Open fiat96 opened 4 years ago
Are you sure it's an ictus and not a reversed accentus?
Pretty sure.
This (poor quality) scan from my Liber is still ambiguous, but more vertical than the above:
But this scan from the 1925 Officium Hebdomadae Sanctae is pretty clear that there's an ictus on that note, even if this source omits the horizontal episema:
Of course,it would be simple to write the chant in gregorio to look like the OHS image above; but trying to put an ictus and an episema above the note, as in the Liber, simply causes a collision.
I don't get a collision when compiling this: plà(e!fwg_'hi)
. Now, the episema is above the ictus (the opposite of what you depicted), but the two don't collide. How are you encoding this that you get a collision?
Even with no collision, it might be worth having a control over stacking order when an ictus and episema appear on the same side of a note.
I can't reproduce the collision I got back in March, and I've lost my old file. I think I was trying to manually move the elements, and I was using an older version of gregorio.
You hit the crux of the matter when you mentioned controlling the stacking order - that's really what I'm looking for. I'll change the issue title accordingly.
This is not going to be as easy to change as I thought as the heights for the ictus and episema are chosen by the command-line tool. @henryso any ideas on whether (and how) it might be possible to allow the user to control the stacking order that the command-line tool picks?
It's not possible (other than some <v>
magic) to do this currently. If we want to implement it, we'll need some clear gabc notation for it and a bunch of time.
Just for the record, I came across another case of this with our schola when practicing for next Sunday: https://gregobase.selapa.net/chant.php?id=2196
d!ewf_'
produces:
Perhaps it would be possible simply to change the default setting for these cases to place the episema closer to the note than the ictus? I cannot recall any cases of the opposite in the liturgical books, and (to me) it looks more aesthetically pleasing.
Is there any objection to this proposal?
This mess of a neum appears in Good Friday Tenebrae's first responsory:
In my printed Liber it is more obvious that there is indeed an ictus above the staff over the third note. I don't think there is anything in gabc to handle this as of now, but I may just be missing something. If not, perhaps '2 or r9 could work?