[smufl-discuss] Re: unison whole?

[Michael Scott Cuthbert]

Don Byrd points out an intriguing graphical variant of the unison whole where one whole note is placed within another (Kuhnau):
http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/donbyrd/InterestingMusicNotation_files/Kuhnau25-wholeNoteIn2Voices.jpg
(System 2, measure 1)

It’s not common enough to justify on its own incorporating a unison whole-note glyph into SMuFL but it does show that some variants cannot be encoded simply through overlapping of glyphs.                            

Happy new year! 2014 was a great year in the world of music notation for computers.  May 2015 be even brighter!

Best,
Myke

> On Dec 29, 2014, at 16:27, Robert Piéchaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I tend to agree with David that this glyph should be given a little more attention.
> Graphically this is not "just two existing glyphs overlapped” since the either sides of the two whole overlapping notes must be made way less fat to work.
> Secondly, there are many symbols in SMuFL that are far from “universal” - if not to say of some extremely rare usage.
> And I think that is the beauty of SMuFL : to avoid the temptation of being *too much* universal while creating a new standard. It’s a tricky balance and I think SMuFL has got it right.
> As an active musician (dealing with early as well as comtemporary music) I find it personally very inspiring to come across symbols that I had never seen before. It makes wonder and dream...
>
> That said, I have a great deal of glyphs specific to November 2.0 but I don’t want to overwhelm this little community will all these at the moment… I can send the November 2.0 font map privately to anyone interested (rather advanced beta).
>
> Robert
> PS: for what it’s worth, I’m adding the overlapping whole note unison to November 2.0… noteheadWholeUnisonOverlap… U+F666 ;-)
>
>
>> On 29 Dec 2014, at 07:52, Mark Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't personally think it should be included, since it's really just two existing glyphs overlapped, rather than a distinctive glyph in its own right.
>>
>> I agree that it needn't be included (though those I've seen were indeed distinctive). I recall it only in English scores, e.g., Novello, so to me it seems a local rather than a universal notation. The modern way of placing two noteheads touching takes no more horizontal space than seconds ('back' notes) and the usual slight overlap makes it clear they're simultaneous.
>> MJ
>> #############################################################
>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>> the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>>
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>

         
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>