
> > I realize now that my example showed the problem but I didn't really 
> > explain the reason for using HaraKiri.  The HaraKiri allows me to switch 
> > to one staff when the two instruments play the same part which is, of 
> > course, labelled "a2".  This, of course, saves paper.
> >    
>
> What's your ultimate goal here?  I can think of two possibilities:
> - you're trying to make a part for the two wind instruments (say, clarinet
> I and II).  AFAIK, this is normally done with two voices on the same staff.
I know that is often done.  How often have you been the instrumentalist 
reading such a part?  Most of my friends complain when trying to read 
these parts.  This may be fine for a keyboard player but for a single 
line player it's often very hard to read.

> - you're tring to make a part for cello and bass (or a violin part with divisi
> sections, etc).  In this case, I'd use a "hanging staff":
>
> c4 c c c  %normal cello/bass part
> <
> {d4 d d d}   % cello part, divisi
> \context Staff=bass {\clef bass b4 b b b}   % bass part, divisi
>  
>
> c4 c c c   % normal cello/bass part again
>
> (I _think_ that the syntax is correcy, but it might need a few tweaks.  I hope
> that you get the general idea.)
Maybe that is the answer.  I'll check it out.  I wrote the next part 
before I reread your second choice but my solution does seem reasonable 
if the above isn't what I want.

The third choice often occurs in French (and other) orchestral music. 
This is the choice I am trying to describe.  The clarinets or flutes, 
etc. are written in a staff group consisting of two (or more if 
relevant) staves if they are playing different notes and one staff when 
they are playing the same notes.

> I wouldn't involve HaraKiri at all -- suicide is a pretty extreme measure.  :)
As a programmer HaraKiri seems to be the perfect mechanism.  It would 
only require that the algorithm would display one staff of rests if 
there were notes in all of the parts.  I don't think this would affect 
its intended use since there should be no need for a score where nothing 
(including rests) was to be "played."

> > > If you really need to use HaraKiri context but don't want the rests to
> > > disapper, then use "r1" instead of "R1".
> > >      
> > That doesn't allow multimeasure rests, doesn't it?
> >    
Thanks,

Paul