On 03-Jun-99 Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> "I wasn't sure about putting midi files on - the ones generated by
>> Lilypond at the moment are fairly basic - things like ties are
>> ignored."
>> There are a lot of MIDI file sites on the web, and almost no sheet
>> music ones. I recommend skipping MIDIs.
>
> I think MIDI helps people that don't know the name of the piece but do
> know the melody.
I'm inclined to agree and have added this to the TODO list.
> If we have MIDI, we could even (at some later stage), have queries that take
> mudela input and search the archive for melodies (or transposed versions).
> You would enter
>
> a gis a gis a e g f d
>
> and the search engine would come up with Fur Elise.
Wow. This would be pretty hard to do, but not impossible, I guess. I'd have to
write a program that translates this into each of the twelve possible keys
and goes through the .ly files stripping out all bar lines, markings and pretty
much everything just leaving the top notes of the top chords of the top line,
and try and match this! I'll leave this challenge until the site's up and
running.
> Of course the MIDI files don't have to be artistically interesting.
OK.
>> "I don't know what we'd do with pieces without an opus number (quite
>> a few) - perhaps order them by year."
>> Virtually no baroque-or-before composers used opus numbers, you don't
>> know what year most of their works were composed in, many exist in
>> several different 'original' versions (Telemann!) ... And, every time
>> I turn around, I seem to come across another numbering scheme for
>> Scarlatti sonatas...
>
> OK, but I propose to have a numbering scheme anyway. I think it less
> prone to spelling details and errors.
As you've said somewhere else, we can research the most reliable numbering
schemes and make up our own if necessary.
Chris
--
Chris Sawer - Sussex, England - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
